Chapter 8: pensions
Chapter 8 - pensions
Contents
Throughout the Congress Year, the General Council have strived towards meeting the aims expressed in a resolution to the 1996 Congress that >all working people, regardless of their working status, should have the right to join a high quality second tier pension scheme=. To this end, the General Council have sought to ensure that members= benefits are well protected and that access to schemes is widened.
A major aspect of the General Council=s work on pensions has been the Government=s Pensions Review and the review of TUC pensions policy. A TUC Pensions Review Working Group, Chaired by General Council member Tony Young has overseen this work and its second report is submitted to Congress as an annex to this chapter.
Further details of how the General Council=s work has progressed are outlined in the following paragraphs.
As reported to last year=s Congress, on 17 July 1997 the Secretary of State for Social Security, Harriet Harman, announced a review of pensions, the purpose of which is to modernise and reform the UK pensions system in a way which will deliver greater security in retirement for a greater number of people.
Since announcing the Review, two consultation exercises have taken place. The first sought general views on the current pensions system in the context of nine pensions >challenges= set out by the Secretary of State at the time the review was launched. The TUC submission to this consultation exercise took account of the concerns raised in resolutions passed at the 1997 Congress over the need for a stable tax regime for occupational pensions, the effects of the removal of Advance Corporation Tax and also for the need for the basic state pension to be uprated in line with earnings in order that pensioners can share in economic growth. The second requested technical views on questions relating to Stakeholder Pensions which will be a major plank of the Government=s pensions reform programme. The TUC took the opportunity to submit evidence to both consultation exercises. This work was overseen by the TUC Pensions Review Working Group (PRWG) whose work is reported on in the annex to this chapter which also contains a summary of the TUC=s evidence to these two stages of the Government=s pensions review.
A pensions Green Paper was expected in the first half of 1998, but its publication is now expected by the end of the year.
In September 1997, the Government established the Pension Provision Group (PPG) whose remit was to >determine the current levels of pension provision in the UK and likely future trends=. The Group=s role was diagnostic; it was not asked to make policy recommendations. Rather its job was to lay the analytical foundations on which an informed debate could take place and on which the Government could take policy decisions. Joanne Segars, TUC Pensions Officer, was appointed as a member of the PPG. Other members of the group were drawn from employers= organisations, the pensions industry and academia. Tom Ross of Aon Consulting chaired the Group.
The PPG=s report, We all need pensions - the prospects for pension provision was published on 4 June. Its key messages have been welcomed by the trade union movement. These were:
without action to address the gaps in pension provision, the inequalities between pensioners, which have grown in the last two decades, will continue to grow;
state pensions are affordable and the state has an important role to play in pensions in the future, particularly in redistributing retirement income to those with low lifetime earnings. Dependence on means-tested benefits will rise;
occupational pensions have delivered high levels of benefit to some pensioners. Personal pensions have also encouraged some people to save, but they are not suitable for everyone;
compulsory pension provision is not new and those who can save more should be encouraged to do so;
future pensions prospects for women are better than in the past and self- employment can increase people=s risk of being poor in old age;
everybody must be able to plan for retirement with confidence;
pensions have had, and always will have, an element of risk;
more pre-funding is not a panacea; and
better informed and co-ordinated policy making is needed.
On 23 July, the Pensions Provision Group held a seminar at Congress House which was attended by 50 key opinion formers and journalists.
Pensions Education Working Group
It is widely recognised that people do not understand enough about their pension entitlements - both state and occupational - and often do not think about starting saving for retirement until it is too late. These points became very clear from the callers to the TUC Pensions Power Helpline (described in full in paragraph 8.4) many of whom were very worried that they would not have enough money to live on when they retired.
