[Skip to content]

Sign up for our daily newsletter
The Actuary The magazine of the Institute & Faculty of Actuaries

Round-up of reaction to Hutton Report on public sector pensions

Lord Hutton’s Independent Public Sector Pensions Commission report on public sector pensions was published today. Here’s a round-up of reaction and comment from across the industry:


The Actuarial Profession

Calculations from the Actuarial Profession have shown that a career average pension could benefit lower paid public sector workers.

The figures have been announced to coincide with the publication of Lord Hutton’s Independent Public Sector Pensions Commission report and should provide some comfort to lower paid public sector workers.

Career Average Revalued Earnings (CARE) schemes give members pensions based on a percentage of their salary earned in each year of their working life. The pension is adjusted each year in order to maintain value. In the public sector, adjustments are generally in line with either a prices index or an earnings index.

Figures published today by the Profession demonstrate that using average earnings increases in pension adjustments will result in a more generous pension for public sector workers on lower wages than the current final salary pension design. The difference is illustrated by the following two examples of public sector workers starting a career aged 30 and finishing aged 68 and earning a pension each year at a rate of 1/60th of salary:

>> A lower paid worker, starting on a salary of £15,000 and with a future earnings growth of 1% above CPI each year would have a CARE pensions, adjusted with the national earnings average some 21% bigger than a final salary pension.

>> For a higher paid worker, starting on a salary of £30,000 and with a future earnings growth of 3% above CPI each year, a national average earnings adjusted CARE pension would be 17% smaller than a final salary pension.

President of the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries, Ronnie Bowie, said: "Lord Hutton’s recommendations provide a coherent framework for the future of public sector pensions. Within the schemes the move from Final Salary to CARE and his recommendation to revalue each year’s benefits in line with national earnings is likely to favour the lower paid over the higher paid. However there is much still to be decided; in particular the rate of accrual and the mechanism for keeping the cost to taxpayers within an agreed cost envelope.

"The key unknown factor which affects how much an individual will earn from a pension is the rate at which pensions build up. Our figures are based on the current typical build up rate of 1/60th of salary each year but Lord Hutton has left it to the Chancellor, through consultation, to determine what the level of build up should be. Nevertheless, our figures demonstrate the significant and positive effect a change to CARE pensions may bring to those whose pay rises more slowly than national average earnings.

"Lord Hutton has provided a coherent framework. The challenge is now for the Government to fill in the missing pieces. There remain significant design and implementation risks to be overcome before we can be confident that what is eventually put in place is similarly coherent and sustainable"

Indicative figures:
Lower earner (starting on £15,000 pa)
Final Salary pension - £13,879 pa
CARE using average earnings index - £16,860 pa (21% increase)

Higher earner (Starting on £30,000 pa)
Final Salary pension - £58,908 pa
CARE using average earnings index - £49,129 (17% reduction)


Association of Consulting Actuaries

ACA welcomes report but expresses concern at aim to implement proposals by 2015

The Association of Consulting Actuaries (ACA), which proposed a career average formula in its responses to the Public Service Pensions Commission, has today welcomed the thrust of the proposals and recommendations in Lord Hutton’s final report, published earlier today. The ACA is, however, concerned at the degree to which the proposals require further detailed announcements by Government and negotiation, scheme by scheme, and whether - as the next election approaches - they will have the resolve to push through the much needed reforms.

The Hutton report says that it should be possible to introduce the new scheme ‘before the end of this Parliament’ (recommendation 26), but the ACA says it is far from clear that this will be achievable given the known strong resistance to the reforms from most of the trade unions representing public sector employees and given the number of schemes involved.

Commenting on the report, Andrew Vaughan, secretary of the ACA said:

"The report follows very much along the lines of what we had expected and the proposals make sound sense for the future. But much remains to be done to make a reality of the package - all the hard work is being left to Government and public sector employer bodies.

"It is to be hoped the trade union reaction, once they have considered the actual proposals, is less reactionary than that voiced to date. I am sure they must appreciate that the escalating costs of public sector pensions falling on taxpayers, the majority of whom have far inferior pension arrangements, is unsustainable and unfair.

"As we have been saying for close to a decade now, the real challenge for Government, alongside these reforms, is to update the private sector pension regime so employers can once again feel confident that they can offer a wider range of quality arrangements, with the flexibility to control forward costs as mortality and other conditions change.

