Email
Andrew Lansley has pleaded with doctors and medics not to take industrial action as protests began over changes to their pensions that they regard both as unfair and unnecessary.
The action was "pointless" and would achieve nothing, the health secretary said. Speaking on ITV's Daybreak, Lansley accused the British Medical Association (BMA) of wanting a pension deal that would decrease those of lower-paid NHS staff. "We needed something that was fairer for other NHS staff as well. The contributions do need to be properly progressive and they do need to reflect the highest paid paying a greater proportion into their pensions overall."
Thousands of routine appointments and non-urgent operations will be cancelled as doctors take industrial action for the first time in 37 years in protest at the government's pension reforms.
As many doctors turned up at their hospital or surgery as normal – and emergencies and urgent cases will be dealt with as normal – as NHS leaders stressed they did not want patients dragged into the dispute.
The BMA chairman of council, Dr Hamish Meldrum, said the doctors' fight was not with patients but with the government. The BMA wanted to reopen negotiations with the government to avoid a repeat of the dispute, he added.
He told ITV's Daybreak: "I hope [the action] is not pointless and futile because we are very anxious to seek a resolution to this dispute and if this helps to highlight the problem and to get to that resolution then I hope it will have some point to it. Nobody is happy about taking any sort of action that impacts adversely on patients."
The government has claimed that up to 30,000 operations could be cancelled and 1.25m GP appointments postponed as a result of the strike, which started at midnight. The figures cannot be verified as the Department of Health has asked NHS trusts not to reveal details to the media.
The action has been preceded by a war of words between doctors' leaders and ministers, with Lansley suggesting doctors receive more favourable pensions at the expense of lower paid NHS staff.
Current arrangements meant that often the highest paid received twice as much back in pension benefits than lower-paid staff, he said. "I'm afraid we are in a position where the BMA are out on their own and what they seem to be aiming for is to try and change things back so they get more and nurses and porters and others in the NHS get less."
Lansley said he hoped doctors would not go on strike. "I think if they have an argument and they're angry, they're angry with the government and that's our job to represent the taxpayer and the public interest, and maybe we will have that argument. But I can't see why anybody thinks there is any benefit in penalising patients. It won't serve any purpose whatsoever."
Not all doctors are taking part in the action. About a third do not belong to the BMA, which has called the action. And when the BMA balloted its members last month, 21% of GPs and 15.7% of hospital consultants said they were not prepared to participate.
Given the turnouts were 53.1% and 56% respectively, that suggests many doctors are unlikely to join in. But services in both hospitals and GP surgeries in many areas will be affected.
Even doctors taking part in the action will continue to deal with urgent and emergency cases, so it should be business as usual in A&E departments, maternity units, for renal (kidney) and cancer patients and anyone needing an urgent diagnostic test or end-of-life care.
However, they will not undertake routine dutiesand some GP surgeries have postponed a number of booked routine appointments, including non-urgent consultations and monitoring of long-term conditions.
GPs will deal with urgent prescription requests but not repeat prescription requests, and will still review test results and refer abnormal ones to hospital.
The strike is also why an estimated 80% of UK hospitals – a BMA figure based on talking to local NHS managers about the action's likely impact – have cancelled at least some planned operations and some outpatient appointments.
The BMA said it was not a strike in the "normal" sense. "The nature of the work that doctors do, it is very difficult to do anything that won't have some impact on patients," he said. "We negotiated a deal on pensions four years ago that meant that doctors would work longer, they would pay more and that they would take the risk of any future increase or impact of people living longer on the pension scheme and the government has walked away from that deal."
Dean Royles, director of NHS Employers, which represents hospital trusts in England, said patients awaiting an operation to remove a cataract or benign lump, or replace a worn-out hip or knee, were among those whose care had been postponed, but only in some places. "I don't have any hard numbers [of patients affected] but in some places it will be very disruptive and in other places it will be very minimal."