Taking these points on board, the Government set as one of its nine pensions challenges the need to raise pensions awareness and, in September 1997, established the Pensions Education Working Group (PEWG), on which the TUC was represented. The PEWG=s task was to consider where, how, in what form and from whom people currently received information on pensions. The Group was also asked to make recommendations on action that might be needed to improve understanding of pensions. The Group focused on:
ways of making sure people started to think about pensions at an early enough stage;
encouraging personal finance education for children;
ways of making information about pensions easily accessible; and
ensuring that the information people received about their occupational, personal and state pension was presented in an easy to understand format.
The publication of the Group=s report was announced at the TUC/ JMU conference New Pensions for the New Millennium on 16 June.
The Group made fifteen recommendations, key amongst which was that there needs to be an on-going education and communications exercise on pensions which involves occupational schemes, personal pensions providers, the social partners and - most importantly - the Government. The Group also considered the work carried out by the TUC in September and October 1997 in connection with its Pensions Power telephone Helpline. The PEWG was impressed with the TUC=s work and considered the Helpline to be an innovative way of providing individually tailored information to a large volume of people. In addition, the information provided by callers flagged up areas where changes to the way information is currently provided, particularly by the Government, should be made. The PEWG felt that the Helpline could provide a useful model for the future and recommended that, provided sufficient funding was available through the Group, a general pilot line should be organised by the TUC and positively supported by Government and other organisations. The TUC welcomed the positive support given to the Pensions Power Helpline and has agreed to take the project forward, subject to adequate funding being made available.
The Government has already started to implement other aspects of the PEWG report, for example the publication of a new series of leaflets, the launch of which was welcomed by the TUC as one way of ensuring that people have access to clear, free information about pensions.
Taking the PEWG=s initiatives a stage further, the TUC is also liaising with the Department of Social Security (DSS) on plans for a Quality in Pensions award for occupational pension schemes.
Until recently, automatic access to a spouse=s pension rights ended on divorce because ex-husbands/wives could not continue to claim on their ex-spouse=s pension as if they were still married. This applied to both the pension and the lump sum benefits. As a result, many divorced wives faced poverty in old age because the income they were relying on was no longer available. The 1995 Pensions Act changed this situation by introducing >pensions earmarking= which meant that Courts in England and Wales are empowered to require pension scheme managers and trustees to pay maintenance directly to the ex-spouse directly from the member=s pension at the time it comes into payment. The TUC welcomed these changes as a step in the right direction, but said that they were far from perfect, as the ex-spouse (more often than not an ex-wife) had no power over the timing of the payment. The TUC=s preferred option was pensions splitting (or sharing) at the time of the divorce.
The Government shares the TUC=s preference for >clean break= settlements and, in June 1998, published a draft bill on Pensions Sharing and Divorce, which was welcomed by the TUC. Pensions sharing will allow pension schemes to reduce the member=s rights and create new rights for the former spouse, in line with a court order or agreement.
As part of the Modernisation of the House of Commons programme, as a first stage, the draft bill was considered by the Social Security Select Committee. On 22 July, the TUC gave evidence to the Select Committee. Tony Young (General Council pensions spokesperson), Rita Donaghy (on behalf of the TUC Women=s Committee) and Joanne Segars, TUC Pensions Officer, met the Select Committee. In addition to answering questions on a number of technical issues relating to the draft bill, the TUC commented on issues relating to women and pensions generally which might impact on their ability to build up pension entitlements in their own right following a divorce. The oral evidence to the Select Committee was supported by a written submission both to the Committee and to the Department of Social Security.
As reported to last year=s Congress, the TUC established its own policy review of second tier pensions policy in line with a resolution passed at the 1996 Congress. Throughout the last Congress year, the Pensions Review Working Group (PRWG) has continued to consider the options for the reform of second tier pensions, including improvements to existing forms of provision (principally occupational pension schemes) and also ways in which new forms of provision, like the proposed new Stakeholder Pensions, could be introduced to the best advantage of working people. The PRWG has also been working in parallel with the Government=s pensions review since July 1997. The PRWG=s work is reported in full in the annex to this chapter.