"Hutton proposes that public sector employers should have a ‘fixed cost ceiling’ for pensions with an ‘automatic default’ to take actions to keep within this if costs are being exceeded and proposed changes cannot be agreed (recommendation 12). Similar legislative proposals for the private sector would be helpful in ensuring employers are protected when they offer ongoing quality arrangements above the modest baseline required from 2012."


Barnett Waddingham

Graeme Muir, partner said:

"Lord Hutton’s recommendations are in line with what was well signposted.

He has gone for the easy option for accrued rights by recommending maintaining the final salary rather than linking accrued benefits to the same revaluation rate under the career average formula. This is probably a missed opportunity and will keep life nice and complicated for some time to come.

"Using average earnings rather than CPI in the career average formula is also likely to attract some attention - this will be perceived by some as not that different to the final salary formula.

"The next step will be the real challenge - agreeing the detail of each scheme’s design - we would hope the various government departments try and work together in an attempt to achieve some element of consistency across the schemes."



Lower paid workers may end up with better than final salary pensions

Today’s Hutton report recommends that national average earnings are used as the indexation measure - not the CPI measure proposed for final salary schemes. In KPMG’s view, this will mean that many lower paid workers in the public sector find that their career average pensions may be better than the final salary schemes they would otherwise get. The flipside of this is that the middle and senior management may be hit harder.

Andrew Cawley, head of pensions at KPMG in the UK, said:

"The link to average earnings rather than the usual inflation measures throws a huge pensions lifeline to the lower paid in the public sector. By using average earnings as the peg, the very lowest paid may find that their career average schemes end up being better than the final salary schemes they might otherwise have received as the point about averages is that some people are going to be less than average.

"The flipside of this though is that middle and senior management will still find they are hit hard by today’s measures and the many other changes to pensions currently in the pipeline.

Higher flyers may need to save 20 percent or more of pay in order to replace the benefits foregone

>> Senior and middle management in the public sector particularly affected as combination of changes to pensions converge

>> Big question over accrual rates which based on the Turner Commission’s evidence could go as low as 1/90ths and still provide adequate benefits

Andrew Cawley said:

"The reforms are likely to have the biggest impact on middle and senior management in the public sector. So the challenge across the public sector is keep the engine room running at full speed through the wider cost cutting public sector reforms. The government will want lower earners to be protected and it is inevitable that people closer to retirement will be less affected as implementation cannot possibly happen straight away. But what about those who will be most affected? These are likely to be the middle to senior management coming up through the ranks.

"Consider a newly appointed NHS consultant or a secondary school year-head in their mid 30s. In order to obtain the full value of retirement benefits they would have expected when they joined the public sector, they may have to to save 20 percent or more of pay to compensate for a raft of pensions changes already underway and the likely outcome of Lord Hutton’s final report.

"All the changes to public service pensions are converging at once. This is not just about Lord Hutton’s recommendations. Take for example the announcement last July on inflation measures moving from RPI to CPI, shortly after the Commission was set up, and the new pensions tax changes coming into effect from April. Neither of these changes are Hutton recommendations, but they have a significant impact on public service workers.

"We expect there to be one big question remaining and this is, quite rightly, one for the Government to address - what will the new accrual rate be for the new, post-Hutton, pensions? Accrual rates in a career average revalued earnings scheme could reduce to as low as 1/90ths and still provide adequate benefits, according to the Turner Commission’s findings. This would be an extreme move for the Government given all the other changes to pensions at the moment and considering there are no immediate cash savings at stake. However, if accrual rates have to be reduced to cut costs it will come as a big shock to the system."


Punter Southall

John Prior, head of Punter Southall’s public sector outsourcing team, said:

"Lord Hutton has recommended a balanced package of reforms to public sector pensions that will probably be (just about) acceptable to the Government and public sector workers. The changes will not be popular with employees and the unions, but ultimately it is likely that the proposed reforms or something very similar will be in place by the time of the next election in 2015.

The recommended change from final salary to a Career Average Revalued Earnings (CARE) scheme will be nowhere near as painful as it could have been for current employees. This is because Lord Hutton has recommended that pensions for past service should continue to be linked to final salary. Also, although employees will accrue pensions on a career average basis in future, each year’s earnings will be revalued (increased) in line with "average earnings" before the final averaging is done. This means that for many public sector workers, those who do not expect their salary to increase by more than "average", their pension will be just as good as it would have been if it had continued to be based on their final salary.