The amount of planned care postponed varies from one hospital to another. The Health Service Journal reports that Wythenshawe hospital in Manchester, for example, is cancelling no operations but has rescheduled 15 outpatient appointments. University Hospital of North Staffordshire expects to cancel just three non-urgent operations and eight non-urgent outpatient appointments. Peterborough and Stamford Foundation Trust had postponed two operations and 53 outpatient appointments but thought that number might rise.
In Yorkshire, NHS Airedale, Bradford and Leeds says that, of its 81 GP surgeries, just 12 will see all GPs taking part in the action, with 20 other surgeries seeing some GPs take part, and the other 49 surgeries totally uninvolved. A snapshot survey by Pulse magazine on Tuesday suggested that as few as 22% of GP surgeries intended to join the action.
Comments
21 June 2012 9:38AM
At least two of today's Guardian online headlines call the BMA industrial action a GP Strike. It is neither a strike nor is it being undertaken by GPs alone. This is industrial action by BMA members including both hospital doctors and GPs.
21 June 2012 9:39AM
Support the Doctors, Defend Jobs and Pensions.
Join a Trade Union.
21 June 2012 9:40AM
It's always good to know the government are listening.
21 June 2012 9:42AM
And running scared...I wonder when they'll wheel Maude out to tell people to store a few extra doctors in the shed, just in case...
21 June 2012 9:45AM
The legal responsibiity that GPs carry is awesome. I wouldn't do it. And it's such a stressful job that many don't live long enough to claim much of that £68,000 pension. And I've sympathy with any group whose pensions are threatened by Government raiding.
That said, I also remember that it was the GPs who caved in to the Government over the NHS wreckings (I refuse to call them reforms) and I can't believe that the BMA couldn't have come up with some action over their money that would target the Ministry and not their patients. What are they thinking, we'll piss off our vulnerable and they'll put pressure on the Government? When has that ever worked?
This is turning into a PR disaster in itself, never mind if/when somebody dies/suffers unnecessarily or their health is damaged as a result of this day.
21 June 2012 9:46AM
"Lansley condemns doctor's strike".
Well there's a surprise. How about "Doctors condemn Lansley". Now it's 1-1 in the name-calling game.
21 June 2012 9:46AM
" what they seem to be aiming for is to try and change things back so they get more and nurses and porters and others in the NHS get less"
This is an extraordinary statement from Mr Lansley. Doctors already contribute a greater proportion of their income to the pension scheme and as pensions do tend to be related to salary then yes higher paid employees do tend to get greater pensions than lower paid ones. The reason why Doctors are carrying out this action is because we already changed our working practices 4 years ago and agreed to pay more per month, agreed to work for longer with the result that the NHS scheme is in surplus as a result by 2 billion pounds a year.
21 June 2012 9:47AM
I want Andrew to go away!
21 June 2012 9:48AM
I thought it was bloody cheeky that the government claimed the industrial action by doctors would hurt patients. What, and your so-called reforms won't? Fuck off Lansley.
21 June 2012 9:49AM
Did anyone else think that Humphreys was an absolute twat to the doctors' representative on the 8.10 this morning?
21 June 2012 9:49AM
Where has the BMA said they wanted to derease the pensions for lower paid NHS staff? Has Lansley made this up? First of all the pension 'reforms' was to make them more affordable. Then when they were shown to be affordable now and becoming more affordable in the future it was about making them 'fairer'. Would it not be fair to honor the pension agreement made only 4 years ago?
21 June 2012 9:50AM
Is there a misprint? Perhaps it should say:
"Doctors say that Lansley is pointless and achieves nothing."
21 June 2012 9:52AM
Landsley is a total weasel. If we're talking about moral bankruptcy, then he is a textbook case. He's trying to turn public opinion against doctors, painting them as greedy etc. What medics do is highly skilled, and carries a massive responsibility, so they deserved to be paid well.
21 June 2012 9:53AM
so much for transparency
21 June 2012 9:54AM
I can't post on the main story about industrial action, so I'll use Steve Bell as a stalking horse: to earn the big bucks as a doctor you go into management or (and indeed often both) private practice. Working full-time with patients in the NHS and avoiding the distractions of private practice (universally inimical, in my experience, to doing your best for NHS patients) pays less well.
