Links to many pension news stories can be found here. We think that about 125,000 people from nearly 400 companies have lost their pensions through scheme wind-ups. A list can be found here. Please let us know of any errors or omissions.
You can keep up to date with news from the group through our monthly newsletter. The latest issue, plus all the back issues, starting from August 2006, are available here:
www.pensionstheft.org/newsletters
If you would like to be notified as soon as each new issue is published, you can subscribe by sending an email to:
subscribenews@pensionstheft.org
It's free, your email address will not be passed on to any third parties and you can unsubscribe at any time.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
New Secretary of State and New Pensions Minister
Following the cabinet reshuffle Yvette Cooper replaces James Purnell as Secretary of State and Angela Eagle replaces Rosie Winterton as Pensions Minister (who was only in the office for just over six months). This makes 15 cabinet changes at the DWP in the 12 years of labour rule, including several months when there was no pensions minister at all. As Peter Lapinskas says: “I love pensions ministers - I love the whooshing sound they make as they speed through on their way to other jobs”.
* * * * * * * * * * * * *
Pensions Protest at Westminster, Wednesday 3rd June 2009
Over 100 people turned out for a protest on Parliament Square. The protest, originally planned for early May but postponed because of police problems with illegal Tamil protests, was arranged because of omissions in the proposed changes for the FAS/PPF following the recent government consultation. Given that the protest was midweek (to coincide with PMQs and take place when MPs were present) the attendance was very good with people coming from as far afield as Aberdeen, Glasgow and Wales; Kenneth Malloy, even flew over from Spain for the day!)
The main points of the protest were:
- Unfair treatment for seriously ill members
- Almost no post retirement protection against inflation
- Failure to apply the benefits before May 2004 (when the FAS started)
- A restrictive cap on our benefits (which penalises members with long service)
- Regulations that fail to recognise the benefits members have sacrificed
- Fair treatment of contracted-out benefits
- Restrictions on some members’ rights to draw benefits
- No apology from the government
John Bull (Ray Egan) attended and we performed the traditional "Stripped of our Pensions" photoshoot which drew the usual crowds of reporters, photographers, TV cameras and inquisitive tourists. We got good coverage in the press and on local & SKY TV.
Several MPs came out after PMQs to show support including (in no particular order) Sandra Osborne, Mike Penning, Paul Burstow, Bill Cash & Stewart Hosie. Apologies for any omissions, it was quite crowded. We also had many apologies from MPs who were away campaigning in their constituencies for the elections on the following day.
We should make a special mention of Alan Marne's part in the protest. For all our protests in recent years Alan has had the unenviable and unrecognised behind the scenes job of liaising with the police.
Any protest in London requires a mountain of paperwork, forms, risk assessments, interviews and planning meetings with the police and persuading them to allow events such as the Stripped of our Pension photo-shoot.
This event was complicated by the ongoing Tamil and other protests in Parliament Square. Originally the protest was organised by Alan for early May but this was moved at police request because the Tamil protestors were threatening violence. As a result Alan had to do the job twice.
It takes a lot of work, a lot of time and repeated trips to London before the event. We should thank Alan for his work.
Thanks also to Peter Wheeler and Brian Mealing who supplied the leaflets and placards, Peter Lapinskas & Adrian Segundo for the organisation on the day & the very striking yellow T-shirts and the Metropolitan police who controlled events with their usual good humour.
* * * * * * * * * * * * *
Welsh Labour Party Conference - 25 April
Report by John Benson
14 former ASW workers arrived at the Conference Centre in four cars about 8:00 am with a big banner and placards, and to give out leaflets to the politicians, their staff, delegates, and union officials. In all, we gave out over 300 leaflets.
Spoke with ministers, MPs and AMs before they went in to the Conference, telling all of them that our campaign for full compensation will continue. I spoke at great length with, and gave a letter to, Paul Murphy (Welsh Secretary) together with a letter for him to give to Gordon Brown, outlining our case and asking for Gordon Brown for once to personally reply (but we won’t hold our breath on that one )
Jane Hutt (Labour AM), when told we were not going away till we get Justice, answered: “We know that.”
Glennis Kinnock was asked to give Neil our love but we continue our campaign.
Rhodri Morgan (First Minister) this time had no choice to take a leaflet from us. It was a pleasure to see his grumpy face - it was like a ripped dap. His wife Julie did find time to speak to us
Community General Secretary Michael Leahy came to speak with us. He told us we have come a long way, but he did not think we would get full compensation. He also was told that we are not going away, and he replied that he was meeting James Purnell soon.