Other aspects of the reforms will reduce the value of pensions earned for future service though. The recommended change to align retirement age with the State Pension Age (except for the uniformed services) will mean that many employees will have to wait longer to receive their pension. Also, the Government might still decide to reduce the overall pension fraction that is targetted at retirement.

The changes are likely to have an even greater impact on higher paid employees and those who receive above-average salary increases in future. One of the worst hit groups is likely to be some higher-paid civil servants who currently have a pension age of 60 and contribute only 1.5% of salary to their pension. Their pension age will change to at least 65. Also, they are likely to be required to increase their own contributions by significantly more than the average increase of 3% of salary that has already been announced by the Government, given that Lord Hutton has recommended tiered contribution rates that are greater for the higher paid.

Crucially, Lord Hutton has recommended that the Government should continue to provide public sector employees with a defined benefit pension scheme, so employees can be confident of the level of income that they will get in retirement. This type of scheme is rarely available to private sector workers, whose pension, if they have one, usually depends on how their investments perform and how much it costs to buy a pension at retirement. This has led to widely-expressed feelings of unfairness amongst taxpayers who do not have access to a defined benefit pension scheme.

The package of reforms put forward by Lord Hutton may be enough to dampen down this sense of unfairness for the time being. However, we fear that this will resurface in years to come and further reforms will be necessary, unless the Government does much more to encourage private sector employers to offer defined benefit pensions to their employees in the future.

Lord Hutton believes that his recommendations represent a balanced deal that will ensure public service workers continue to have good pensions and taxpayers can have confidence that the costs are controlled. Whilst the recommended cost-control mechanisms will undoubtedly help, future taxpayers are still likely to be exposed to the risk of future costs turning out to be more than had been planned for, so long as the Government is committed to honouring the accrued pension rights of public sector workers."


London Pensions Fund Authority

The final report delivers no major surprises, but represents a welcome move towards fairer and more sustainable pensions for public sector workers.

In proposing a switch to career average pensions, a retirement age linked to the state pension age and independent oversight of the running of public sector pensions, Lord Hutton has echoed key recommendations made by the LPFA. The report also highlight’s the LPFA’s governance structure as an example of good practice.

There remain a handful of issues which still need to be addressed - notably the short term impact of pension contribution increases proposed by the government last year, which the LPFA has warned could lead to significant numbers of public sector workers opting out of their pension schemes, before the Hutton reforms have had the chance to take effect. The LPFA was also disappointed by Lord Hutton’s rejection of a cap on pensionable pay, which would have addressed perceptions of unfairness around staff on higher incomes.

LPFA chief executive, Mike Taylor, said:

"Lord Hutton has produced a report which, if implemented, will go a long way towards ensuring public sector pensions remain fair and affordable for the taxpayer, but which continue to provide adequate retirement income for millions of Britons working in the public sector.

"We have long advocated some of the major changes proposed in today’s report, and we are pleased Lord Hutton has clearly listened to the industry in drafting his report, and resisted the clamour from certain parties for a drastic reduction in the quality of public sector pensions.

"There remains a concern, however, that the government’s plans to raise the level of employees’ pension contributions could lead to significant numbers opting out of public sector schemes, potentially scuppering Lord Hutton’s plans before they have the chance to take effect."

The LPFA contributed to the review, advocating the replacement of existing final salary public service pension schemes with career average defined benefit schemes, an increased retirement age in line with the state retirement age, the introduction of a cap on pensionable pay and the establishment of an independent framework tasked with overseeing public sector plans.


The Pensions Trust

Sarah Smart, chair of Board of Trustees, said:

"The Hutton Report is making great steps towards reducing the pensions deficit in the public sector, however there are going to be severe knock-on effects for third sector organisations particularly. The report argues that it is undesirable for future non-public service workers to have access to public service pension schemes, given the increased long-term risk this places on the Government and taxpayers. It is essential to start making provisions now to ensure third sector pensions are not left behind. In particular, The Pensions Trust will be taking steps to ensure it is at the forefront of providing a system that facilitates outsourcing while still providing workers with access to good pension schemes."

