Letters: This pensions 'apartheid' has got to end

Some public sector workers spend 40 per cent of their adult life in retirement, so reform of their pension schemes was coming, even without the dire legacy of Gordon Brown.

Less then 10 per cent of private sector pensions are based on final salary, in comparison with 90 per cent in the public sector, and this is rightly seen as a form of apartheid.

The crisis should have been dealt with by the last government, but New Labour's financial reliance on their client state made this impossible.

Unlike so many in the real world whose entitlements were reduced overnight, public sector workers will retain final-salary pensions for at least the next four years.

The unions hyperventilating over Lord Hutton's proposals (your report, 8 October) would be advised to see these as the best offer they are going to get, because it may be necessary to go much further.

(DR) JOHN CAMERON

Howard Place

St Andrews

I heard Dave Prentis, of the dinosaur organisation Unison, say Lord Hutton's proposals will provoke massive unrest. He and his colleagues appear to have no understanding of the dire state of the country's finances nor the pressures on the people who really employ their members, we, the taxpayers. Nor does Unison seem to understand the rapidly growing anger in the general population about the unfairness of the demands made upon the rest of us to sustain their members.

Yes, public sector employees pay pension contributions of about 6 per cent of salary; however, they receive benefits that would require contributions of almost 30 per cent of salary. We, the public, pay the difference from our taxes - in many cases from our own, unprotected pensions which were hugely damaged by Gordon Brown.

Unison must not be allowed to blackmail the employers into forcing the rest of us to pay over the top for an obviously bloated public sector.

DAVID K ALLAN

Mainshill

Haddington, East Lothian

In no sector of public spending is there such certainty, and calculability, as pensions. With details of the number of employees, their dates of birth and retirement dates, and investment proceeds where applicable, it is simple actuarial arithmetic to assess the forthcoming commitments into infinity. It is even more simple than the Barnett formula!

With "final salary" schemes, the calculation of pension is made, for example, on one eightieth of salary for each year of service. Forty years would attract a pension of half the pay rate on retirement. To reduce the pension provision, why not just alter the denominator in the calculation to, say, one ninetieth?

DOUGLAS R MAYER

Thomson Crescent

Currie, Midlothian

Lord Hutton is right in arguing that pensions calculated on final salaries need to be replaced with pensions calculated on actual earnings. Benefits secured to date should be preserved, but future benefits should be accrued in relation to actual earnings in future years.

SANDY GEMMILL

Mertoun Place

Edinburgh