Pensions

The President : First of all, I thank NKS Jazz for the rousing start to the second day of Congress.

1995 Pensions Act

Mr Tony Young (General Council), leading in on Chapter 6 of the General Council's Report, said: We had an important debate yesterday about main‑stream industrial issues like employment rights and union recognition. These are the issues for the workers of today and the workers of tomorrow.

In the trades union Movement we do not forget yesterday's workers who are today's pensioners; neither do we forget the fact that we all hope to become pensioners one day, to have a happy and secure retirement. That image of a comfortable and secure retirement is far from reality for large numbers of current pensioners and people still working.

The future of pensions is one of the most important challenges facing the trades union Movement in the coming decades. At its simplest, how do we ensure that the people we represent have enough money to live on once they stop working? The issue is an extremely important and pressing one and, much as we might like to, it is not something we can put off thinking about until a few years before we retire.

Britain has one of the lowest state pensions in Europe. According to a recent survey, British pensioners are the second poorest throughout Europe. If we do not want to continue being a nation of poor pensioners, one thing is for sure: we cannot continue with the status quo.

The Labour victory on May 1st presents us with a wonderful opportunity to reverse the heartless policies of the Conservative Government and to get a decent deal for current and future generations of pensioners. The Government have made a quick and positive start by announcing a review of long‑term pensions policy. I am pleased to say that Ministers are keen to listen to the TUC; we want to sit down with them and make a constructive contribution to policy. Just as for the Government, for the TUC this must start with taking millions of current pensioners out of poverty.

Growing old in Britain today can be an undignified process. Poverty and dependency are common conditions amongst those who have finished work, those who have contributed so much to society. Half of single pensioners have an income of only , 67.40 a week once tax and housing have been deducted. It is little wonder that 2 million pensioners depend on income support to supplement inadequate pensions. The quickest and easiest way to lift pensioners out of poverty is to restore the earnings link for uprating basic state pensions. Motion 94 calls for precisely this measure, and I urge you to support it, Congress.

The TUC shares the Government's goal of wanting to build the essential foundations for decent and secure pensions. That is the very least that working people deserve. These have also been the goals of the TUC's own Pensions Review Group, whose interim findings are reported in the annex of Chapter 6 of the General Council's Report, which is the result of a motion passed at last year's Congress.

Half the working population (10 million working people) do not have an occupational pension; they are dependent on SERPS, which has been treated like a political football over the past ten years and which is not, and never will be, worth what was intend for it in 1978. Alternatively, if they are really unlucky, they might be relying on a personal pension. I suspect everyone in this room knows at least one person who was ripped off when they were sold, or mis‑sold, a personal pension. Thousands were duped into leaving first‑class occupational schemes for inferior, inappropriate and expensive personal pensions. Personal pensions are not a safe way to provide a secure retirement for the majority of working people.

We need to look at new ways of providing pensions for the millions who are deprived who slip through the pensions net. I am talking here about the low paid, temporary workers, part‑timers, most of whom are women who continue to get a raw deal when it comes to pensions. Of course, more and more men are also being affected by contract, agency and temporary work and they too will face an uncertain retirement.

Legal changes have meant that part‑time workers can now enjoy the same pension rights as full‑time workers, but we want employers to make up for past discrimination because we have not always been able to achieve this through negotiation. The TUC is co‑ordinating legal action on behalf of unions to achieve this outcome. I urge you to support motion 95 and the amendment urging the TUC to continue this good work. We look forward to the next stage in this legal battle which, if successful, will win valuable benefits for around 60,000 workers.

Congress, all working people deserve the right to a high quality, collectively provided second pension. Regardless of their employment status, this basic employment condition should not be restricted to those lucky enough to have permanent full‑time jobs. Employers of contract and agency staff should not be able to escape their responsibilities to contribute to occupational pension schemes. We will be looking very carefully, over the coming months, at the Government's proposals for new stakeholder and citizenship pensions.

