Jeff Salway: Public sector pension changes could have been much worse

YOU would expect teachers to have done their homework before voting to strike over changes to public sector pensions.

The government has pushed through all manner of unfair and ill-conceived policies in its first year, but public sector pensions reform is not one of them. In fact, public sector workers couldn't have asked for more when John Hutton was tasked with coming up with a reform package.

Yet teachers in England and Wales are to stage a walkout on 30 June in protest at the proposed changes to their pensions. The Public and Commercial Services Union has also cited grievances over pensions in its decision to go on strike the same day, this time throughout the UK.

But my guess, judging by the response, is that few people affected by the proposed reforms understand what's being offered. If they did, they would find that they may even benefit.

The case for reform of public sector pensions is overwhelming, and Hutton had several options on the table. His eventual recommendations probably drew curses from the government, which doubtless had something more brutal in mind.

In short, public sector workers will continue to get pensions that are now out of reach of most people in the private sector, where the risk has in recent years been transferred from employers to employees.

Almost nine in ten public sector workers are in pension schemes where the payout is based on their salary, rather than contributions and investment performance, and that won't change.

Under the career average earnings system put forward by Hutton, lower-paid workers who don't enjoy steep earnings boosts towards the end of their working lives will generally get a fairer deal, or at least not lose out. The main losers from the change will be those retiring on big salaries and likely to get the aforementioned salary hikes in the later years of their career.

So if your earnings rise by no more than inflation throughout your working life, the pension you get is unlikely to be lower as a result of the reforms. I wonder how many of those in favour of strike action are aware of that?

It's also worth noting, while we're considering whether the strikes are a response to what has actually been proposed, that we don't yet know exactly how contribution rates will be affected by the changes.

While pensions minister Steve Webb has been impressive, there are other reforms more worthy of dissent than public sector pensions. Yet the outcry over the switch to a lower inflation measure in calculating state and public sector pension payouts, which will result in some people losing up to a third of their pensions, has been muted at best.

Sympathy is due to public sector workers being told to work longer in return for, in some cases, reduced pension benefits. But if the private sector can no longer fund final salary pensions, public sector workers cannot expect to continue benefiting from them.Cameron's callous cuts

THE furore over public sector pensions occupied far more column inches last week than warnings over the impact of the government's welfare reforms for people with cancer. At least until Wednesday, when the Prime Minister's shallow understanding of the issue was exposed in the Commons.

David Cameron was found badly wanting, as he tends to be when it comes to policy detail, when asked to respond to a report by Macmillan Cancer Support warning that many people with cancer or recovering from treatment will be hit hard by changes to Employment and Support Allowance (ESA).

The government wants to cut the support given to many of those eligible for it. Macmillan estimates that some 7,000 cancer sufferers will lose up to 94 a week because of the plans.

The proposals affect those deemed as having the potential to return to work, who are asked to take part in work-related activity as a condition of getting the payment. The government wants to limit claims to one year for those receiving contributory ESA, where they aren't dependent on their savings levels or on a partner's income.

But the plans fail to consider the time it takes to recover from cancer treatment. Challenged on this, Cameron could only retort that those with terminal illnesses will receive full support. He completely missed the point, which is that many people struggling to adapt to day-to-day life after undergoing cancer treatment will lose vital support just when they need it.

Surely anyone deemed eligible for ESA should receive it for as long as they need it? What's particularly worrying for those facing assessment is that the ESA system is already a stain on this government's record.

Citizens Advice Scotland is among several organisations to have reported that cancer sufferers, including some who are terminally ill, are having to jump through the work capability assessment hoops and then being told they are fit to work when it is clear that they aren't. Proof that the system is deeply flawed lies in the fact that some four in ten appeals against the decisions are successful.

Never mind that it can take years to recover from the effects of chemotherapy, and that many cancer sufferers who come through that are then put on drugs with serious side-effects that continue to affect their day-to-day lives.

The government is for cutting and people desperately trying to put their lives back together after the ordeal of cancer treatment are clearly and callously considered fair game.