Over the course of the Congress year, the TUC has continued to monitor the implementation of the 1995 Pensions Act, the main aspects of which have been in place for just over a year. The TUC has continued to identify weaknesses in the Act, not least the operation of the procedures for selecting and electing member-nominated trustees. The TUC has expressed concern that the legislation, as currently drafted, is over complicated and has allowed employers to introduce arrangements which have reduced, or in some cases eliminated altogether, member trustees on the boards of occupational pension schemes. This is quite the opposite of what was intended by the 1995 Act. In recognition of this fact, the DSS is considering publishing a consultation document which simplifies the current procedures. The TUC and pensions officers from a number of affiliated unions met officials from the DSS to discuss practical problems with the existing regulations and suggestions for reform.
As reported in paragraph 8.5, the TUC has continued to support the development of the Occupational Pensions Regulatory Authority (Opra). Opra is the watchdog for the UK=s 200,000 occupational pension schemes. It has the power to impose penalties on schemes which are found to be non-compliant with the Pensions Act. These fines include financial penalties. As of April, Opra had investigated 9,563 allegations of non-compliance. Many of the reports of non-compliance made to the Authority derive from scheme members and member trustees. Joanne Segars, TUC Pensions Officer, continues as the TUC=s nominee on Opra.
The Pensions Compensation Board (PCB) was established under the 1995 Pensions Act to compensate scheme members where their pension scheme is the subject of fraud and the sponsoring employer is insolvent. Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe continues as the TUC=s nominee to the PCB.
The TUC has continued to up-date union members on the technical details of the Pensions Act through a regular series articles in the TUC Pensions Briefing entitled The Pensions Act Explained. This year, articles have covered pension fund surpluses; member-nominated trustees; and the Pensions Compensation Board.
8.4 Pensions Power: women and pensions awareness campaign
Women do particularly badly out of the current state and occupational pensions system. For example:
less than a quarter of women aged between 25 and 64 are members of occupational pension schemes;
nearly 30 per cent of women do not qualify for a full state pension (compared to only 4 per cent of men); and
2.4m women have a retirement income of less than ,40 per week.
These issues have been a matter of concern to the General Council for many years and were reflected in a resolution to the 1997 Congress.
To counter this situation and to raise awareness amongst women of their need to consider seriously pensions issues, the TUC ran a Women and Pensions Awareness Campaign from 22 September to 3 October 1997. This event received financial sponsorship from Unity Financial Services.
The awareness campaign was promoted through a series of leaflets and factsheets which addressed issues of concern to women. These included matters such as pensions and divorce, part-time work, and personal pensions. Copies of the leaflet It=s time for women=s pensions power were widely distributed to trade union members by affiliated unions. This leaflet was also supported by the National Federation of Women=s Institutes.
The main focus of the Pensions Power event was a free phone Helpline, where callers could receive expert and impartial advice and assistance about their pension tailored to their specific pensions problem. The line was staffed by union pensions experts. The Helpline was extensively publicised in local and national newspapers; local and national radio; TV; union journals and women=s magazines. The campaign received the backing of the Government and a wide range of women=s organisations. It was launched by the Secretary of State for Social Security and Minister for Women, Harriet Harman, and Kamlesh Bahl, Chairwoman of the Equal Opportunities Commission on 22 September.
The TUC expected a high level of enquiries to the line, but did not expect to receive the level of calls it did. Lines literally did not stop ringing, and in response to the overwhelming demand, it was decided to extend the Helpline service for an additional week (ie to 3 October). In total, over 4,000 callers had their pensions queries answered. In addition to the tailored information provided by the experts staffing the Helpline, callers received Pensions Power Information Packs. Demand for the information packs has remained constant as they continued to be advertised in various women=s magazines and radio programmes after the line had closed. To date over 1,000 extra information packs have been distributed.
Callers= key concerns were: adequacy of retirement income; problems with the married women=s small stamp; the consequences of divorce; and fragmented pensions entitlement resulting from career breaks.
