Tonight:
9°c
AT A time when many who work for private-sector businesses have no pension scheme at all, the details we disclose today of local authority executives' retirement packages highlight a widening gulf in provision for old age. At least seven chief executives are set to enjoy pensions of more than £100,000 a year as well as large lump sums on retirement.
Public-sector workers are protected from the pressures of commercial competition and, notwithstanding today's redundancies at City Hall, typically enjoy greater job security than they would in business. So there can no longer be any justification for vastly more generous pension provision at taxpayers' expense. Though there was a time when civil servants were paid less than their corporate equivalents, local government pay at the top has more than caught up, with nearly 20 town hall chiefs paid more than the Prime Minister, at over £188,000 a year, and hundreds in the six-figure salary bracket. Lavish pension provision comes on top of that.
In the private sector, by contrast, final-salary pension schemes have been closing to new entrants at a rapid rate as firms find them unaffordable. Many workers have seen their pension pots shrink because of a volatile stockmarket. Yet local government chiefs will be immune from the effects of recession when it comes to retirement - even those who have failed in their jobs.
It is an issue that will require political courage to address. Little can be done to challenge pensions now being paid. But there could be far tighter controls on early retirement, a problem evident throughout the public sector. As for new entrants to local government pension schemes, the packages on offer will have to change. At a time of rising unemployment, councils should not find it hard to recruit even if they offer less generous retirement terms. Council workers should have to work longer or increase their own contributions. And at the very least, council-tax payers should know how much town hall chiefs will get by way of pay and pensions. Those entitled to such lavish provision should at least have to justify it to the taxpayers who will pick up the bill.
Burma accused
THE MYANMAR government's house arrest of Aung San Suu Kyi, the peace campaigner and Nobel laureate, violates the country's own laws, according to the United Nations working group on arbitrary detentions. The criticism represents a new line of attack on the generals' treatment of Suu Kyi, sends a message underlining the junta's pariah status among nations and draws attention once more to the intransigence of the regime.
The group, part of the UN Human Rights Council, has renewed calls for Suu Kyi to be freed. Whether or not this move by the UN committee prompts any response from the Burmese government, it marks the first time that the UN has condemned the detention by reference to Burma's own statutes rather than international norms. Outside observers can only applaud once again Suu Kyi's continuing courage and dignity as she endures what is now the 14th year of detention in the compound in Yangon.
Football wealth
UEFA, the European football authority, has called for a "luxury tax" on star players whereby the richest clubs would hand over some of what they spend on top names to poorer teams, levelling the playing field. It is very hard to see the Premier League's top four ever agreeing to redistribution of wealth in this way, though it would undoubtedly make for more balanced competition. Football being what it is, Uefa would be better off encouraging clubs to do a Manchester City, and find generous new backers of their own.