The trades union Movement also has the opportunity to become more directly involved in delivering decent pension benefits to our members. This is not an opportunity we should duck. We need to encourage the growth of occupational pension schemes. We need to have a stable and favourable tax regime, which will encourage our members to join schemes and also employers to set them up in the first place. Motion 96 (as amended) calls for precisely this measure, and I urge you to support it. We have already made a positive start. When our next Congress meets, we will have further recommendations to make to you.

I commend to you Chapter 6 of the General Council's Report and the interim report of the Pensions Review Working Group. I urge you to support motions 94, 95, 96 and their amendments.

I also invite you to discuss these issues further in a fringe meeting this lunchtime in the Skyline Restaurant. That meeting is your opportunity to hear directly from the Government's pensions minister, John Denham and, if you are lucky, put your question directly to him.

We have laid the foundations for a pensions policy that will deliver worthwhile pension benefits to working people. Together with the Pensioners Movement, ably led by Jack Jones, we will continue to fight for justice for today's pensioners who, throughout their working lives, have fought for, worked for and contributed so much to our country. They deserve nothing less.

Public Sector Pensions

Mr Norman Jemison (The University & College Lecturers' Union), speaking to paragraph 6.4, said: The vast majority of teachers and lecturers are public sector workers and contribute to the teachers superannuation scheme.

In her final gift to the teaching profession, Gillian Shephard, as Secretary of State, chose to change the Teachers' Pension Regulations and, as you would expect from a Tory, certainly not to improve them. There were a number of changes, but I limit myself to commenting on the decision to transfer the cost of early retirement pensions away from the pension fund on to the employers.

There was a short consultation period, during which time all education unions, as well as the employers (in the form of local education authorities, incorporated colleges and the new universities) made their objections to the changes. The consultation was the usual Tory position of totally ignoring representations and going ahead anyway.

Teachers and lecturers are encouraged on appointment to join the Teachers' Pension Scheme. The benefits are explained to them, and the payment of a crude pension if made redundant in their 50s plays a major part in their decision to make their pension contributions.

Contributions by employees and employers are not invested in a funded scheme but are used by the Government as a tax. Contributions no doubt have paid for guns, bombs, warships and many forms of public spending, as well as funding tax cuts for the rich. Had the contributions been in a funded scheme, , 117.5 billion would have been available for reinvestment in the scheme and to pay the benefits for which people joined. The Tories would say that they have not stopped such pensions being paid but have merely transferred the costs from the pension scheme directly on to the employer.

Due to consistent underfunding of all education by the Tory Government, most people are aware that schools and colleges do not have the money to pay people's pensions. When faced with unavoidable staff reductions, school and college managements use the Premature Retirement Regulations, permitting staff approaching the end of their careers (who found the repeated changes imposed on the education service, increased workloads and stress levels, difficult to cope with) a humane way out, whilst helping to preserve the jobs of their younger colleagues.

Understandably, occupation pension schemes are not yet available to all workers, but Police and Fire Service employees and employees of large companies, such as British Steel and ICI, can receive their pensions if made redundant in their 50s.

Finally, the DfEE are to carry out another review of the Teachers' Pension Scheme under a Labour Government. The education unions hope that the consultation will be more meaningful than under the Tories and that our members will get a further return on their contributions.

Winning pensions for part‑time workers

Ms Wendy Richards (Association of University Teachers), speaking to paragraph 6.5, said: The AUT has been very much involved in the campaign to win pensions for part‑time workers, in particular with respect to the vast numbers of part‑time tutors employed by the Open University.

Many of our members are involved in a European Court of Justice case being pursued by the TUC and we are having some successes through negotiation with individual employers. However, the area in which we experience most resistance is that of so‑called casual part‑time tutors, those who are paid by the hour rather than those paid a pro rata salary, which tend to be rather easier to deal with. We find that universities are reluctant to afford so‑called casual part‑timers the right to join the Universities Pension Scheme, even though these so‑called casual workers may do three or four hours' teaching per week in term time. Of course such problems could be resolved by the ECJ case; they could equally be resolved by a forthcoming Directive, but all of this will take time. Early legislation by our new Labour Government (which deals in fairness, as it keeps reminding us) would be a much more sensible solution to this issue. Where their employers provide pension schemes, it is only fair that all part‑time workers get access to such a scheme. Legislation can provide this right far more swiftly than European intervention. AUT is urges the General Council to give us an assurance that, in its meetings and discussions with the new Government, it will press for legislation in this area. We would welcome this assurance.