In the main, callers were part-time workers who had some kind of pension provision. Callers were from all parts of the country and the majority were not members of trade unions (a reflection of the fact that many did not work or were retired).
Taking the issues raised by callers to the Helpline as a whole, it became clear that there was a shocking degree of worry, concern and confusion amongst women about their pension rights. Too many women were unclear and unaware of their rights, and in many cases this proved to be a significant barrier to them actually being able to make provision for retirement. The TUC Pensions Power Campaign clearly helped many women, although it was clear that a more co-ordinate and on-going campaign was needed from the Government.
A significant lesson of the Women and Pensions Awareness Campaign was that there are a number of steps which can be taken - many within the existing pensions structure - which could significantly improve women=s entitlements to build a secure and adequate retirement by raising their awareness of their pension rights. In this context, the TUC welcomed the recommendations of the Pensions Education Working Group (see paragraph 8.2) and is pleased to note that the Department of Social Security has started to act on a number of the issues identified by the TUC in the campaign, eg the provision of clearer information on state pensions.
Two reports were also produced in association with the Women and Pensions Awareness Campaign. The first, Looking Forward to Retirement? identified how, why and to what extent women have poorer pension entitlements than men and offered solutions to reversing the legacy of women=s pensions poverty. The second A Rude Awakening provided a detailed analysis of calls to the Helpline and the policy recommendations deriving from callers= problems to the Helpline. A series of regional events were also held to co-incide with the launch of the campaign, and the TUC linked up with Road Chef who placed information about the Helpline in their employees= pay packets and worked with the GMB to encourage their women workers to join the occupational pension scheme.
As reported in paragraph 8.2, the Government and the Pensions Education Working Group (PEWG) was very impressed with the results of the Helpline and has asked the TUC, via PEWG, to organise a second Helpline to run on a pilot basis. Preparations are now being made for the new Helpline which is expected to be up and running later in the 1998-9 Congress year.
8.5 Trade Union Pension Specialists Group
Over the course of the Congress Year, meetings of the Trade Union Pension Specialists Group (TUPS) have continued to be convened. This Group considers latest developments in occupational pensions as well as issues of a technical nature. Issues considered by the Group this year have included: the Government pensions review; personal pensions mis-selling; and the effects of the Budget on occupational and personal pensions.
At its March meeting, the Group met John Hughes, Head of the Pensions Review Team, at the Department of Social Security (DSS) to discuss developments relating to the Review. The Group had a productive discussion on progress to date and the direction of the Government=s thinking.
In May, members of the Group met with DSS officials to discuss issues arising out of the Budget, notably the effects of raising the Lower Earnings Limit (LEL) on integrated pension schemes. The Group expressed concerns that if schemes were to integrate at the new, higher, LEL, the effect would be to reduce workers= pensions by hundreds of pounds a year whilst at the same time delivering a significant cost saving to occupational schemes. The TUC was concerned that this would have a particularly damaging effect on the pensions of low paid workers, the majority of whom are women. The TUC re-iterated its views that integration was indirectly discriminatory, and took the opportunity to raise the wider issue of integration on which a number of unions are campaigning. The DSS undertook to incorporate the points raised by the DSS in its review of Budget related issues.
On behalf of the TUPS, the TUC has raised a number of other technical issues with the DSS, including widows benefits and the continuing problems scheme members were experiencing in transferring benefits to a new employer=s scheme following the equalisation of Guaranteed Minimum Pensions (GMP) which resulted from the Barber v Guardian Royal Exchange case in 1990.
The Group has continued to remain in contact with Opra - the Occupational Pensions Regulatory Authority (see paragraph 8.3). On 11 March, members of the Group visited the Opra offices. The purpose of this visit was to learn about the Authority=s work, in particular the way in which it investigates allegations of wrong doing in occupational pension schemes and the procedures for penalising those who are found guilty of breaches of the 1995 Pensions Act.
The TUPS Group has continued to remain in close contact with others in the pensions industry, and members of the Group have continued to attend meetings of the National Association Pension Funds Trade Union Liaison Forum.
