A small step towards justice for pensioners
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.The only surprise about the Government's decision to set up a fund to help 60,000 workers who lost their pensions when their employers went bankrupt is that it was so long in coming. The alternative was to leave retired workers who had expected company pensions relying on state benefits. These people had paid into company schemes precisely in order not to depend on state benefits. Failure by ministers to act would also have sent the opposite message to the one the Government wants to convey, which is that people should make provision for their own retirement. This is what these workers did, at a time when the choice was between the company scheme or nothing.
The only surprise about the Government's decision to set up a fund to help 60,000 workers who lost their pensions when their employers went bankrupt is that it was so long in coming. The alternative was to leave retired workers who had expected company pensions relying on state benefits. These people had paid into company schemes precisely in order not to depend on state benefits. Failure by ministers to act would also have sent the opposite message to the one the Government wants to convey, which is that people should make provision for their own retirement. This is what these workers did, at a time when the choice was between the company scheme or nothing.
It is easy to be cynical and argue that the decision was announced in time for the local elections . Of course, there is politics here as well as justice. It can also be objected that the money earmarked by the Government is not enough to replace what the retired workers have lost. Nor will it be retrospective, which is clearly unjust. The pensioners of bankrupt companies may have to settle for less than the amounts to which their company schemes entitled them.
But it is still more than they would have got without the Government's change of heart, and, at a time whenmany workers will have to rely on private provision, with all the risks that entails, it is still proportionately more than the next generation of pensioners is likely to receive.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments