2011-03-10 09:34:03
Millions of workers in the public sector should work longer for lower pensions,
a major report has said.
Lord Hutton's independent review said linking their pensions to career average
earnings, rather than final salaries, would make them "affordable".
The government has already accepted a previous recommendation of Lord Hutton
that public servants should soon pay higher contributions.
Unions have condemned the latest plans and will consider strike action.
Mark Serwotka, the general secretary of the PCS union, representing many civil
servants, said: "What this is doing is it's attacking the bit that's slightly
better than the average but we're not doing anything about the bit that's
worse; in fact, people already have a two-year pay freeze [and], hundreds of
thousands of jobs are going."
Dave Prentis, general secretary of the Unison union, said: "This will be just
one more attack on innocent public sector workers who are being expected to pay
the price of the deficit, while the bankers who caused it continue to enjoy
bumper pay and bonuses."
University lecturers, who are already planning to strike over separate but
similar changes to their own pension scheme, said good pensions were essential,
not an optional extra.
"We need to be doing all we can to try and keep the best and brightest young
scientists, academics and researchers in the country, not attacking their few
benefits," said Sally Hunt, general secretary of the University and College
Union (UCU).
'Reform'
Analysis
Ian Pollock Personal finance reporter, BBC News
Lord Hutton does not recommend the exact shape of the future career average
schemes. He leaves that up to the government.
The value of such arrangements depends on how much is put aside each year (the
accrual rate), how much the accruing pension is uprated each year to account
for inflation, the retirement age and the level of inflation proofing in
retirement. You can have generous career average schemes or very meagre ones.
As the whole point of Lord Hutton's plan is to rein in costs, the vast majority
of public sector employees will receive a worse deal than their current pension
scheme offers.
Lord Hutton's public services pensions commission has spent the last nine
months looking at the large pension schemes covering civil servants, the NHS,
teachers, local government staff, the police, armed forces and the fire
service.
He argued that his changes amounted to "comprehensive reform" which would make
the schemes "sustainable and affordable in the future" under the pressure of
rapidly rising life expectancy.
"These proposals aim to strike a balanced deal between public service workers
and the taxpayer," Lord Hutton said.
"They will ensure that public service workers continue to have access to good
pensions, while taxpayers benefit from greater control over their costs.
"Pensions based on career average earnings will be fairer to the majority of
members that do not have the high salary growth rewarded in final-salary
schemes," he added.
Cheaper to fund
Lord Hutton stressed that pensions earned so far should retain their link with
final salaries.
But pensions earned in the future should be built up in new career average
schemes, which he says should be in place by 2015.
Pension schemes explained
career and length of service
career
returns. Usually worth less than final-salary pensions
By definition these will produce lower pensions unless staff work longer to
compensate. They will also be cheaper to fund.
Lord Hutton also recommended that the normal pension age (NPA) of the new
schemes should be linked to the state pension age.
That would involve increasing the NPA from 60 to 65 for some current public
employees, and building in future increases for all staff as the state pension
age rises progressively to 68, starting in 2020 with an increase to 66.
The police, armed forces and fire service currently have normal pension ages
lower than 60 but Lord Hutton said they should retire at 60 in due course.
The National Association of Pension Funds (NAPF) said the proposals were
sensible.
"Lord Hutton's findings strike the right balance between fairness and cost, and
have avoided a race to the bottom," said the NAPF's chief executive, Joanne
Segars.
"Public sector workers will still retire with a good pension, and it is
important that they can bank what they've already built up."
'Not tenable'
In general, Lord Hutton argued, a ceiling should be imposed on employers'
contribution rates to the pension schemes.
Teacher Ron Gordon did not expect a footballer's wage but went into the
profession expecting a good pension
He said the current set-up was "not tenable in the long term".
Some public servants are already in career average schemes with a pension age
of 65, such as recruits to the civil service since 2007 and GPs and NHS
dentists appointed since 2008.
Lord Hutton, a former Labour pensions minister, was asked by the coalition
government to conduct a review of public service pensions soon after it was
elected last year.
The principal finding in his initial report, published last October, was that
the continued rise in longevity meant that schemes were becoming too expensive,
especially as they are mainly funded from taxation.
However, he dismissed a number of common assumptions.
He argued that there was no evidence that public sector staff were paid less
than staff in the private sector to offset better pensions.
On the other hand, he rejected the idea that public service pensions were
"gold-plated", pointing out that the average pension in payment was modest at
about 7,800 a year.
And he rejected suggestions from employers' groups that public service pensions
should be at the level of inferior private sector pensions, describing this as
a "race to the bottom".
Lord Hutton also pointed out that the long-term cost of funding public service
pension schemes had already been cut by 25%.
He pointed to measures such as uprating pensions in line with the typically
lower Consumer Prices Index (CPI) rather than the Retail Prices Index (RPI).
He also said some big schemes had already decided to raise the normal pension
age for new recruits to 65 rather than 60.
"These changes have reduced cost pressures, but have not addressed fundamental
longer-term structural problems, Lord Hutton said.