8.6 Justice for personal pensions mis-selling victims
The General Council has remained concerned at the mis-selling of personal pensions, which it has described as the >greatest financial scandal of all time=. Up to 1.5 million people were mis-sold a personal pension and many are still waiting for redress. Concerned at the slow progress being made by many providers in completing the mis-selling review, the TUC established a Personal Pensions Mis-selling Team (PPMT). The Team comprises representatives of unions (affiliated and non-affiliated) whose members were worst affected by mis-selling. The Team=s purpose is to examine ways to expedite the mis-selling, for example through bulk transfer arrangements.
The PPMT has met with organisations with a major interest in completing the mis-selling review. In November, the team met with the then head of the Personal Investment Authority (PIA), Collette Bowe, and her team to discuss the PIA=s response to the Review; its process for ensuring that mis-sellers completed the Review; reasons why the Review had not yet been completed; and ways in which the TUC can work to expedite the process of winning compensation for the victims of mis-selling. This was followed up in January with a meeting with officials to discuss technical issues relating to the Review. In addition, the General Secretary met Howard Davies, head of the new >super-regulator= - the Financial Services Authority (FSA) - to discuss the issues relating to the mis-selling scandal raised by a resolution to the 1997 Congress.
Also in January, the PPMT met the Director General of the Association of British Insurers (ABI) to discuss their role in relation to the mis-selling scandal. The TUC said that the ABI should take a more pro-active role in the Review, particularly in relation to its member companies. The TUC has continued to emphasise that the best way to compensate people who were mis-sold a personal pension is to re-instate them in the occupational scheme which they opted out of/failed to join. In this context, in February, the TUC agreed to assist the ABI to assist its member companies complete the Review by circulating a survey (via the TUC Member Trustees= Network) which sought information on occupational pension schemes= attitudes towards reinstatement. In addition, the TUC met the NAPF to discuss the role of occupational schemes in the mis-selling Review and possibilities for bulk transfer initiatives.
On 23 July, a TUC delegation met Helen Liddell, Economic Secretary to the Treasury, to discuss the mis-selling scandal. The TUC welcomed the Minister=s >naming and shaming= policy which was starting to get results. However, the TUC raised concerns over the fact that a large number of people were still awaiting redress. The TUC discussed possible ways of expediting the Review, including the extension of bulk transfer arrangements.
In March, the FSA published a consultation document which sought views on ways of compensating >non priority= victims of mis-selling who are estimated to number 1.8 million people whose losses exceed ,6,000 million. In general terms, these >non priority= cases are young people who are still working for the employer whose pension scheme the employee failed to join/opted out of. The TUC raised a number of concerns relating to the FSA=s proposals, particularly the fact that the procedure would place the onus on the victim of mis-selling to seek a review of their case, rather than place the responsibility on the personal pensions company which had mis-sold the personal pension in the first place.
The TUC has also raised concerns over the mis-selling of free-standing Additional Voluntary Contributions (FSAVCs). The TUC is concerned that many people are being sold FSAVCs in contravention of the Financial Services Act because they would be better off in the in-house AVC arrangements offered through the occupational pension scheme. The TUC wrote to the FSA in regard to this matter.
8.7 Winning pensions for part-time workers
As reported to last yearÕs Congress, the TUC is continuing to co-ordinate the claims of 22 test cases over the backdating of part-time workers= membership of their occupational pension scheme (Preston and Others v Wolverhampton Health Care Trust and Others). These cases followed a 1994 judgement in the European Court of Justice (ECJ) which said that to exclude part-time workers from membership of occupational pension schemes was indirectly discriminatory.
In February, the cases were heard by the House of Lords which agreed to refer the three of the questions left open by the original ECJ judgement back to the European Court for a final decision. The questions concerned whether or not there should be a two year limit on the backdating of scheme membership; whether a claim to an industrial tribunal must be made within six months of the complainant=s employment contract ending; and whether, for workers employed on short term contracts, a claim must be made in respect of each period of employment. The TUC welcomed the favourable outcome in the House of Lords. The TUC expects the cases to be heard in the ECJ in 1999.