Part‑time workers' pensions access claims

Ms Christine Robinson (Independent Union of Halifax Staff) moved the following motion:

(Insert Motion 95 and amendment)

She said: To those delegates who have already asked me what has happened to my feet and not raced past me on the way to somewhere saying, "See you there", not laughed openly at my condition ‑‑ and this does not include my own General Secretary ‑‑ thank you. To those 430 of you who may still ask, I fell off my skateboard. To the Brighton pensioner who stops the traffic to take me across the road at the close of Conference, thank you from the bottom of my heart, but my hotel is on this side of the road.

More seriously, may I congratulate Tony Dubbins and John Monks for not ignoring the events of the past ten days. Whilst I am well aware that the feelings of loss and sadness are not universally shared, it seems to me entirely appropriate that they both reflected in some way the profound impact of those whose views and aspirations we are here to reflect.

The world is bereft of two powerful women who each, in their own very different ways, gave a respectable and credible profile to those who care for others. On Saturday, Dr Carey (one of our esteemed guests today) said, "Let us commit ourselves anew to that caring". The very foundation of the work we do, the rationale for our endeavours, is the care and the concern we have for those we represent, and indeed for those for whom we still so fervently seek the right to representation.

Translating that care into tangible benefit is never easy. We negotiate still with those whose creed is profit -- balancing the books and profit, corporate image and profit. Whilst we have been willing to learn and take on board the needs of business, the majority of employers still do not respond. It is joyous, therefore, to be able to make public and put on record a successful partnership negotiation, one born of mutual respect between union and enlightened employer.

Earlier this year, the IUHS concluded an agreement with the Halifax Bank which granted retrospective pension rights to 1300 of our members. The missing years were reinstated. The detail of the settlement is now a matter of public record, but it cast aside discrimination against part‑time staff, mostly women and those who were restricted from membership of the pension scheme by, of all things, marriage. It did so without waiting for the legislation to make the moral and ethical judgment ‑‑ the law grinds exceeding slow, as we all know.

It was said yesterday that good employers are undermined by bad. It would be uplifting if we could reverse that trend even in this one area. By raising the profile of the IUHS settlement, and others to which BIFU will refer, we do not seek to crow but to kick‑start that movement in the right direction.

Our 1300 members are a small proportion of the 60,000 outstanding cases across the TUC. Time is of the essence. Sadly, some members have not lived and others will not live to receive the benefits. Others will be affected by restrictive Inland Revenue regulations which will preclude additional payments when a settlement has been reached after retirement.

Please use the motion as it is intended, to support your work towards a negotiated settlement. Hang your hat on our paragraph 4. Part‑time workers have long faced the stigma of being second‑class citizens, and the struggle continues to change that. Meanwhile, let us ensure that this group of staff, at least in retirement, can look forward to choice, dignity, independence and security, which are the watchwords of good retirement.

Finally, I need to declare a personal interest. As a lay officer and employee of the Halifax who worked part‑time for many years, I am of course a beneficiary of the settlement. I thank my own union in its efforts and especially our General Secretary (I hope that does not end up costing us more money!), all the unions who registered for tribunals and the TUC for its sterling efforts in coordination. Also I thank someone else and something else that you will not often hear from this rostrum: my employer, the Halifax. My little "Xtra help" will effectively increase my own pension credit from ten years to cover the whole of the 20 years of my employment. Imagine, as I draw towards my retirement, how wonderful that feels. Colleagues, spread the joy. I commend the motion and the amendment to you.