Points that The Pensions Trust believes need to be addressed in more depth are:

1. Flaws in admitted body system
In the past, public sector pension schemes have enabled non public sector organisations to become ‘admitted bodies’ to the schemes so that they can offer equivalent pension benefits and therefore meet the qualification criteria for taking on outsourced contracts.

The admitted body system has a number of drawbacks:
>> They present an unnecessary/uncontrollable risk to the taxpayer if the bodies are not monitored because if the organisation becomes insolvent the taxpayer ends up picking up the pension liability.
>> They present a cost to the administering authority of monitoring the admitted bodies for example with covenant reviews, chasing late contribution payments, providing FRS17 accounting figures, etc.
>> The structure is inflexible for admitted bodies if they want to modify their benefit structure in the future.

Therefore, how would organisations bidding for outsourcing contracts demonstrate they could offer comparable pensions benefits if there were no longer an admitted body system?

Only the largest organisations would be able to establish and run pension schemes similar to those in the public sector and it is questionable whether even those that could run such schemes would be prepared to accept the costs and risks involved. This would prevent many organisations in bidding
for outsourcing contracts, therefore reducing the competitiveness of this process. This would not meet the Government’s aims.

2. Non-associated multi-employer schemes
In order for smaller employers to be able to offer this sort of pension benefit, without becoming admitted bodies, it makes sense for them to join together in non-associated multi-employer schemes:

>> The benefit of these schemes is principally the economies of scale to be gained in terms of investment fees and administration and advisor costs.
>> There are also benefits in terms of continuation of service and transferability on the movement of staff between participating employers either on an individual or bulk basis.
>> However, non-associated multi-employer arrangements have become increasingly unpopular in recent years due to the development of regulations which largely remove all of their advantages, principally the employer debt on withdrawal regulations. In the event of an employer ceasing to employ any active members in a multi-employer scheme, an immediate debt is crystallised equal to the employer’s share of the deficit calculated on the full buy out basis.
>> Legislation is still needed to prevent scheme abandonment and protect members (including within multi-employer schemes) so we would not propose abolishing the requirement for an employer to make good its share of the deficit on withdrawal.
>> A possible solution could be to encourage sectionalised multi-employer schemes.This could include removing the barriers that currently prevent last man standing arrangements becoming sectionalised schemes.

3. A review of regulatory framework in order to make multi-employer schemes for non-associated employers more viable. This should include:

>> A review of the calculation of the PPF levy for multi-employer schemes.
>> Further amendments to the debt on withdrawal regulations to provide trustees with greater discretion.
>> Creating a framework that enables grant maintained organisations to provide comparable benefits to the public sector without increasing the burden on the tax payer.
>> Removing the administrative overhead that the public sector has to provide in respect of employers with admitted body status.


Aon Hewitt

Tim Lunn, principal and head of Aon Hewitt’s public sector actuarial team, said:

"Lord Hutton’s proposals move towards a compromise between the conflicting interests of the many stakeholders in public service pension schemes, but have not gone as far as many might have expected.

"In particular, while the proposed linkage of Normal Retirement Age to State Pension Age will help to control costs, Lord Hutton has chosen to propose arrangements similar to recently worked up cap and share mechanisms rather than adopt more immediately transparent cost control approaches such as pensionable pay caps or adjustable elements of the core benefit package like revaluation rates. This approach may appear to provide more certainty for scheme members in the short-term, but is arguably more difficult to implement in practice than some of the alternatives."

Pension scheme governance
David Crum, investment consultant and public sector investment lead at Aon Hewitt said:
"We welcome the focus in the report on the governance arrangements of public sector schemes. Many local government pension scheme funds already have effective oversight and monitoring arrangements in place, but this additional attention will be to the benefit of all - especially in a difficult financial and economic environment."

Public sector versus private sector pension provision
Paul McGlone, principal and actuary at Aon Hewitt, said:

"While today’s recommendations relate to the public sector, employers and employees in the private sector will be watching with interest, and not just because of the "public vs private sector" debate. The public sector is a major part of the economy and the private sector competes in many ways for the same talent.

"Today’s report means that there is likely to be a continued discrepancy between what pensions are offered by the public and private sector. Unless the private sector starts to reverse the recent trend towards lower cost DC that discrepancy looks set to be a permanent part of the employment landscape."


Lane Clark & Peacock

The Hutton Commission’s recommendations for UK public service pensions are a mixed bag for companies and charities interested in bidding for public sector work.

