16 LMCs write to GPDF to urge it to pull BMA GP Committee funding
Exclusive A large group of LMCs has written to the GP Defence Fund (GPDF) to urge it to stop funding the BMA’s GP Committee.
Instead, the LMCs said they want levies to be spent on ‘creating structures to help general practice evolve future-proof models’.
The letter, shared with Pulse, calls for the levy-funded vehicle to arrange an extraordinary general meeting ‘to discuss the future of the Deed of Grant for the BMA in England’.
Signed by 16 LMCs, the letter complains that ‘successive contract negotiations’ have resulted in ‘worsening financial and working conditions’, placing contractors ‘at risk of financial ruin’ and subjecting sessional GPs to unemployment.
It further noted that the BMA has ‘acknowledged’ that GP partners cannot legally take industrial action, and accused GPCE of losing ‘negotiating rights’ with the Government through ‘ineffectiveness and recent decisions’.
The letter said: ‘We recognise that GPCE would continue to exist to be able to discharge its function, like any other Branch of practice within the BMA, even without the deed of grant.
‘Considering the above, we do not feel that GPDF should continue funding the Deed of Grant to the BMA in England, as it is neither value for money for hard working GPs and practices, nor does it protect them under Trade Union law.
‘Instead, we would urge discussions on how the funding should be focussed on creating structures to help General Practice evolve future-proof models.’
The letter was signed by LMCs from South Staffordshire, Sheffield, Berkshire, Kent, Buckinghamshire, Doncaster, North Staffordshire, Birmingham, Mid Mersey, Oxfordshire, Solihull, Barnsley, Shropshire, Dudley, Northamptonshire and Sandwell.
The leader of one of the LMCs, who wished to remain anonymous, told Pulse: ‘We do not believe the money being sent to the BMA by GPDF represents value for money for GP contractors. Despite millions being sent to the BMA we have little idea how it is being spent.
‘Instead, we feel this money would be better spent by GPDF funding work on finding solutions outside the NHS, as was done by our colleagues in dentistry.
‘The BMA seems incapable of representing anyone aside from employed doctors, nor taking any form of action aside from strikes, which GP contractors cannot legally undertake. An alternative solution is long overdue, and we are no longer tolerating taxation without representation.’
One of the signatories of the letter – Berkshire, Buckinghamshire and Oxfordshire (BBO) LMCs – already decided in February to withhold voluntary contributions used to fund the BMA’s GP committee, citing ‘value for money’ concerns.
A BMA spokesperson said: ‘Membership and representation from a strong trade union offers huge benefits and protection, and the BMA is the only union that does this for all doctors and medical students. Fragmenting the medical profession would serve only to weaken its power to advocate and influence.
‘While GP partners have never had formal legal cover for industrial action as self-employed workers under trade union law, the solidarity and support offered by union representation is what provides protection that no other structure can, as, for example, farmers have shown. Employees also lacked automatic legal protection from dismissal during the first 12 weeks of action until 2000, and other detriment until provisions in the Employment Rights Act 2025 are brought into force, but collective action can and has been taken successfully without this.
‘Meanwhile, a trade union is protected by trade union law when inducing members to taking action. This would not be the case with another body.’
The statement noted that the GPDF grant ‘facilitates GP involvement in national negotiating and representative structures within the BMA’, includung ‘paying for additional committee meetings, honoraria for reps and other activities that are over and above those provided for other branches of practice’.
‘A post-2026 Deed of Grant is currently being discussed between the GPDF and BMA and we are always happy to hear ideas and feedback from LMCs,’ it added.
The BMA further argued it had not ‘lost’ its negotiating rights with the Government, despite the decision by ministers to develop the 2026/27 contract via a stakeholder discussion including multiple new partners besides GPCE.
The spokesperson said: ‘The BMA has not “lost negotiating rights”, but true negotiations only work if both sides are willing to work together. This letter from some LMCs completely ignores the part that successive governments have played in the breakdown of contract discussions in recent years, and the longer-standing move to “consultation” language.
‘It also ignores the wins and investment that GPC England negotiators have secured in recent years for GPs.’
GPCE remains in dispute with the Government but decided last week to delay the start of potential collective action from 1 April to 30 April. In the meantime, it has demanded a ‘pause’ to plans around mandated advice and guidance and for safeguards to be put in place regarding same-day access.
A referendum of BMA’s English GP members concluded last week with 98.9% voting to ‘reject’ 2026/27 contract changes ‘and its approach to making them’, and to ‘call upon the Government to return to direct negotiations with GPCE to jointly develop a new GMS contract’.
Health secretary Wes Streeting wrote to the BMA to say he stood ready to start discussions around a new GMS contract, with GPCE as the ‘primary partner’. However he said this would be ‘difficult’ if they launched collective action.