Mr Jim Williams (BIFU), in seconding the motion, said: If I were to ask you what was the biggest robbery over the past 25 years, what would it be? Would it be the Great Train Robbery? Would it be the bullion robbery at Heathrow? I think not. It would be the cool, calculated, systemic theft of millions of pounds of pension benefits from hundreds of thousands of part‑time workers. When industry was found out, what did it say, "It's a fair cop, gov, but I'm only going to give you back the past two years". If there is one thing the trades union Movement likes, it is a fight and, by God, we took them on. We said, "We will take you to an industrial tribunal", and we went. The tentacles of British industry creep far and long, and we lost. We took them to the Employment Appeals Tribunal, and we lost. They even said, "You are not even going to go to the European Court of Justice". Why? Think on. If we get to Europe, we will win. They said, "You are not going there", and we said, "We will see you in the House of Lords where we will appeal that decision". We are awaiting that appeal.

Any good general has more than one front to fight on and the TUC has good generals. We are fighting on another front. We are presently awaiting a decision at the European Court of Justice on two other parallel cases on the two‑year limitation rule. In keeping with the normal procedures of that sort of system, the EC Advocate‑General has already given his opinion on these cases. His opinion is quite clear. He says that the period of work for conferring benefits under an occupational pension scheme must be calculated, as a matter of principle, from April 8th, 1976. He also goes on to say that national courts cannot apply any national law which does not permit that retroactive admission beyond these two years. We welcome that development because it shows what a concentrated combined effort of the trades union Movement can do. On behalf of BIFU and the other unions involved, I pay tribute to and thank the TUC for their support with staff time and finance in this fight.

In conclusion, I look forward hopefully to the European Court confirming the EC Advocate‑General's opinion. I call on the Government not to wait on that decision but to move swiftly to changing the UK legislation on this matter.

Mr Lesley Backhouse (Institution of Professionals, Managers and Specialists): We support this motion on behalf of the many part‑time workers we have present here today. Being a part‑time worker, I have first‑hand experience of the disadvantages part‑time working brings in maintaining reckonable service. I congratulate the Independent Union of Halifax Staff in getting its employers to agree to the claims with the 1300 affected staff back‑dated to 1976. However, as Christine already said, we still have 60,000 claims in the pipeline.

Pensions have to meet the needs of the people. Elderly people are often unable to meet basic needs, proper food and heating their homes. We must take up the challenge of providing adequate pensions so that pensioners in the new millennium and those at present get what they deserve after such long and hard‑working lives. Low‑paid workers and part‑time workers are also inadequately provided for, so I congratulate the TUC for their support. Paragraph 6.6 of the TUC Report mentions that they are setting up a pension hotline to improve the pension power of women. I urge you to make this number known to all your members, and, being an 0800 number, it need not cost you anything: 0800‑882 123. The hotline will be staffed during Pensions Awareness Week, 22nd to 26th September. There are many women out there who, through no fault of their own but through the iniquities of the system, have inadequate pensions. We have to support this motion.

* The motion was CARRIED

Taxation of occupational pension schemes

Ms Frances Richardson (Communication Workers Union) moved the following motion:

(Insert Motion 96 and amendment)

She said: The TUC welcomed the package of investment measures announced by Gordon Brown's first Budget. The trades union Movement has long been concerned about low investment levels in British industry and about short‑termism. Changes to Advance Corporation Tax in the Budget were designed to encourage companies to retain profits for investment rather than pay high levels of dividends to shareholders, as well as raising much needed revenue to fund the expansion of education and training.

Changes to ACT are expected to raise an extra , 3 billion net. However, , 2 billion of this is expected to come from pension funds. We are concerned to ensure that pension scheme members do not suffer, either by a reduction in benefits or through having to pay higher contributions to fund this tax change. Moreover, the loss of 25% tax relief to pension funds brought about by the Budget increases the danger of employers closing their final salary pension schemes and offering new employees inferior money purchase arrangements.

