Remuneration not excessive for PMS practices
I write with some regret regarding my attributed comments on PMS pay, which I believe to be incorrect and taken out of context.
I did not use the phrase 'excessive remuneration' of PMS practices. In the course of discussion I did state PMS practices received an 'indisputably higher level of baseline remuneration than GMS practices, historically based on growth payments and baseline figures designed to provide an incentive for practitioners to accept the risk of moving to the new contract form'.
The context of the discussion was that given the Government's pressing financial needs, it could only present this as an 'overpayment' rather than allow an appropriate escalation of GMS remuneration.
I was most specific that regardless of personal contract status (I am a GMS contract holder), this was not a time for practitioners to be falling out, and that it was important for the profession to remain united in defending contractual arrangements.
I am concerned that the statement as presented represented a selective editing of my discussion out of its general context which - although I believe it was unintentional - nonetheless changed the sense from 'the Government would have to say that' to a suggestion that I personally believed remuneration to be excessive. This is incorrect and very distressing.
Such a stance is also fundamentally at variance with my personal views, which you have published, that the Government should honour all mutually agreed negotiated contracts or confirm itself unfit to govern.
Dr Andrew Mimnagh, Chair, Sefton LMC