The letter in full
28th March 2026
To
Dr Roger Scott
Chair -GPDF
Dear Dr. Scott,
We, as a group of LMCs, would like GPDF to consider and arrange an Extraordinary General Meeting (EGM) to discuss the future of the Deed of Grant for the BMA in England.
Successive contract negotiations over the last few years have produced worsening financial and working conditions for both GP Contract holders and Sessional GPs, which has led to hundreds of GP surgeries closing and hundreds of GP Partners being put at risk of financial ruin, along with rising unemployment of qualified GPs.
The BMA has also acknowledged that trade union law does not apply to GP Partners, who pay the majority of the levy to GPDF via the voluntary quota. This totally precludes practices from taking any kind of industrial action as defined by TULRCA legislation.
The ineffectiveness and recent decisions by the BMA have led to GPCE committee losing its negotiating rights with the government, the primary function of the BMA for GPs.
We recognise that GPCE would continue to exist to be able to discharge its function, like any other Branch of practice within the BMA, even without the deed of grant.
Considering the above, we do not feel that GPDF should continue funding the Deed of Grant to the BMA in England, as it is neither value for money for hard working GPs and practices, nor does it protect them under Trade Union law.
Instead, we would urge discussions on how the funding should be focussed on creating structures to help General Practice evolve future-proof models.
We, therefore, request the Board of GPDF to call an urgent EGM to debate this as a motion as per its voting mechanisms.
Sent on behalf of the following 16 LMCs:
South Staffordshire, Sheffield, Berkshire, Kent, Buckinghamshire, Doncaster, North Staffordshire, Birmingham, Mid Mersey, Oxfordshire, Solihull, Barnsley, Shropshire, Dudley, Northamptonshire, Sandwell
Related Articles
READERS' COMMENTS [15]
Please note, only GPs are permitted to add comments to articles
Most
IMPORTANT LINKS
MORE FROM COGORA
© Cogora 2026
Cogora Limited. 1 Giltspur Street, London EC1A
9DD Registered in the United Kingdom. Reg. No. 2147432
BMA GP lead needs to make it clear to the government that LMC local GP leaders are seeking solutions like dental ie private contracting. I am sure that GPs en masse approaching private health companies for contracts to provide services with GPs would produce a keen interest as this would massively increase the appeal of private healthcare cover. The government needs to provide a strong counter offer. I would suggest as a start removing the changes in 2019 that stopped GPs having private patients alongside NHS patients. This helped support practices and made NHS services more sustainable. The the government need to get sat back down with GP leaders and give us what we want. Significantly more funding, reduction of secondary care dump, removal of the recent dual contract impositions of unlimited online access and urgent care access and financial incentivisation to achieve improvements on this. Basically negotiation with private providers to provide en masse GP private cover is a good lever to focus government minds. The bad cop side to BMA GP’s good cop/wet cop approach. Bring it on. And publicise it heavily.
Fiona is absolutely right, without real leverage, nothing will change. If GPs can’t strike, we need another way to be taken seriously. Even signalling a shift towards private models could be enough to focus minds and force meaningful negotiation.
Apologies Finola… voice recognition error!
What use is ‘Bad Cop’ if the Government then simply refuse to speak to anyone for months on end?
The real problem, one that is not in our gift to solve, is the existence of the NHS as a Monopsony with a culture of abuse on the part of Government and the civil service (the bit that doesn’t change when the people vote).
There is no culture of accountability in any public position, and failure is habitually rewarded richly if ‘the message’ is repeated often enough. The truth has been permanently bypassed.
Pulse team – great April fool, you almost had me !!
Premises rental & NHS Resolution (Civil Indemnity) are funded by the taxpayer.
The roof over your head to practice out of, and the professional insurance to cover clinical negligence are Mega-£££ to provide outside the NaSH.
Many GPCs supported by LMCs have over decades allowed the current omni-shambles to manifest.
Primary Care in the UK, is the anti-matter to disguised employment (IR35).
A complete new contract is the only way forward.
Who to negotiate for such is the question, local or national?
Given the impending global shocks for the next few months and years (a similar situation to late 1930s), funnily the best tactic might be to continue to do nothing….and await the sh*t hitting the fan. At which point, the Govt will beg the “essential” services to keep the country running – that’s doctors, nurses, all NHS staff, carers, dustbin men etc.
Hormuz chokepoint and the South Pars Field’s infrastructure strikes mean that LNG, helium and ammonia reductions (as well as sulphur, bromine, metals) will have severe effects on unintended parts of the economy, eg, helium for MRI scanners.
On top of which, we have a growing private credit bubble as well as an AI bubble that the deluded markets are mispricing, for their own reasons.
So sit back and wait for GPs and the NHS to be back by popular demand….and weekly clapping.