They would not let us near the Conference entrance, but Chris Bryant (Labour MP) told me that Harriet Harman was arriving later and asked a Senior Officer if we could speak with her as she was going straight to the entrance when arriving. He said that only one person could speak with her so I spoke to her for three or four minutes, told her about how the Government could find hundreds of billions of pounds of taxpayers money to bail out irresponsible Banks, pay millions of pounds of taxpayers money to Bankers for failure etc, yet refuse to pay us our Pensions in full. I mentioned the average ASW workers Pension was £7,000.
She agreed with our anger, and then stated she was trying to sort out Equitable Life. I asked her if she could arrange a meeting with the Prime Minister, or even herself, and also whether she considered what the Prime Minister and the Government had so cruelly done to us regarding our promised pensions was morally right and fair. I would call off the Protest's here in Wales in which replied, I will see, with that she hurriedly went inside the Centre.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Protest at National Assembly of Wales 17th March 2009
Report by John Benson
A great protest here in Cardiff with good coverage on BBC Wales Radio, BBC Wales Television, our local paper, and our good friend and supporter, Jeff Prestridge from the Mail on Sunday sent Toby Walne along to cover the protest.
We had good support from Assembly Members and their staff, with the Conservative and Liberal Democat leaders coming out to speak, also Plaid AMs. Plaid Cymru AM Leanne Wood made a statement in the Assembly saying that he UK Government must uphold the Parliamentary Ombudsman's recommendations.
Nick Bourne, leader of the Welsh Conservatives, and Kirsty Williams, leader of the Welsh Liberal Democrats, want me to draft a letter with all the bullet points we want brought up to support our fight for full compensation, they will then get Assembly member's to sign the letter, and then take our cause further.
Once again Rhodri Morgan and his gang declined to come out and speak with us.
Kirsty Williams is hopefully going to arrange a short meeting with Nick Clegg when he comes to Wales.
Many thanks to all who attended the protest, especially those from the South East, who must have travelled hundreds of miles.
Also many thanks to John Bull (Ray Regan), who turned up to support us, and Peter Wheeler and Brian Mealing who supplied the leaflets and placards.
* * * * * * * * * * * * *
Protest Wednesday 3rd June 2009
Place: Parliament Square (opposite House of Commons)
Theme: All we want is what we paid for – where’s our indexation?
11:00 Meet.
12:00 Protest.
13:00 Focal time for MPs and media
15:00 Disperse
The protest has police permission; thanks to Alan Marnes for doing the paperwork
New T shirts, placards & banners will be provided
Are you:
- angry that failed bankers who’ve wrecked the economy can still get lavish pensions with unlimited indexation while your modest pot has virtually none?
- aware (and how can you not be?) that trillions of government, (i.e. your) money is being used to prop up all kinds of dodgy assets while “decent, hard working people” (i.e. you!) are still denied inflation protection on (your) “modestly comfortable retirement income” (Lord Justice Wall) – average £6500pa / £4700pa respectively for FAS/PPF?
- concerned that the most likely consequence of today’s desperate measures is a sharp dose of inflation in a year or two - just as it was in the 1970s?
- conscious of the real prospect of dying in poverty?
- fed up with the dishonesty & double standards by which government refuses to face up to and deal with its responsibilities in mishandling private sector pensions?
Then
- we need your presence as never before on 3rd June
- support yourselves and those who’ve made huge efforts & sacrifice for you
- swell the numbers with family, friends, past & present colleagues
- Write to your MP, inviting his/her presence and support at 13:00
Note
- Wednesday noon is PMQs and the DWP consultation document will be debated in the near future
- June 3rd may well be the last chance to apply protest pressure before a general election
- There’s no substitute for numbers - please make every effort to be there
- Persistence pays off – as we’ve already seen
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Protest at Welsh National Assembly Cardiff
Tuesday 17th March 2009
Meet at junction on Britannia Road & Pierhead Street from 11:00am for 12:00 noon start. For detailed map of start enter postcode CF99 1NA into www.multimap.com
Placards and banners will be provided
Themes will be:
a) Full indexation of pension
b) If 100% pension is available for the bankers who allegedly wrecked the economy, and also restoration of lost savings for investors in Icelandic banks, why should we be treated differently?
LibDem, Plaid Cymru & Conservative Assembly members have been very supportive and we expect them to be present
The press, TV and radio have been notified, so please come along and support us.
* * * * * * * * * * * * *
Government publishes pension consultation document
The Government has just issued the consultation document which will lead to the finalisation of their proposals to compensate us for the losses we have suffered through their maladministration of final salary pensions. There have been some substantial improvements but they still fall a long way short of full compensation. We have until 25th March to send them our views.
