Misdirection exposed?

The Financial Times print a letter from Mr John Normanton that says:

"Sir, The underlying position with Sir Fred Goodwin’s pension is simpler than most commentators make out and the background to it is explained in plain English in the 2007 Royal Bank of Scotland Report and Accounts on pages 109 and 114.

On page 114 it is explained that, as at 31 December 2007, Sir Fred had accumulated an entitlement to a pension of £579,000 a year. This had a transfer value, but the notes state that “the transfer values do not represent a sum paid or payable to the individual director. Instead they represent a potential liability of the Group pension scheme.”

The transfer value, which is the “pot” that has been much discussed, is not relevant. The relevant factor is the annual pension payable.

On page 109: “The RBS Fund rules allow all members who retire early at the request of their employer to receive a pension based on accrued service with no discount applied for early retirement.”"

Mr Normanton concludes his letter thus:

"Anyone who had bothered to read the 2007 Report and Accounts would have realised that Sir Fred would be receiving a pension of more than £579,000 a year, payable with immediate effect if he was asked to retire early.

Do we believe that no one in the Treasury read the 2007 Report and Accounts or do we believe that we have been misled by people who were aware of the contents of that report?

John Normanton,
Northwich, Cheshire, UK"

I presume the BBC will be investigating this angle or will they continue to blame the banks and bankers for everything so as to protect the Labour government?