You only have two options. Work safely within GMC guidance which trumps the GMS contract. If you consistently can’t square the circle then you shut up the shop. Lots of ways of doing this .. change discipline, work in a different arena like OOH, setup a private service like the dentists….
Unfortunately the way GMS is setup so you cannot strike these are your only options.
A “large” group of LMCs you say? There are 150 LMCs, so this is a touch over 10%, I suppose a “small minority” would not carry the same drama, and several of them are in a conglomerate so effectively a single secretariat but separated to increase numbers. Pulse, and these LMCs seem determined to fracture the profession for what appears to be personal gain amongst some of the individuals concerned.
I’m certain there are just as many, if not many more LMCs that want the Deed of Grant ot continue and the BMA/GPCE to continue to speak on behalf of the profession, I wonder if GPCE Exec will be given the right of reply in such an EGM or are these individuals not willing to participate in open debate? GPDF needs to be careful it listens to all its members, not those that are shouting loudest. NY and Bradford have no interest in this taking place or the costs it would entail. (They have literally just had an EGM where this could have been raised!).
I thought there were 120 LMCs in GPDF Brian not 150 but happy to be corrected. I’m just wondering do you think GPCE would continue to exist if the GPDF funding were to be pulled?
Talk about throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
Brian is absolutely right—this is deeply flawed.
GPDF haven’t properly engaged with scrutinising deed of grant value for several years, and that’s the issue that needs confronting first.
I am struggling to think of what some of LMC reps have done to promote the issues surrounding GPs on a national level. Videos, TV interviews, media appearances, articles. I don’t mean moaning ones about GPCE. Constructive ones, looking for solutions.
I’m pretty active and read a lot… a lot.
Perhaps someone from these LMCs could jog my memory. LMC reps are paid aren’t they?
Would be genuinely interested to see a list of things that they have done. Maybe that would help with credibility.
We need all GPs being active, the ship is sinking, all hands on deck!
If they want to work privately like dentists where is the feasibility plan, unlike Dentists in 1990s who effectively invented private practice, they will all be working for corporations. Tesco GP at 10pm.
Who really wants that? Maybe they do. Maybe not!
Private practice group of GPs or genuinely interested in getting this fixed? Hey
DOI I’m not on GPCE, I get paid nothing for all my time and work on GP and NHS issues.
I think we are in an immensely challenging situation, but in essence we are repeating the same behaviour year on year expecting a different outcome.
Its akin to madness.
There has been talk about trying to achieve an ethical GMS. How are we going to achieve that when the govt consult with us and won’t negotiate with us?
It was a whole year ago when Wes said he’d sit down and negotiate a new contract. Nothing has happened on that front and now hes said exactly the same.
The govt are playing us.
So thats one issue. The govt.
The next issue is the BMA. They get paid subs by GPs and they also get a deed of grant – funding – from GPDF.
That funding is for committees, reps reimbursements, extra work etc. And also pays for the executive team of 4 of GPCE.
The funding comes from money that GPs pay directly from GMS and is not voluntary. So Partners are paying twice for the BMA.
The BMA itself is unable to protect GP PARTNERS if they strike. They probably can protect Salarieds. That would be true of any organisation.
The professional negotiators keep advising us that we need leverage and at present have none.
The BMA aren’t willing to change their approach.
Several separate conferences have all voted overwhelmingly in the GPC working up a full workable, plan B for the profession.
The idea behind plan B isn’t that we do a dentist. Or that we rinse the public of money.
Its leverage. It does 2 things. 1. Protect GPs and give them an escape route. 2. It is a strong negotiating arm – “listen to us or we will walk”.
It is about the only solution anyone seems to have come up with.
It is interesting reading some of the responses on here though.
I have plenty I could add regarding motives of others – but I wont stoop to the level of making things up, as I’ve seen about the authors of the letter.
Ultimately this is about trying to protect Partners, who are the most vulnerable in the current climate and are not getting a fair deal from the BMA.
DOI. I’m one of the many signatories.of the letter. We surveyed and ran it past our entire LMC and had overwhelming support.
Ps. There are 120 LMCs within GPDF (plus 4 in NI-GPDF).
Additionally – it’s important to note that i would stop being paid for my role on GPC if this happens. I have no financial or vested interest in this other than protecting GPs.
The cheapest private GP appointment in the UK as a one off appointment is £40 for a telephone appointment. The cost of a face to face consultation is £75. They have empty clinics on Tuesday despite the bank holiday. This is completely unknown territory that we are going into. The problem that we have in the UK is the incredibly expensive business costs. Estates are massively expensive, business rates are high, the cost of employment is also high. The other services are cheap as they can make use of downwind income streams. An independent private GP service would not be able to access the funding streams unless we became aligned to a secondary care private system. This will not be cheap. There is a risk that we are unable to create an independent private gp system at scale on a national level and a real risk that we become a nationalised privatised salaried service.
Well said Mark Green.