In December 2007, the Government announced a series of improvements to the Financial Assistance Scheme and over the last 14 months they have organised a number of public consultations and introduced various regulations to bring these into effect. However, up until now, these processes covered only the relatively uncontroversial issues – the more ‘difficult’ issues were delayed until the final round of the consultation, and this is the round which has now started.
If you have been affected by a loss to your pension resulting from the insolvency of your employer, this is what you need to do.
* Download a copy of the consultation document which is available at:
http://tinyurl.com/bktnlk
* Read it carefully, especially insofar as it affects your own position.
* If you feel that the payments on offer fall short of what you feel would be sufficient compensation, or that you will be treated unfairly relative to others, or you have other relevant points to make, write to the address below and briefly state your case. Your response will carry much more weight if you use your own words (rather than copying from other documents) and can relate your comments to your own situation.
* Send your comments (to arrive by 25th March) to:
Financial Assistance Scheme Consultation
Department for Works & Pensions
Private Pensions Policy
Adelphi 3rd Floor
1-11 John Adams Street
London WC2N 6HT
* Email a copy of your letter to PAG (contact-us@pensionstheft.org), so that we can incorporate your views into the PAG position
* Watch out for the next newsletter which will give details of the PAG position and forthcoming PAG actions.
We have fought long and hard to achieve justice and have come much further than anyone thought possible at the outset, in the teeth of determined Government opposition at every stage. Now is the time to finish the job!
* * * * * * * * *
Summary of the Government Proposals
(The following document has been prepared to help you to identify the key areas in the new consultation document and respond accordingly.)
PLEASE READ, UNDERSTAND AND WHERE APPROPRIATE MAKE INDIVIDUAL REPLIES. THE MORE PEOPLE THAT MAKE KNOWN THEIR VIEWS THE BETTER CHANCE WE HAVE OF OBTAINING ADDITIONAL CHANGES
Ill health and early retirement
There has been a vast improvement in both the ill heath and serious ill health terms but PAG still wish the Government to go further and to allow ill health payments within 10 years and not 5 years of scheme retirement age with a minimum of say age 55
Further we feel that, particularly in the current economic climate, voluntary early retirement on any grounds should be allowed after age 55, albeit with an actuarial reduction
PPF allows reduced voluntary early retirement pensions
Pre May 2004 service
There are no signs of movement and we are studying some figures produced by FAS comparing benefits that if paid before May 2004 would lose the revaluation up to the date of payment, and therefore people would not be any better off in the long term.
Costs
There is a statement about tax payer costs which is wrong as they are guilty and in any event the Young review generated £1.7bn and would have been more if they had listened to Ros
Revaluation pre retirement
We have been seeking scheme basis of revaluation rather that RPI with a 5% maximum but there are no signs of movement. We have pointed out that those further away from retirement may not get 90% of their accrued pension because of this.
Partners
This looks like good news and something we have fought for but we ask anyone affected to study the terms closely and let us have their comments on the proposals
People with different retirement ages in the same scheme
The approach is wrong and if a scheme had benefits payable at different ages they should be paid without reduction at that age and this is I believe where it suits FAS to act differently to PPF. There are some outstanding legal issues around this including the Foster Wheeler case ruling which for some schemes gave a right to all benefits at the earliest age
If anyone thinks they are in a position affected by this they should respond with details to FAS
Annuity Rates
We will comment here on not using the actual reduced pension for people who took tax free cash if that actual figure was available and we would also comment on the changing annuity rate market and are FAS reflecting this in their factors?
The Cap
The cap hits long-service members. It is an argument we have had but not won. But we would add that on one hand they are revaluing the cap for all the pension (subject to the cap) but not doing the same with the actual pension where only post-97 bit gets re-valued and at a lower rate than the cap
Post Retirement indexation
This has to be our main thrust and we will argue strongly with threats about resolving this. We have all seen and felt the effects of inflation and in particular the impact for pensioners
There are some aspects of the detail around the interplay between FAS post-97 service indexation and any residual scheme benefits that may carry some indexation (GMP for example )
We must fight for protection of indexation on any residual benefits and for full indexation of all service if the scheme provided it
Tax free cash
Although not ideal, following pressure from PAG we have least got FAS to allow the GMP (Contracted out benefits) to be commuted which was not the case when we started the consultation process
- - - - - - - - - - - -
This is only a brief summary - you must read the document yourself and send in your own comments
We are considering what further action we need to take which includes meeting the Minister and the opposition spokesmen
Please keep us informed and also copy in your MP with any responses you send
* * * * * * * * *
Severe Ill-Health
Notes by Dr Ros Altmann
The regulations which were designed to give a much fairer payment system to those in severe ill-health have been laid in Parliament today.
The aim is to have them debated by March ready for payments to start in April.
This is long, long overdue and, sadly, some very ill people have died before getting the money they should have had.