It's clear, at least in my part of the world, that doctors devoted to the NHS are the ones, with many reservations and not a little soul-searching, if not guilt, who are taking industrial action. It seems, to me, entirely predictable that those doctors supporting Andrew Lansley are those protected from the governments pension shenanigans. This is why he uses patients and other NHS workers in his argument: it is the striking doctors who care.
Indeed, it is the doctors who carry on as normal who are happily helping to dismantle the NHS in their own financial interest. Make no mistake, there is a deep political and ethical undercurrent that has persuaded a fundamentally conservative profession to take any action at all, and that undercurrent is the ongoing attack upon the NHS and all of its workers.
21 June 2012 9:54AM
I didn't, but Humphreys is a massive tool anyway, so that sounds about right
21 June 2012 9:56AM
Apologies (a little) for cutting and pasting above...
21 June 2012 9:57AM
Did anyone hear the GP on Radio4 Today programme this morning. He was on strike, but sitting outside the surgery in his car in case anyone turned up. Thought this was both confusing and admirable at the same time - cared enough about the patients to stay on call, but this also seemed like not a very effective strike action. What do others think? Has anyone had trouble accessing their local surgery today?
21 June 2012 9:57AM
Lansley is missing the point, to move professional people like doctors to consider or take industrial action at all is the point, not whether it has any effect. Is this really going to help tackle the deficit.
21 June 2012 9:58AM
Funny. When doctors go on strike because you've slashed their pensions you condemn. When bankers ruin our economy and then refuse to accept any blame or punishment for it you practically encourage it.
How's that "morality" your leaders bangs on about going?
21 June 2012 9:58AM
If you feel that your anger levels are dropping at any point today, have a listen on iPlayer. It made me seethe.
21 June 2012 9:59AM
He hoped doctors would not go on strike, he added. "I think if they have an argument and they're angry, they're angry with the government and that's our job to represent the taxpayer and the public interest, and maybe we will have that argument. But I can't see why anybody thinks there is any benefit in penalising patients. It won't serve any purpose whatsoever.
Good lord another U turn & if true not before time!
21 June 2012 9:59AM
"I think if they have an argument and they're angry, they're angry with the government and that's our job to represent the taxpayer and the public interest, and maybe we will have that argument. But I can't see why anybody thinks there is any benefit in penalising patients. It won't serve any purpose whatsoever."
This, from a man who has rejected all attempts to reopen negotiation, who's stance has been "take it or leave it", if not "sod off"? A amoral man can always trump one with ethics and empathy, threatening the innocent...
21 June 2012 10:00AM
Lansley is such a feckin' hypocrite. Part of a corrupt government consisting of millionaires like Cameron and Clegg who are lining their own pockets with kickbacks from the ultra-rich and the big corporations whose wealth and profits they are seeking to maximise.
21 June 2012 10:00AM
Divide and rule.
The doctors are getting more and the nurses and porters will get less?
Lansley we can see right through you?........
What is it with this government where did they find so few who displease so many?..........
21 June 2012 10:01AM
I suspect access to healthcare will be easier, as patients with non-urgent problems will stay away leaving more doctors to deal with the urgent care.
21 June 2012 10:02AM
Thanks, but the fire in my belly isn't going to go out any time soon!
21 June 2012 10:02AM
...only too true, and outside the NHS. It does not become doctors well to be greedy when people are heading towards the Breadline!
21 June 2012 10:03AM
Did anyone hear the GP on Radio4 Today programme this morning. He was on strike, but sitting outside the surgery in his car in case anyone turned up. Thought this was both confusing and admirable at the same time - cared enough about the patients to stay on call, but this also seemed like not a very effective strike action. What do others think? Has anyone had trouble accessing their local surgery today?
We're all at work and there are no picket lines. Any, even vaguely, urgent problem should be treated (and perhaps better than usual, without the jam-packed clinics and operating lists that generations of politicians have elevated in importance above emergency care, because they are a reliable income stream in the faux-market of the modern public sector).
