Sir, All the points made by James Kirkup about the need to plan pensions properly are valid, and as a beneficiary of the triple lock I have no doubt that it must be broken, and soon (“Making pensions popular is tough but vital”, comment, Jul 21). But there is one significant issue he did not mention. Recent chancellors have tinkered constantly with pensions, causing chaos, distress and significant expense for some (including me); Rachel Reeves clearly regards those who have been prudent as targets for her to extract money from the sums they have put aside. One especially unfair move will be the double taxation of funds left in a self-invested personal pension if its owner dies over the age of 75: pension funds will be taxed both at the point of inheritance and when beneficiaries withdraw those funds.
With examples like this, how can the younger generation be confident that they won’t also be targets for tax grabs if they are prudent enough to save for their future?
Clive Fletcher-Wood
Bristol
Sir, Rachel Reeves wants the public to invest in the UK but at the same time ministers and Labour MPs are criticising the payment of dividends by companies including those running transport and utilities. These dividends are funding pensions, which unlike those of the civil service, NHS and other public services are not funded by the taxpayer. Are they forgetting that people lend money so that they receive a “return” in a similar way that they would expect an interest payment on a building society or bank deposit?
Alison While
London W4
Sir, James Kirkup makes some excellent suggestions for making pensions a more visible and important part of our financial life but overlooks one key measure: we should take away public sector defined benefit pension schemes from all MPs and enrol the latter into defined contribution pensions instead. The huge disparity in pension provision and security between the private and public sector would level up in no time.
Anna Trenter
Westcott, Surrey
Sir, Higher-rate taxpayers are more likely to have sufficient money to pay into a pension than are basic-rate taxpayers. If a flat rate of 30 per cent relief were to be introduced, basic-rate taxpayers would have an incentive to pay in more while higher-rate taxpayers would still find it worthwhile to pay in.
My guess is that there would be two good outcomes: fewer people in the future needing state support in their old age, and an immediate net annual increase in tax revenue for the Treasury. Rachel Reeves would be able to claim this as a win-win both for “ordinary working people” and for future governments.
Tim Kelway
Fulbeck, Lincs
Sir, This morning the British public were treated to a lecture from the work and pensions secretary on our apparent failure to save adequately for retirement (“Labour orders review of state pension age as millions fail to save”, Jul 21). Given the parlous state of UK public finances, managed on our behalf by successive governments apparently ignorant of the relationship between spending and taxation, I must say I found this a bit rich.
Simon Morehen
West Bridgford, Notts
Orgreave inquiry
Sir, Experience shows that criminal trials that take place many years after the events giving rise to them are fraught with difficulty and have the potential for injustice (“Orgreave inquiry to begin work 41 years on”, Jul 21). Witnesses who may have been able to give valuable evidence will have died or will be untraceable, and those who remain have memories sullied by the passage of time and, in many cases, distorted by accounts several times retold and often merged with versions and opinions provided by others, who may or may not have been witnesses themselves. The inquiry into what happened more than 40 years ago at Orgreave falls into a similar category. Even under the chairmanship of the Bishop of Sheffield, supported by a myriad of experts, the truth will never be known and the result will be at best unsatisfactory. There are many better ways to spend public money, such as investing in the criminal justice system so that those now awaiting trial, whether as witnesses or defendants, do not have to wait years for their cases to be resolved.
His Honour Simon Tonking
Abbots Bromley, Staffs
Heart of the matter
Sir, Your leading article (“Justin’s Law”, Jul 21) rightly talks about the need for defibrillators to be more widely available. However, people need to perform immediate resuscitation (CPR) before using the defibrillator. In England the rate of successful out-of-hospital resuscitation for cardiac arrest is 10 per cent: in Norway it is nearly 60 per cent. This is because children in Norway have CPR training from the age of 12. This training should be immediately introduced and enforced in all UK schools; our local school has responded with significant enthusiasm to the suggestion.
Professor John Wass
Sibford Ferris, Oxon
Shocking sign
Sir, It is generous to the French and British that Cindy Yu (comment, Jul 21) should write that the notorious “No Dogs, No Chinese” signs are an urban myth, but sadly it is true. I was born in Hong Kong in 1940 and lived in Shanghai from 1947 to 1949. I remember my surprise and shock at first seeing these signs and asking the grown-up with me why they were there. Even an eight-year-old child could see that they were wrong.
Hugo Patten
London W8
Rights for women
Sir, The prime minister supported the Supreme Court judgment on the definition of sex in law: he welcomed the “real clarity” it brought. The government has made it clear that institutions should operate within the parameters laid out by the ruling. The court’s judgment was very clear on women’s sex-based rights.