Bart Huby, partner and head of Public Sector Outsourcing at LCP, commented:

"The proposal to move toward a common framework for public service schemes should in the long-term help contractors by reducing the need for a complex array of pension arrangements to cover employees transferring from different parts of the public sector.

"However Recommendation 16, that it is undesirable for transferred employees to have continued access to public service schemes, will be of concern both for contractors and employees. As the report notes, the current arrangements under which employees have been able to continue in the Local Government Pension Scheme have worked well for many contractors, local authorities and employees by removing part of the pensions barrier for external contractors. Furthermore, the proposed move to a career average salary basis will remove one of the main risk issues for the public sector in such arrangements, as high salary increases will no longer result in extra liabilities arising for the public service scheme.

"Hutton’s recommendations will now feed through into the Government’s review of the Fair Deal rules that protect the pensions of public sector employees when services are outsourced, which was launched last week. The challenge for the Government will be to reduce the cost and complexity of the pensions element of outsourcing, whilst maintaining a pension that is fit for purpose within the new public service pensions landscape post-Hutton."


Pension Corporation

Comment from Bob Swarup, partner at Pension Corporation

After a heated public debate about the unfairness of public sector pensions, Lord Hutton’s report comes as a breath of fresh air. Its tone and suggested approach to addressing the issues is measured, which must surely be a good thing in such an emotionally-charged environment.

A quick read of the report reveals little to complain about and many things to commend. For example, the principles chosen to assess the public sector pensions landscape and reform options - affordability and sustainability, adequacy and fairness, supporting productivity (e.g. labour market efficiency), and transparency and simplicity - make good sense. Indeed, the first three are identical to those proposed by us previously (equity, efficiency and sustainability) as the hallmarks of any future pensions system:

It is also good to see that Lord Hutton dismisses the general perception that public sector pensions are gold-plated and rejects a race to the bottom in which the public sector would follow the private sector in dismantling occupational pensions. Suggesting that the value of contributions should reflect the value of benefits accrued or that final salary defined-benefit schemes are internally unfair also sounds like common sense. Public sector pay and pensions are currently misaligned, i.e. the pension entitlement currently in the public sector is unaffordable for a given salary - the proposed career average approach will help address this.

There will be many who will not like his policy recommendations, but if an increase in employee contribution rates can help to salvage public sector DB occupational pensions from being scrapped, then surely this ought to be a price worth paying. Equally, public sector workers ought to accept that their retirement age will have to go up as longevity increases, and probably not only for new joiners.

Getting this reform right will be crucial, not only for those in the public sector but also for those in the private sector. This is an opportunity not to be missed as it might then provide the impetus for a similar investigation into the even bigger challenge arising from the (dire) state of occupational pensions in the private sector. After all, what will be adequate in his view for the public sector should also be adequate for the private sector - how otherwise could it ever be perceived to be fair?

What is key ultimately to the entire pensions crisis is a coherent strategy to create a credible and sustainable pension system for future generations of pensioners across all income groups and sectors - public and private. Such a strategy would, among other things, deal with the vacuum left by the decline of defined benefit pension schemes in the private sector, which if left unattended would probably have to be filled by the government eventually. As it stands, we have taken some important steps forward but pensions as a whole still remain a crisis in slow motion.


Towers Watson

Public sector pensions to remain very valuable benefit

Lord Hutton’s report leaves a lot to play for when it comes to how much public sector pensions will be worth to employees and how much they will end up costing taxpayers. However, the report’s focus on the adequacy of public sector employees’ retirement incomes suggests that these pensions will remain very valuable benefits.

John Ball, head of UK pensions at Towers Watson, said: "Ultimately, the question is how big a pension people will get and how much they have to pay towards it. Lord Hutton has put that ball back into the Government’s court but there is every reason to believe that pension provision will remain a good reason to consider a career in the public sector."

How generous will public sector pensions be in future?
The Commission says "the primary purpose" of public sector pensions is to "ensure adequate levels of retirement income for public service pensioners" (p21) rather than, for example, to help the taxpayer remunerate its employees in the most cost-effective way. It says the Government should "ensure that public service pensions, along with a full State Pension, deliver at least adequate levels of income as defined by the Turner Commission benchmark replacement rates" (p37).

