GENERAL practitioners in Scotland are growing increasingly frustrated by the Scottish Government's silence on how it plans to reform NHS pensions.
Health Secretary Nicola Sturgeon will come under pressure from Scotland's GPs to make clear what the Government's intentions are on pension reform when she addresses an annual conference of local representatives later this week.
Doctors across the UK are due to be balloted on industrial action short of a strike over pension reforms drawn up by the Department of Health, with the vote expected to take place around the end of April.
However, medics in Scotland are frustrated that while the Scottish Government has stated its opposition to the changes, it has yet to say whether it would use its devolved powers to veto the reforms via the Scottish Public Pensions Authority, the body which oversees the NHS pension scheme in Scotland.
A meeting of Scotland's local medical committees (SLMCs) is to debate the issue at the Beardmore Hotel in Clydebank on Thursday, when Ms Sturgeon will deliver the keynote speech.
The motion was tabled by Dr John Ip, a Paisley GP and secretary of the Glasgow local area committee, which represents all GPs in NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde.
Dr Ip said: "There's frustration more than anger. We understand the situation with Scottish finances and the fact that if it's a UK pension scheme it would be difficult for the Scottish Government to go against what is being changed in England and the rest of the UK.
"But it would be extremely helpful if the Scottish Government came out with their view on what the UK Government is doing. The Scottish Government has been very much supportive of the NHS, so I think if they came out with a view then I suspect they wouldn't be on side with the Department of Health. But so far they seem reluctant to get embroiled in [the debate]."
In August last year the Scottish Government rejected calls by the BMA in Scotland to hold a consultation on the proposed reforms, because the issue was "primarily reserved to Westminster".
Under the Department of Health plans, doctors' pension contributions would increase immediately by up to 2.4%, with continued increases over the next two years. It also wants to raise the retirement age to 68 and end the final salary scheme for hospital doctors. GPs already have a career average scheme.
Doctors are unhappy that the proposals have come just four years after they agreed to their existing pensions package, and contend that the NHS scheme is actually in surplus.
Westminster Health Secretary Andrew Lansley has said the proposals are a "fair deal" for staff, and that for every £1 doctors and consultants paid into their pension they will get between £3 and £6 in return.
The BMA decided at the end of February to ballot its members on industrial action, but ruled out a threatened strike.
A spokesman for the Scottish Government said it would be proposing "something different" from the plans put forward by Westminster, but that it was still working out what that would be.
He said: "We are committed to public sector pensions which are affordable, sustainable and fair. We are taking a different approach and the new NHS scheme in Scotland will reflect the unique nature of the workforce.
"We have already begun the process of considering the long-term reform of public sector pension schemes in Scotland, to apply from April 2015. We will do that in partnership with trade unions and employer representatives and we will consider the evidence before putting in place new pension schemes."
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article