It is therefore extremely depressing and disappointing to hear a Labour MP describe those who fought for clarity by the Supreme Court as “swivel-eyed transphobes” who were “not very well people” (“Gender-critical activists branded ‘swivel-eyed’ by Labour politician”, news, Jul 21). Tim Roca has also cast doubt on the validity of the ruling, viewing it purely through its implications for trans people rather than the much-needed benchmark for women’s status in law.
Roca’s attacks on women standing up for their rights are appalling and I would hope that Sir Keir Starmer will deal with him as summarily as he did Diane Abbott or those opposing the welfare reforms.
Melanie Lloyd
Swansea
Voting disparity
Sir, Before allowing more teenagers to vote (letters, Jul 19), might we not consider the glaring gap between contribution and influence? The part of society that provides the bulk of the UK’s revenue (as well as the opportunity for the majority of people to earn a living) is business. The financial contribution springs from direct business taxation, income tax on its employees, VAT, which is charged on the products and services it provides, plus rates on premises and import fees. Yet business is allowed no formal voice in government, is regarded on the left as a cash cow and on the old right is sneered at as “trade”. Business associations such as the CBI are occasionally wined and dined by chancellors but their advice carries no practical weight.
The extraordinary disconnect between the present government’s rhetoric on growth and its imposition of growth-inhibiting taxation illustrates the anomaly. The expression “He who pays the piper calls the tune” could not be less true in our form of democracy.
Michael Thomas
London SW1
Physician of sorts
Sir, Further to Rob Nash’s Feedback column (July 19), at least junior doctors can call themselves resident doctors without repercussions. Unfortunately, physician associates had no say in their new nomenclature as adopted by NHS England. The findings of Professor Gillian Leng’s report state clearly that the limited amount of research on the safety and effectiveness of physician associates and anaesthesia associates provides no evidence to support the notion that a safety risk is posed to patients.
I am perplexed as to how these findings have led to the probability of a huge amount of restrictions to our work scope, along with a “dumbing down” of the educational programme for future students. Maybe some of our professional colleagues would prefer our role to cease.
Catherine Sedgwick
Physician associate (now physician assistant), London SW18
Racist online abuse
Sir, The abuse of an England footballer is the latest example of insults hurled over the internet (“Lionesses will stop taking the knee after racist abuse online”, news, Jul 21). Section 5 (1) of the Public Order Act 1985 makes it an offence to use “threatening, or abusive or insulting words … within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby”. Sub-section (2) indicates that the behaviour can occur in public or private but excludes “words or behaviour …. inside a dwelling”.
Is it not time for this to be amended to criminalise abusive words over the internet that are likely to cause alarm or distress, which would be criminal if uttered directly to that person? Criminal law has regulated our personal conduct towards each other for years. Surely the internet is a “public place” for which individuals who generate abuse likely to cause “alarm or distress” should be capable of being prosecuted?
James Wood KC
Doughty Street Chambers, WC1
Sir, Given the failure of the social media platforms to curb online abuse, surely one solution is for the England players to avoid social media and communicate with their friends using only secure online services. This would freeze out the abusers.
Dr Gill Dean
Abingdon, Oxon
Science superpower
Sir, I am sure the vast majority of UK scientists are indeed deeply embarrassed by the irritating boast sprayed around by politicians that this country is a “science superpower” (“British boasts of being a ‘science superpower’ are a bit cringe”, Tom Whipple, Jul 18). I have had the honour of publishing with two UK Nobel laureates (Sir Nevill Mott and Sir John Houghton) and I believe that even they would feel uncomfortable with such repeated pronouncements. This unnecessary boasting opens us up to ridicule by our scientist colleagues across the world.
Professor Peter P Edwards FRS
Oxford University
Charm itself
Sir, Ted Heath could certainly be huffy (TMS, Jul 19; letter, Jul 21). When I chaired an Economist conference in the 1990s, at which he was our key speaker, I introduced him, teasingly reminding him that he had once called the newspaper “a coffee table magazine for aspiring American female intellectuals”. To which Heath’s flat, unsmiling response was: “Oh yes, and I meant it.”
Jeremy Wagener
Boxford, Suffolk
Neutered tapestry
Sir, Vivien Sultoon (letter, Jul 21) is right to draw attention to the magnificent replica of the Bayeux Tapestry at Reading Museum. The 35 Victorian ladies of the Leek Embroidery Society who embroidered it were working from the photographs of Joseph Cundall. The monochrome prints were hand-tinted by art students and anything considered “rude” was censored. Hence visitors to Reading Museum should not expect to be able to count the 93 or 94 penises found in the upper and lower borders of the medieval original.
John Orton
Portishead, Somerset