21 June 2012 10:04AM
A doctor a day keeps the Andrews away (that and a good zinc ointment).
21 June 2012 10:06AM
Would you trust a politician or a doctor ?
21 June 2012 10:07AM
Actually, I suppose at a stretch one could point out that in addition or perhaps apart from asserting the same rights to some form of industrial action as any other worker - these doctors could be bringing our attention to the fact that amidst all the changes happening in the health and social care scene - some things really should remain the same always..
What we need specifically to avoid frustration and confusion at the front line, or anywhere else, is decent basic and universal standards of accountability and responsibility governing forms of consent wherever they may be cropping up ie in " Pensions" or even in Accident and emergency departments.
Consent is not a result of the so-called litigious society we're living in. Some forms of consent are really necessary when it comes to applying any service or product available to ordinary members of the public - including one's NHS pension.
But other forms of consent are not necessary and they are worth the paper they are written on - These consent forms may be heading for the myth busting section of the HSE web-site, with better management.
And in the face of prospective privatisation of police services by security forms, together with the confusion arising on the front line from inappropriate speculation about consent and "risk scenarios" - members of the public might well be wondering if there's more to this strike about pensions than meets the eye.
What we need is somebody like general Musharaff to be elected as our new Police Commissioner. He knows the score with firms like Blackwater and he's brave enough to argue with the most powerful about our sovereign rights as ordinary members of the public, i daresay. But that's for another blog perhaps.
21 June 2012 10:07AM
It does not become doctors well to be greedy when people are heading towards the Breadline!
To repeat myself:
... to earn the big bucks as a doctor you go into management or (and indeed often both) private practice. Working full-time with patients in the NHS and avoiding the distractions of private practice (universally inimical, in my experience, to doing your best for NHS patients) pays less well. It's clear, at least in my part of the world, that doctors devoted to the NHS are the ones, with many reservations and not a little soul-searching, if not guilt, who are taking industrial action. It seems, to me, entirely predictable that those doctors supporting Andrew Lansley are those protected from the governments pension shenanigans. This is why he uses patients and other NHS workers in his argument: it is the striking doctors who care. Indeed, it is the doctors who carry on as normal who are happily helping to dismantle the NHS in their own financial interest. Make no mistake, there is a deep political and ethical undercurrent that has persuaded a fundamentally conservative profession to take any action at all, and that undercurrent is the ongoing attack upon the NHS and all of its workers.
21 June 2012 10:08AM
Upon commencement of employment new doctors (and other public servants for that matter) receive a contract of employment. Part of those contracts are pension arrangements agreed at that time (somebody on these pages once said that pensions were not part of the contracts - sorry friend but they very much are). Doctors do, therefore, commence employment in full expectation of the employer honouring that contract upon retirement. Had the employer said at that time well, we just might renege on the deal a few years down the line the doctor could well have decided to pursue a different pathway for their career. The amount a doctor gets paid is irrelevant. Society has deemed that his/her rate of pay is what it is prepared to pay for their expertise and years of extensive training. If anybody gripes about how much doctors get paid they are at liberty to train as a doctor if they so wish. How does one put a price upon what a doctor provides to society compared to a banker who receives much more remuneration for speculating on the money markets. When people bemoan how much bankers are paid in bonuses the government uses the argument that the bonuses are parts of the contracts of employment and can't be changed. So, it's alright to change a doctor's contract then but not a doctor's then is it?Just about sums up the values of this government and the way they want to shape our society.
21 June 2012 10:09AM
No doctor should feel guilt about exercising their democratic right to withdraw their labour to preserve a contract term that both parties willingly entered into.
21 June 2012 10:09AM
There are a lot more doctors than Lansley.
How about "A lot more than 1" - 1
21 June 2012 10:09AM
Would you trust a politician or a doctor ?
Doctors are only human: don't trust us too much, and even my selfless altruism has limits...
... on the other hand, I don't pretend to Andrew Lansley's perfection!
21 June 2012 10:11AM
Don't know what the fuss is, as a fit, still young man I have absolutely no idea how to access the NHS other than a specific trip to a walk in centre/A&E.
