The BMA has requested an urgent meeting with the Chief Secretary to the Treasury in a further effort to re-start talks with the government on changes to the NHS pension scheme.

The BMA is seeking a fairer offer after 46,000 doctors and medical students responded to a survey last month, with 84% rejecting the government’s current plans which include raising the normal pension age for NHS staff. Nearly two thirds said they would be prepared to take industrial action if the government does not improve its offer. At a recent meeting with the BMA, the Health Secretary welcomed the continuing dialogue, but indicated little flexibility in the Department of Health’s position.

In a letter1 to Chief Secretary to the Treasury Danny Alexander, the BMA points out that the NHS pension is in a very different situation from other public sector schemes, having been radically overhauled less than four years ago: “It is in good financial health, and currently provides £2billion to the Treasury every year. In addition, the cost-sharing agreement reached at the time ensured that any increase in contributions needed in the future would be met by employees, not the taxpayer.” The letter highlights the unfairness of NHS staff paying twice as much for the same pensions as some other public sector workers on similar salaries. It quotes the Public Accounts Committee’s warning that the government’s proposals “could destabilise the largest public sector pension scheme, increasing the burden on the state, and creating problems with retention of senior staff.”

The BMA has also published a new briefing paper2 setting out the facts about NHS pensions. For example, it points out that the 2008 reforms increased the NHS pension age to 65, and resulted in steep contribution increases for doctors. Despite this, the government’s new proposals would mean a junior doctor currently at the start of their career now working to the age of 68 and paying over £200,000 in additional lifetime contributions.

Meanwhile, an e-petition3 calling on the government to resume talks with the health unions has received over 17,000 signatures in under a week.

Dr Hamish Meldrum, Chairman of Council at the BMA, said: “We’re pursuing every avenue we can to get the government back to the table. Lines of communication are open, but we’d like to see more willingness to find a way towards a fair solution. “Since the seventies, no dispute between the medical profession and the government has reached the point where a ballot on industrial action was necessary. The fact that doctors are seriously considering it now shows how unfair these proposals are. “The government would like the public to think that all public sector pensions are unsustainable and a drain on the taxpayer. This is definitely not the case for the NHS, where staff contributions have already risen sharply, and taxpayers are protected against future cost increases. “NHS staff are being told that the deal they signed up to only four years ago is meaningless and they have to work until they are almost 70 before they can draw a full pension.” The BMA’s Council is meeting on Saturday February 25 to consider the options for balloting on industrial action, should there not be a significant change in the Government’s position.

Ends Notes to editors 1

Full text of letter to Danny Alexander: Dear Chief Secretary

NHS Pension Scheme

I met with the Secretary of State for Health at the end of January to urge the government to work with health unions to agree fairer changes to the NHS Pension Scheme, in the wake of a resounding rejection of the government’s current offer by tens of thousands of doctors and medical students. As this is a cross-departmental matter, I am writing to request a meeting with you to discuss this further, as a matter of urgency.

As you know, the NHS Pension Scheme is in a very different situation from other public sector schemes. Having been radically overhauled less than four years ago, it is in good financial health, and currently provides £2billion to the Treasury every year, a situation which will pertain for some years to come. In addition, the cost-sharing agreement reached at the time ensured that any increase in contributions needed in the future would be met by employees not the taxpayer. Tiered contributions mean the lower paid are better protected, but these are not logical if we are to move to a CARE scheme for all employees.

Furthermore, the employee contributions are far higher in the NHS scheme, with doctors being asked to pay twice as much for the same pension as their civil service equivalents. As the Public Accounts Committee pointed out last year, the 2008 reforms to the NHS Pension Scheme are bringing substantial savings to taxpayers, with relative costs set to continue to decrease well into the future. The Committee also rightly warned that another sharp increase in contributions for NHS staff, or a significant increase in the retirement age, could destabilise the largest public sector pension scheme, increasing the burden on the state, and creating problems with retention of senior staff.

More than 46,000 doctors and medical students responded to our survey of members in January 2012, with over 80 per cent saying the government’s current proposals should be rejected and nearly two thirds saying they would be prepared to take some form of industrial action if the offer remains as it stands.

The strength of feeling among doctors is abundantly clear and cannot be underestimated. The prospect of industrial action is something that they do not take lightly. There has been no industrial action by doctors for almost 40 years and we want to do all we can to avoid action now. However, doctors are too angry to allow the unfairness and scale of the changes to remain unacknowledged. I therefore urge you to work with us and the other health unions to achieve a fair and amicable settlement on the future of the NHS pension scheme.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Yours sincerely Dr Hamish Meldrum Chairman of Council, BMA

Cc Rt Hon Andrew Lansley CBE MP, Secretary of State for Health