Get all your news in one place.
100’s of premium titles.
One app.
Start reading
The Guardian - UK
The Guardian - UK
Politics
Letters

NHS consultants’ pensions dispute

‘The deeper malaise of which the pensions dispute is a symptom is the medical profession’s restrictive practices that limit training and recruitment of adequate numbers of doctors,’ writes John Hall.
‘The deeper malaise of which the pensions dispute is a symptom is the medical profession’s restrictive practices that limit training and recruitment of adequate numbers of doctors,’ writes John Hall. Photograph: Peter Byrne/PA

Most well-paid professionals work the hours needed to get the job done, without extra payment for overtime. NHS consultants seem to be unique in their combination of upper middle-class pay with proletarian working practices (Editorial, 9 July). The deeper malaise of which the pensions dispute is a symptom is the medical profession’s restrictive practices that limit training and recruitment of adequate numbers of doctors. The solution is to recruit and train enough doctors to make overtime unnecessary. Alternatively, the solution to paying them so much that they lose pension tax relief could be to reduce their pay.
John Hall
Bristol

• Further to your reporting of the NHS consultants’ pension “tax trap” (Operations cancelled in standoff with consultants, 8 July), it is surely possible to amend the consultants’ conditions of service, so that they can agree to stop employee and employer pension contributions before they reach the ceilings that trigger additional tax? Those limits are £40,000 in pension contributions per year, and a £1.055m lifetime pension pot. The purpose of the legislation is to limit the amount of public subsidy, by tax relief, for those with very high pensions. So just stop paying in when the pension has got to this very comfortable level.
Moira Hankinson
Henley on Thames, Oxfordshire

• If hospital consultants, or anyone else for that matter, wish to build up massive pension pots, that’s fine, but tax relief (ie state aid) on contributions should be limited to that which would build a fund to sustain an adequate standard of living in retirement. I suggest two-thirds of the average wage. Presently that would be about £20,000 a year, or £400 a week. Ample. Beyond that the state should not subsidise people’s greed.
Peter Wrigley
Birstall, West Yorkshire

• Join the debate – email guardian.letters@theguardian.com

• Read more Guardian letters – click here to visit gu.com/letters

• Do you have a photo you’d like to share with Guardian readers? Click here to upload it and we’ll publish the best submissions in the letters spread of our print edition

Sign up to read this article
Read news from 100’s of titles, curated specifically for you.
Already a member? Sign in here
Related Stories
Top stories on inkl right now
One subscription that gives you access to news from hundreds of sites
Already a member? Sign in here
Our Picks
Fourteen days free
Download the app
One app. One membership.
100+ trusted global sources.