They could strike for decades I wouldn't notice as my perception of the NHS is that it is not there to treat me and I have no idea how to access my GP services without meeting a wall of inaccessibility.
Not that I want to fight my way past the legions of old people, people 3 times what their body weight should be and mothers with screaming children, good luck to them all that they get instant health care access 24/7/365.
What I would like is that in that once a decade instance where some health issue concerns me that I can actually see someone to reassure me that I am not ill, as I have luckily never been.
So well done them, keep it up for another 8 years and I likely won't even notice.
21 June 2012 10:11AM
Although in principle I support action against the government's attacks on public sector pensions it sickens me to find that local doctors who, in the debates on Lansley's Bill publicly said that they are sure that patients would not mind contributing to the cost of their treatment are taking action, while others who criticised or oppose the Bill are not. It makes it clear who is on the side of patients.
21 June 2012 10:11AM
What pisses me off the most, like the NHS pensions agreements hammered out a few years ago, is that staff get their benefits cut. They protest, they campaign, they give in to demands to 'be realistic' - and then, a few years down the line the bastards in charge are back again cutting the previous agreement. Sort of undermines the whole point of negotiating in good faith. I'd just set up the barricades now and tell the gits in charge to sod off from the start.
Can we start an online petition to put MPs on the minimum wage? And while we're at it they can pay out of their own pockets to travel to and from work. If they have to eat whilst at work they can pay for it out of their own pockets. If they have to live in a flat in London for the week's commute they can pay for that themselves too - like the rest of the working population. Goose, gander, all in it together, pulling in our belts etc etc...
21 June 2012 10:12AM
I said to my GP wife this morning "So how does the strike work then".
"Oh, I still have to go into work - I just don't get paid" she replied.
Of course she doesn't have an actual surgery list today but it will be interesting to see how many "urgent/emergency" cases there are. Somehow I doubt she will be sat around twiddling her thumbs.
I'll report back this evening.
21 June 2012 10:12AM
Health secretary says action is pointless and will achieve nothing
It's always good to know the government are listening.
Well not quite listening!
This smacks of "I hear what you say BUT I refuse to heed your point of view"!
21 June 2012 10:13AM
Whatever...the medical profession and healthcare in general is one of the key factors in the bankruptcy of Europe and the US.
Those who practice are very greedy, and those who consume healthcare want more and more of it.
Singapore devotes just 4% of GDP to healthcare.
The West needs to do the same - it is, largely, and extractive industry that undermines the productive economy.
21 June 2012 10:13AM
Even after the changes their pensions will still be massive.
To add insult to injury they are still being paid today to be sat at home on strike.
I have no sympathy at all for any doctor on strike, quite why they think they are a special case, immune from the cuts is beyond me.
21 June 2012 10:14AM
No doctor should feel guilt about exercising their democratic right to withdraw their labour to preserve a contract term that both parties willingly entered into.
Thank-you, but it would be a sorry kind of doctor who didn't have thoughts for any patient made to wait for treatment.
This is why there is a political dimension to the industrial action: there is a level at which today is a protest about the governments attack upon the NHS, a sense that not to fight will harm everyone in the long run.
21 June 2012 10:15AM
Uhh - I'd cut the money that goes to the military. ALL OF IT.
21 June 2012 10:16AM
Lansley as usual showing his utter contempt for the NHS and public sector workers. Lansley and his ministerial colleagues DISGUST me.
The enormous level of disrespect shown towards some of the hardest working people in the country, while cosying up to some of the richest and least productive beggars belief.
Shame on you Lansley.
21 June 2012 10:16AM
Really? I mean really?
21 June 2012 10:16AM
To add insult to injury they are still being paid today to be sat at home on strike.
Doctors are at work, to provide help to the sick. It is only planned work that has been put back by a day. All urgent and emergency treatment is proceeding as normal, or better (more staff free to help).
21 June 2012 10:17AM
To add insult to injury they are still being paid today to be sat at home on strike. Really? I mean really?
No.