The TUC's Pensions Review Working Group has reaffirmed the TUC's view that final salary pension schemes are the best route to good occupational pensions for the majority of working people. With final salary schemes, pension benefits are guaranteed and the employee contributes a fixed percentage of pay. The employer typically pays the balance of cost to fund the pension promise. If this year's tax changes increase the cost to employers, more may be tempted to join the money purchase tide. The TUC regards money purchase/defined contribution schemes as generally second best because pension benefits are not guaranteed; it is the employee, not the employer, who shoulders the risk of variable investment returns. Indeed, those of our members already in money purchase or personal pension schemes may find themselves hardest hit by the Budget's changes. This is because the loss of 25% tax relief on UK dividend income reduces the overall rate of return on their pension funds immediately.

Another potential consequence of the Budget will be to add to the cost of extending occupational pensions coverage in the UK. This would be bad news at a time when the proportion of workers in occupational pension schemes is already falling and the future of the state earnings‑related scheme is uncertain.

The TUC believes that all workers should have the right to join a second‑tier pension scheme into which they and their employers are required by law to pay contributions. As a result of the budget tax changes, employers, employees or both will now have to pay more contributions to fund a decent level of pension.

This amended motion proposes a number of positive measures to ensure that the union's task does not become more difficult in seeking to defend existing good occupational schemes and to extend second‑tier pensions to all workers.

First, we are calling on the General Council to examine as part of the TUC's pension review programme ways of maintaining the value of pension funds. Secondly, we are urging the Government to monitor the impact of its tax changes and ensure that the pensions industry takes a balanced, long‑term view of the tax changes rather than overreacting by cutting pension benefits, raising member contributions or closing final salary schemes.

Finally, the TUC's input into the current Government's pensions review should examine thoroughly future tax regimes that will encourage employers to maintain good occupational pensions. The tax regime should encourage those employers without a company pension scheme to help unions achieve our long‑term key objective of extending decent second‑tier pensions to all workers.

Mr Jim O'Donnell (British Air Line Pilots Association): The fact that BALPA sought to amend this motion, so ably put forward by the CMA, means that we would certainly urge Congress to register its concerns at the removal of ACT credits from pension schemes. We believe that we should proceed as part of the TUC's pensions review and not by a separate campaign against the Budget. Why? Simply because we believe Congress can be expected to endorse the terms of the TUC's budget submission, and that documents general endorsement of New Labour's attempt to improve the long‑term effectiveness of the economy. A call to campaign against an integral part of that programme would cause obvious problems, but we do not believe that the TUC should be aligned with the strong overreaction which has seen the National Association of Pension Funds and the new Conservative opposition repeating each other's overestimates of the costs, and even using the same phrases.

However, final salary and money purchase schemes will both face real increases in costs. It was misleading of the Government to claim that these costs could be absorbed by schemes in surplus. The reality is that more schemes will not be able to absorb the loss of revenue amounting to some , 2 billion.

Naturally, together with other colleagues, we will attempt to ensure that the costs are met by the employer, but again the difficulties are obvious. We also agreed with the TUC delegation which told the financial secretary of the Treasury that the ACT change would precipitate a shift from defined benefit to defined contribution schemes.

BALPA believes that whilst it is important to record our concerns, the basic idea contained in the original motion should not be rejected by Congress. The motion (as amended) will produce the correct balance of dealing with the problem through ongoing TUC pensions review. We can cooperate positively through our review and the Government's own review. A high profile campaign against the central Government policy is hardly likely to produce a receptive atmosphere to our detailed and constructive proposals.

Finally, the amended motion contains an important point on how to proceed. It is highly likely that cooperation with actuaries and others will produce a more realistic estimate of cost. Hopefully, and more importantly, we will produce an alternative means of dealing with the problem which will not have the dire consequences predicted by others.

I urge you to support the amended motion and make constructive dialogue with the Government possible on all of the pension issues.

Mr Tam Dolan (Public Services, Tax and Commerce Union): We support motion 96.

