BHS pension gap: What should happen now?

I HAVE no admiration for Messrs Green and Chappell, but current criticism of the BHS pension debacle is focused on the wrong targets. Final salary pension schemes are hived off from the sponsoring company; the legal management of their funds rests with a board of trustees. The employer has no access to the funds and is expected to agree recovery plans with trustees, when required. These trustees have a personal liability to ensure the correct running of the scheme they administer. When they recognise a major issue, the law requires them to address it promptly. If a problem resides with the sponsoring company, trustees are expected to alert the Pensions Regulator to protect members’ benefits. In the BHS case, should the trustees not be considered incompetent or, worse still, negligent if they haven’t protected the scheme? It’s clear the Pensions Regulator should have been invited in much earlier.

DAVID PARKER, Leyland, Lancs. THE financial authorities who are supposed to regulate pension funds seem impotent with regard to Sir Philip Green and the BHS pension fund. The amount of money the pension fund is missing shouldn’t be up for discussion. There’s a specific amount missing: end of story. This amount should be made clear to Sir Philip and if he doesn’t pay it within a specified time (say six weeks), he should be facing very serious consequences. The regulatory bodies seem to lack any real teeth to bring these people into line.

BRIAN STARKEY, Brampton, Cambs. IT’S RIGHT that Philip Green’s wife should be pursued to plug the BHS pensions deficit. Green may keep his assets in his wife’s name as a way of potentially safeguarding the family’s holdings should he be pursued for money in any legal action pertaining to his businesses. This avaricious couple should be brought to book.

DIANE SILVA, Lytham, Lancs.