THE man at the centre of a pension scheme crisis has gone on the offensive over the controversy.

Brian Gay broke his public silence to reveal how he and fellow trustees had fought successfully to prevent further financial heartache at the 11th hour.

They persuaded bosses at APW Electronics at Chandler's Ford to nearly triple their final payment offer to £2.3m.

He had come under fire for being on holiday while 1,000 current and former workers struggled to understand why their pension fund collapsed without warning.

Up to 80 per cent of the value of their pension had been wiped out when the scheme was wound up in the High Court with a £55m black hole.

Mr Gay, who is chairman of the trustees and the scheme's figurehead, gave a wide-ranging and detailed explanation of his actions to the Daily Echo.

His answers come as management, unions and trustees meet today at the factory for talks on how to help the worst affected victims.

Mr Gay insisted the trustees acted at all times in the best interests of members.

He said: "The trustees rely on professional advisers for guidance on investment strategy, and have done their utmost in recent years to maximise the growth of funds under their control, and thus minimise the ongoing deficit."

The under-funding first emerged in 2000, and a poorly-performing stock market eroded investments, despite APW maintaining payments at or above the minimum level required by experts, said Mr Gay.

That deficit increased as hundreds of jobs were shed at APW's other factories in Hedge End and Uxbridge. The reduced payroll - down to 300 or less from a peak of 850 in the late 1990s - proved increasingly expensive and the company was asked to up its contributions.

But APW could not afford the increase and proposed a compromise where the scheme would be wound up to avoid forcing the company into administration.

Trustees then spent ten weeks negotiating the "very best deal they could for all scheme members", Mr Gay said.

"The final agreement on the settlement figure, which is nearly three times what was initially offered on a take-it-or-leave it basis, was given only hours before the UK company would have been placed into administration with the potential loss of al the remaining jobs in the UK, and no final payment into the scheme," he added.

He attacked suggestions that it would have been better for the company to fail as "nonsense", saying it would have left nearly 300 people jobless.