The taxation of pension schemes is, to say the least, a very dry subject, but the taxation status of these schemes is fundamental to their existence. Pension tax reliefs are worth millions of pounds per year and it is PTC members who ensure they are applied professionally and fairly. PTC has a long and proud record of campaigning for fair taxation. We are determined that fair tax principles will apply to pension schemes.

Many pension schemes have long been a potential scheme of tax avoidance and other abuses by the wealthy and unscrupulous. It is important that the rules are followed fairly by all.

Ironically, the abolition of Advance Corporation Tax credits for non‑taxpayers in the UK with immediate effect and for foreign residents in 18 months' time will cost PTC members jobs, as it is PTC members who ensure that the tax credits are routed back to the pensions schemes and other non‑tax paying bodies. When these PTC jobs go, it is vital that the resources released are redeployed to help prevent "fat cat" tax avoidance, to ensure fair tax treatment of pensions schemes and for benefit payment to safeguard those who are not covered by occupational pension schemes and whose retirement pensions have been eroded to provide bribes for personal pensions. PTC pledges to make its expertise and that of its members available to the TUC's pensions review to help ensure a fair and equitable tax and benefit scheme for all.

* The motion was CARRIED.

Pensions

Mr Lew Adams (ASLEF) moved the following motion:

(Insert Motion 94 and amendment)

He said: The gap between the rich and poor has widened dramatically during the past 18 years of Tory rule. There has been a double blow for the pensioners because the gap between earnings and pensions has also widened. The basic state pension has fallen from 22.6% of average earnings in 1980 to 17.4% in 1996. If that trend were to continue, it would be 10.8% in the year 2020. Those figures clearly show the Tories have callously stolen up to , 10 billion a year from the pensioners.

Pensioners' standards of living, their dignity, their self‑esteem and, most of all, their deferred wage have been eroded. That erosion started when the link between pensions and average earnings was axed in 1980 and it must now be stopped. We urge the new Labour Government to start rebuilding the value of state pensions. They should begin by restoring the link with average earnings so that future increases in pensions reflect increases in wages instead of prices. To make good the ground that was lost during the period of Tory misrule, we require a substantial increase for current pensioners, an increase of at least one‑third of the basic state pension.

We recognise the problems facing the Government, problems inherited from the previous administration, but we must ensure that every person has the right to a dignified retirement, a right to a proper, affordable and good life after work.

The new Government have promised to deliver a fairer and more caring society. Pensions are crucial to delivering that promise. The National Pensioners Confederation, led by Jack Jones, will put their case before the Government's pension review. They do not ask for the impossible or the unattainable. They call for a start to be made on restoring pensions to their former level, as a proportion of average earnings, over the next five years. They have put forward practical ways to achieve this: a call for the restoration of the earnings link in April 1998 and an additional 1.1% of average earnings or 6% of pensions in each pensionable year from 1998 up to the year 2002. Simply reversing the 0.2% cut in employers' National Insurance contributions (which was made in April 1997) would mean that a Tory Budget would provide more than enough to pay for the earnings linked for the next two years. The cost of catching up could also be paid for by the use of additional revenue resulting from the abolition of the corporate tax credits and/or the restoration of Treasury contributions to the National Insurance fund (which have fallen from 7.6 billion in 1993/1994 to 1.4 billion in 1997/1998) and/or additional contributions from more people back to work and the introduction of the national minimum wage. It could be paid for by a determined attack on tax avoidance, in particular tax‑free and National Insurance‑free perks, or by a reallocation of National Insurance contributions. All these alternatives are being put by the pensioners.

Finally, we accept and fully support the GPMU's amendment to our original motion. In making provision for pensions for all, we call on the Government to take account of the equality issues, that women have the same pension opportunities as men irrespective of circumstance. Congress has shown that it supports the pensioners as the pensioners, our forefathers, supported this trades union Movement. I ask you to support unanimously the motion before conference in supporting the pensioners' reasonable request.