Meanwhile, in May, the TUC learned that the Regional Chairman of Employment Tribunals who was responsible for co-ordinating the cases for the Central Office, had written to all Chairs encouraging them to start hearing cases which would not be affected by the ruling in the ECJ. The TUC wrote to the President of the Employment Tribunals expressing concern and urging him to keep to the original three stage process which he had devised. The TUC believed that if cases were heard on a random basis, other important legal issues, such as the material defence factor, could be determined on the basis of unrepresentative cases, to the detriment of the vast majority of cases which were >stayed= pending the ECJ decision. In response, the President assured the TUC that no cases would be allowed to proceed if doing so would have an impact on the >stayed= cases. In June, the TUC heard that an employment tribunal had listed a number of cases against one employer and intended to proceed with them. The TUC informed the >test case= unions and also contacted the union which was representing the applicants in these cases. The union would try to have the cases >stayed=. They would keep the TUC and the >test case= unions informed. The TUC will continue to monitor the situation closely.
The TUC has continued to convene meetings of the Public Service Pensions Group (PSPG) which considers issues of concern to members of public service pension schemes. The Group=s primary focus has remained the continuing campaign to end discrimination against non-married adult partners in statutory public sector schemes. The TUC has continued to maintain that these scheme rules are unfair, outdated and out of line with best practice in the private sector. In March, the Group noted with regret the ECJ=s decision in Grant v SW Trains in which the Court said that it was lawful for employers to refuse a same sex partner concessionary travel allowances. Had Ms Grant won her case, it would have had a positive impact on the TUC=s campaign to end discrimination in public service pension schemes. In June, the campaign was stepped up with the launch of a postcard to raise awareness of the issue amongst MPs. The intention is that scheme members who are discriminated against by the scheme rules will send the postcard to their own MP. The TUC has continued to remain in close contact with Stonewall on this issue.
In January, the Government issued a consultation exercise on the reform of the Acquired Rights Directive. The PSPG commented on the pensions implications of the consultation document and reiterated the TUC=s long held view that the Directive should be amended to allow pension rights to be protected on transfer. The Group outlined a number of practical ways in which this objective could be achieved. On June 4 the Council of Ministers agreed to a revision of the Directive which will allow Member States to include occupational pensions in the list of employment conditions that must be protected on transfer in domestic legislation. The TUC welcomed the move and will now be pressing for an amendment in the relevant UK legislation - the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) legislation. The TUC=s views on other aspects of the consultation document are reported in chapter 1.
8.9 Member trusteeship and pension fund investment
The number of member trustees has continued to increase as a result of the 1995 Pensions Act which gives scheme members the right to nominate at least a third of the board of trustees. Throughout the year, the General Council have continued to endorse the important role played by member trustees, not only in ensuring that the assets of the scheme are safe, but also in ensuring that scheme members have confidence in their scheme. Responding to the growing numbers of trustees and the new duties and responsibilities placed on them by the 1995 Pensions Act, the TUC has continued to develop the TUC Member Trustees= Network which remains the only organisation of its kind to provide services tailored to the specific needs of member trustees. Membership of the Network has continued to grow and now stands at just under a thousand trustees who are drawn from a wide range of unions and schemes.
The purpose of the TUC Member Trustees= Network is to provide trustees with advice and information to enable them to be effective trustees. As part of the service it provides to trustees via the Network, the TUC has continued to provide a quarterly newsletter, called TUC Member Trustee News. Issues covered in recent editions have included: scheme accounts; socially responsible investment; and the pension scheme levy. Also via the newsletter, trustees have been circulated with three surveys. The first, conducted jointly with the ABI, concerned personal pensions mis-selling. It is outlined more fully in paragraph 8.6. The second concerned employers= and trustees= chosen methods for selecting and electing member trustees (described in paragraph 8.3) and the third canvassed members= views on further ways in which the TUC could offer services to member trustees. The TUC Member Trustees News is also published on the TUC web site. In August, work was completed on up-dating the member trustees= database.
