02911-25 McLean v The Daily Telegraph

Summary of Complaint

1. Bianca McLean complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that The Daily Telegraph breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “NHS staff in line for bumper pensions despite pay walkouts”, published on 10 July 2025.

2. The article – which appeared on page 6 of the newspaper - reported on the then-upcoming resident doctor strikes . It described resident doctors as being “in line for bumper pensions when they retire”, and that they “enjoy close to 75 per cent of their salaries”. The article also reported that, “[u]nder the NHS scheme, staff contribute between 5.2 per cent and 12.5 per cent of their salaries.” It also reported that the “British Medical Association (BMA) has demanded a 29 per cent pay rise [for resident doctors], to rectify what it claims to be 17 years of real-term cuts”.

3. The article also appeared online in substantively the same format, under the headline “What resident doctors don’t want you know about their pay”, and was published on 9 July 2025. This version of the article also reported that the BMA had “demanded a 29pc pay rise” for resident doctors, “to rectify what it claims to be17 years of real-term cuts”. It also said: “what is often forgotten is that these doctors enjoy bumper pensions worth close to 75pc of their salaries in retirement”.

4. The complainant said that the article was inaccurate in breach of Clause 1 as it implied that doctors should not strike as they would one day receive an overly generous pension. She added that it was inaccurate to report that most resident doctors would receive a 75 per cent pension. She said, in fact, many resident doctors would not receive this amount as they are members of the 2015 NHS Pension Scheme, in which pensions are calculated based on the average monthly salary across their career, not their final salary. She said that pension values under the 2015 scheme were substantially reduced compared to earlier pension schemes,, and required working until 65-68.

5. Turning to the article’s claim that resident doctors would receive “close to 75 per cent of their salaries” as a pension, the complainant said this applied only to those enrolled in the 1995 NHS Pension Scheme, and that those enrolled in this scheme would only receive 75 per cent of their salary provided they had worked for 40 years without a career break and retired at 60.

6. The complainant said that this meant that reporting that doctors would receive a 75 per cent pension was inaccurate, as several doctors would not receive this amount, including those who: worked part-time; took parental leave or had a career break; did not start working in medicine until later in their career; retired early; were not continuously enrolled in the pension scheme; were enrolled in the 2015 scheme; or had opted out of a scheme.

7. The complainant said the article was misleading to include the 75 per cent figure without the necessary context or explanation as to how it had been reached and to omit that pensions are a deferred benefit that doctors have paid high contributions towards. She added that – given that pensions are a deferred benefit - this reduced the amount of money doctors had available for everyday living costs. She said that failing to correct this led to a breach of Clause 1 (iii), as the fair opportunity to correct a significant inaccuracy had been denied.

8. The complainant also said that it was misleading to refer to a demand for a 29 per cent pay rise without explaining the reason behind the precise figure. She said the request to increase resident doctors salary by 29 per cent was not solely an arbitrary figure, but was based on 17 years of pay erosion, and was an attempt to restore pay to the levels it had been in 2008.

9. The publication did not accept a breach of the Code. It said the article was an opinion piece, and the opinion expressed by the writer was that pension benefits for doctors are generous. The publication said the Code makes clear that the press is entitled to editorialise, and said the complaint appeared to be based on the complainant’s disagreement with the views expressed in the article.

10. The publication said that the article did not report that doctors would receive 75 per cent of their “final” salaries – it spoke only of salaries in general, which the publication said referred to career-average salaries. It added that this calculation was based on the 2015 NHS Doctors’ Pensions Scheme. It said that a doctor on this scheme who worked for 40 years would earn 74.1 per cent of their salary in retirement, accurately reflecting the claim in the article – that the value of the pension was “close to 75 per cent”. The publication also said this was a conservative estimate, as it was calculated without factoring in the active revaluation - based on the Consumer Price Index - which would lead to an annual increase. It added that the pension amount may in fact amount to more than 75 per cent if a doctor worked for more than 40 years. The publication also provided links to the BMA website and the website of a financial services company – the publication said these web-pages, which included calculations of the potential value of NHS pensions, also arrived at the 75 per cent figure in their calculations.

11. The publication also noted that the article did, in fact, make reference to the contributions made by NHS staff to their pensions. It added that ordinary readers would understand the basic principles of what a pension is, and so would understand that it does not contribute to everyday living costs. It also said that it was not misleading to accurately report the striking doctors’ pay demands, and noted that the article did refer to what the BMA “claims to be 17 years of real-term cuts”.

Relevant Clause Provisions

Clause 1 (Accuracy)

i) The Press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information or images, including headlines not supported by the text.

ii) A significant inaccuracy, misleading statement or distortion must be corrected, promptly and with due prominence, and — where appropriate — an apology published. In cases involving IPSO, due prominence should be as required by the regulator. 

iii) A fair opportunity to reply to significant inaccuracies should be given, when reasonably called for.

iv) The Press, while free to editorialise and campaign, must distinguish clearly between comment, conjecture and fact.

Findings of the Committee

12. The Committee noted, first and foremost, that the publication was entitled to hold the view that the pensions resident doctors would receive was generous. Whilst the complainant disagreed with the suggestion that strikes were unnecessary because of these benefits, this did not in itself mean that the article was misleading to report this. There was, however, still an obligation to take care not to publish inaccurate information.

13. The Committee considered the claim that resident doctors would receive a pension worth “close to 75 per cent” of their salary. The Committee firstly noted that there seemed to be a consensus, based on the publication’s own calculations and those provided by the BMA and a financial services company, that full time resident doctors would receive around 75 per cent of their average career salary. As such, the figure was not inaccurate.

14. The Committee then turned to the complainant’s concerns that the article should have explained how the figure was reached, and included context that not all resident doctors would receive this amount. The Committee considered that it was not misleading or inaccurate to use the example of a doctor who worked full time, without career breaks and who chose to enrol in the scheme in order to calculate those figures. Omitting the fact that people may receive a smaller pension if they worked less did not render the article inaccurate; it was not necessary to fully explain the mechanics of a pension, and readers could be expected to understand that pensions are deferred and that staff would contribute to their own pensions. There was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

15. With regards to reporting that the BMA was demanding a 29 per cent pay rise, this was an accurate report of the figure being asked for. In addition, the reasoning as to why the BMA were asking for the specific 29 per cent pay rise was included in the article: it referenced the“17 years of real-term cuts” that the complainant had also raised in their complaint. There was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

16. The complainant had said that the terms of Clause 1 (iii) had been breached as no opportunity had been afforded to respond to significant inaccuracies. However, given the article did not contain any significant inaccuracies, there was no breach on this point.

Conclusions

17. The complaint was not upheld.

Remedial action required

18. N/A

Date complaint received: 10/07/2025

Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 29/10/2025