Mr Dominic Wilcox (Graphical, Paper and Media Union), seconding the motion, said: The GPMU's amendment to Motion 94 seeks a pension provision that would guarantee a dignified retirement, free from poverty and means testing. That is a short sentence, but if that objective could be achieved, it would be a major benefit for thousands of working people. There can be no more telling measurement of a civilised society than the way its retired workers are treated. I do not want to live in a society where retired workers are expected to exist on a pittance. Make no mistake, we will have an enormous battle to restore the link between pensions and earnings. All the signs are that this link will eventually become irrelevant because there will not be any state pensions at all.

The GPMU hopes that any politicians considering the private sector's involvement in pensions will bear in mind the recent personal pension scandal. Thousands of people were given misleading advice, for which many are still waiting to be compensated. Many retired GPMU members are still suffering as a result of the Maxwell scandal. Those events were symptomatic of the Tory era of greed and sleaze; they were based on a Thatcherite creed that there was no such thing as society; it was everyone for themselves. I do not think that attitude has disappeared. There are still those people, all of whom are not in the Tory Party, who have no experience of unemployment or long‑term sickness, or what, for many people, are the hard realities of everyday life. They assume because they have a comfortable lifestyle and can afford to invest in a private pension that everyone else should do the same. They are wrong.

The second area the GPMU amendment addressed was that of the quality of pension provision. Women have always had a raw deal as far as pensions are concerned. We believe every effort must be made to address the anomalies that exist, for example employment breaks for family responsibilities, either as mothers or as carers of elderly parents. We are pleased to see the Government's Act on Pensions for Carers and in the area of pension splitting on divorce. The GPMU's view is clear: equality is not just a women's issue; it is a trades union issue that affects each and every one of us.

Trades unionism has never been only about the world of work. It is important that this Congress demonstrates its concern for the issues of pensions and of equality. Please give this motion your support.

Mr Brian Kenny (Communication Workers Union): We offer full support for Motion 94. The basic state pension at the moment is , 62.45 a week for an individual, whilst a married couple get an extra , 37.35. In 1980 the Tories stopped increasing the rate of pensions in line with the higher of either prices or earnings, linking it to prices only. If the earnings link had been maintained, the basic state pension now would be , 86 a week for a single person and , 137.65 pence for a married couple.

Pensions must be reviewed. We have learned today that the Government have already announced in July this year a review of pensions. As the TUC, we must get our views across as part of that review. We need to point out to the Government that pension provision in this country is already some way short of the standards we set ourselves at last year's Congress when we carried the resolution to ensure that all workers would be protected by adequate pension benefits.

A fact we cannot get away from is that the population of the UK is ageing and that there are fewer contributors to the current state system. Despite this, we must not allow pensions, which are already amongst the worst in the European Union, to be reduced even further.

The result of the change brought about by the Tories in 1980 has seen a drastic fall in the real value of pensions in this country. In 1980, the basic pension was worth well over 20% of average earnings; by last year, it had reduced to 16%. The Labour Government must make an early commitment to stop the decline in pensioners' incomes. There are people, some of whom may be in this hall, who argue that this country cannot afford to restore the link between pensions and earnings. In a civilised society we cannot afford not to restore that link because this would have a positive effect on the incomes of millions of pensioners, many of whom are already amongst the poorest people in our society.

My father‑in‑law, Fred Taylor, was a loyal and dedicated officer of the Transport and General Workers Union until just before he died a few years ago. His main passion in the union was pensions. He always argued strongly that all working people should have the right to a decent pension, regardless of their employment status. We should support that view unanimously, not only by carrying proposition 94 but by making representations to the Labour Government to ensure that they bring it about.

* The motion was CARRIED

The President : I call paragraph 2.2 on page 17 of the General Council's Report. I call Rodney Bickerstaffe to introduce the TUC's work on the economy and employment.

Contents    Next section...

This page http://www.tuc.org.uk/the_tuc/tuc-2423-f1.cfm
printed 24 May 2012 at 02:51 hrs by 38.107.179.230