One of the much welcomed provisions of the 1995 Pensions Act is the right for member trustees to have paid time-off for trustee training. It was therefore with regret that the TUC noted that a number of trustees, particularly member directors of trustee companies, were still facing problems in being allowed paid time-off to attend TUC training courses. The TUC sought, and obtained, clarification from the Department of Social Security that directors of trustee companies were also allowed paid time-off for training under the Act. The TUC has continued to emphasise the importance of trustee training and has developed further the training programmes offered through the TUC. In August the second release of the computer-based trustee training programme, developed in co-operation with Jacques Martin Unity and the Aries team at the City University, became available. Work is also underway on developing a national training award for member trustees.
Over the coming Congress year, work will continue on developing the range of other services available to member trustees via the TUC Member Trustees Network.
Trustees are responsible for the stewardship of over ,800 billion. The TUC has continued to encourage trustees to take an active role on investment issues. In July, the TUC welcomed an announcement by Pensions Minister, John Denham, that he was considering a consultation exercise on whether schemes= Statements of Investment Principles (which trustees are required to prepare under the 1995 Pensions Act) should carry a statement of the trustees= attitudes towards socially responsible investment (SRI) and the trustees= policy on voting shares. The TUC Model Statement of Investment Principles prepared last year already contains a statement to this effect. The TUC will participate in the formal consultation exercise. A conference on pension fund investment will take place later in the 1998-9 Congress year.
8.10 Services to trade union members
Over the course of this Congress Year, the TUC has continued to provide a range of services to negotiators, member trustees (outlined above) and scheme members.
The TUC=s own pensions >magazine=, TUC Pensions Briefing, continues to be produced and is currently subscribed to by over 800 people. Articles have explained: how various aspects of the 1995 Pensions Act work; issues relating to equal treatment and part-time workers; and the Government Pensions Review. The TUC Pensions Handbook for Negotiators and Trustees continues to be well received. Its loose leaf format allows the publication to be updated periodically, and more updates are in preparation. In September, the TUC published a negotiator=s guide to group personal pensions, which is outlined more fully in the annex to this chapter. As also outlined in the annex to this chapter, on 16 June, a conference titled >New Pensions for the New Millennium=, was held.
The TUC Pensioners Committee, whose membership is listed in appendix 2, continues to provide a forum for retired trade union members to be consulted about the TUC=s activities, to exchange news and for the communication of information on organisations and issues of interest to retired persons. While a number of affiliated unions nominate representatives to the Committee there is an awareness that a number of unions still do not participate. Accordingly, an invitation to participate has been circulated to those unions not represented.
The Committee met once during this Congress year. They considered a summary of the TUC=s Budget Statement made in advance of the 1998 Budget. While welcoming the thrust of the TUC=s submission it was considered that the call for a restoration of the link between state pension up-ratings and earnings should have a target date for its implementation. It was also pointed out that while the full text had addressed the issue of pensions the summary had not similarly referred to this issue. Disappointment was expressed that the post-election budget had not contained any provisions specifically addressing the needs of the pensioner.
The Committee also reviewed the TUC=s submissions to the Government=s review of pension provision and policy. The Report of the Pension Provision Group studying current pension provision and future trends We all need pensions -the prospects for pension provision was circulated to the Committee in July 1998.
The Committee also received a presentation on the New Unionism project.
The TUC has continued to be involved in the European Federation of Elderly and Retired Persons (FERPA), through the direct affiliation of certain unions. Jack Jones continues to represent the TUC on the FERPA Executive Committee, and is currently a Vice President of FERPA. The General Secretary of FERPA, Georges Debunne, is to address the Committee at its next meeting.
Stay Updated
Want to hear about our latest news and blogs?
Sign up now to get it straight to your inbox