The proportion of employment income which Turner assumed people would need in retirement gets lower the further up the income scale you go. As an example, an ‘adequate’ retirement income for someone earning £30,000 is assumed to be £18,000 (p181). If the Government introduces a £140-a-week State Pension, in line with recent speculation, that would leave £10,700 to come from a reformed workplace pension scheme. If public sector pensions are expected to provide incomes that are "at least" adequate, they may on average be higher. A 66 year-old woman would need to have saved about £300,000 to buy a similar benefit on the open market1.

John Ball said: "This says as much about how much private sector employees will need to save as it does about the generosity of public sector pensions, but even a relatively modest annual income in retirement will be a very valuable perk if it is paid for 25 or 30 years and if you don’t have to take any risks with investments along the way."

The Independent Public Service Pensions Commission’s report rightly makes clear that there are trade-offs between different design features. In saying what some of these should be (for example, the normal pension age) but not others (for example, the accrual rate), it leaves ministers and trade unions to debate where on the cost spectrum the new pension arrangements should fall. However, the models used to illustrate possible outcomes suggest that the adjustment may come mostly through later retirement and higher employee contributions.

John Ball said: "For people who don’t get pay rises on promotion, career average benefits that are uprated with average earnings growth will be no less valuable than a final salary scheme. It could be that only high flyers get significantly lower annual pensions under the new arrangements, and that the big change for most employees will be to how long these pensions are paid out for. In that case, public sector employees will be able to look at what has happened in the private sector and conclude that it could have been a lot worse. With average life expectancy now above 90 in some of the big public sector schemes, there was never any prospect that the Government would continue promising pensions that could be paid in full from age 60."

Hutton chooses a more generous definition of accrued rights
The Commission has recommended that the final salary pensions employees have already been promised should be based on their actual final salary at retirement, rather than their current salary uprated for inflation.

John Ball said: "When private sector companies move existing employees out of final salary pensions, they can break the link between pensions earned to date and future pay rises. Lord Hutton’s decision not to recommend this is a big victory for current employees. If the Government accepts this recommendation, it will choose not to shave about £70bn off its existing pension liabilities. The Interim Report published by the Commission in October left the door open to this sort of change when discussing what was an accrued right and what wasn’t. It’s surprising that they have closed it again without discussing the sums of money that might be involved."

Full inflation protection to stay
The Commission recommended that public sector employees will continue to enjoy full inflation protection on pensions promised in future.

John Ball said: "Most private sector defined benefit schemes cap pension increases either at 5% or, increasingly, at 2.5% while most people saving in defined contribution schemes buy annuities that do not rise with inflation at all. A period of high inflation in future could therefore affect the incomes of pensioners who worked in the private sector a lot more than those who worked in the public sector. However, you can’t just look at one part of the scheme design in isolation from everything else."

The link between State Pension Age and normal pension age
The Commission recommended that the age at which newly promised benefits can be taken without reduction be linked to the State Pension Age, but that this link be kept under review to ensure it reflects developments in life expectancy.

John Ball said: "A much quicker rise in the State Pension Age above 66 might be the final piece in the jigsaw of the Government’s State Pension reforms. If it chose to fund a bigger State Pension by asking people to retire later, a rigid link would reduce the value of public sector pensions by meaning they were paid for less time but that the weekly value did not increase."

Pensions, pay and the public finances
The Commission recommends that the unfunded public sector schemes remain unfunded. John Ball said: "With the Government having to borrow billions of pounds in the markets, it was never going to want to find the money to pre-fund pension promises, too. However, while higher salaries for public sector employees show up in Government borrowing numbers, the value of unfunded pension promises do not. Unless these costs are recognised up front, there will still be an incentive for politicians to pay people through unfunded pension promises rather than salary even when a pay rise would be more valued by employees and cheaper for taxpayers in the long run."

The Commission recommends that "public service employers take greater account of public service pensions when constructing remuneration packages" (p36), but does not set out any guidelines for how these should be valued. It also notes that "if employees value the risk transfer implicit in many pension schemes, they might be prepared to receive lower total remuneration in return" (p34). John Ball said: "Much of the value of public sector pensions comes from the level of security, not just the size of the expected benefits. Having the taxpayer stand behind your pension is a valuable benefit in itself but not one which the Government has ever really communicated to its employees."


View Lord Hutton’s Independent Public Sector Pensions Commission report on public sector pensions