After very long, tortuous negotiation, these regulations are designed to offer unreduced pensions to people with serious illnesses and severely shortened life expectancy. The regulations cater for two types of such people.
Firstly, they will help those who have already been ill for some time and who are obviously the most seriously affected by the loss of the pension they would have had from their scheme. The Government has finally agreed to backdate the pension to the date when the serious illness started (subject of course to some medical confirmation of this) after May 2004. The members who qualify under this category will receive the full FAS payment (without reduction for early payment) and the first payments will include a lump sum to reflect those payments which relate to past years not yet paid.
Secondly, the DWP has agreed that widows of those who have died will receive the payments their husbands would have had if they had lived, rather than the normal half of the FAS payment from their date of death, so again these widows will receive some lump sum back payments.
Thirdly, there will be special provisions for those who are already getting money from the FAS under the ill health scheme already in place, but whose payments have been reduced. If you are under the ill health provisions with a reduced FAS payment, then you should get back pay for the period from when you became seriously ill with severely shortened life expectancy.
Fourthly, anyone who becomes seriously ill from now on and whose medical condition leads to a severely shortened life expectancy such that they may not live more than another 5 years, will be able to claim early full FAS payments. This is far better than the existing arrangements which would only pay reduced payments to reflect taking the pension early and which would be so unfair.
All of this applies to those over age 55 as far as I can tell.
It is now important to get these regulations debated and passed in the Lords and Commons as soon as possible.
If you think these regulations apply to you, please let us know and also please write to the FAS to ensure that they have the information they need in order to assess your claim and start payments as soon as possible after the Regulations are passed by Parliament. You will need medical evidence and you will need to have contacted your trustees to let them know you are seriously ill.
The DWP response to the ill health consultation is available here:
2008 Labour Party Conference
Willie Riggans of UEF is organising a protest at the Labour Party Conference in Manchester on Tuesday, 23rd September 2008. Meet at Castlefields at 11:30 a.m. then march to Labour Party Conference and hold a demonstration outside at 12:00 noon. Everyone welcome.
The start location can be found here
The theme of the protest will be “Fairness for All” , namely full restoration of pensions entitlement (i.e. 100%, not 90%, indexation etc.) All that is required is the pensions we paid for.
For further details contact Willie.Riggans@bharatforgescottish.com
or via his mobile 07793-968227
The protest is preceded by a (separate) protest by Equitable Life members to which people are also invited.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
FAS Payments
The FAS are now making payments to about 8,000 people who have reached their normal scheme retirement age. This includes back-payment for people who have passed their retirement date. In future the FAS will contact people a few weeks before their retirement date.
If you have reached your scheme retirement age and have not heard from the FAS you should contact their operational unit in York:
Financial Assistance Scheme
PO Box 702
York
YO32 9XR
Telephone: 0845 6019941
Further information can be found on the FAS website.
The commonest reason for non payment are trustees giving incomplete (or no) details about scheme members and people not returning the form that the FAS sends out just before retirement date. There are something like 200 people who have not returned the forms and are consequently not being paid!
Payments (including back-payments) are taxed at the standard rate. If you are in receipt of a substantial back-payment and/or have other income it is possible that the back-payments can take you into a higher rate tax bracket. You are entitled to spread the back-payments over all the years they relate to in order to reduce the tax liability, and the FAS provide details as how to do this. Do not ignore this information; you could end up paying far too much tax
The group are having constructive discussions with the DWP to resolve issues such as the tax. Other discussion points include Revaluation of benefits pre retirement, Retaining the value of the cap, Ill health provision and the current restrictions, Early retirement, Tax free cash, Protection of benefits that are in excess of FAS levels, Spouses & partners (including unmarried partners), Children's benefits, Pre 2004 benefits, Schemes with split retirement ages, Scheme retirement date definitions and the now included Solvent schemes
Everyone is aiming to have all the legislation in place by early 2009
* * * * * * * * * * * * *
Victory in the Court of Appeal
 The long awaited Court of Appeal verdict was announced on Thursday 7th February 2008. The three Court of Appeal judges became the latest to condemn the unprecedented stance taken by Work and Pensions Ministers to reject a Parliamentary Ombudsman report that found maladministration and injustice in the treatment of up to 125,000 occupational pension scheme members. The language of the verdict was, if anything, more damning than that in the High Court, and causation has now been included. A detailed analysis is given below.
The DWP immediately appealed against the verdict and asked for the case to be taken to the House of Lords. This application was refused, however the DWP can still apply directly to the House of Lords. It will be something like six months before the Lord Law’s decision to hear the appeal is known.
Press Releases from Dr Ros Altmann and our solicitor,John Halford of Bindman and partners, can be found on our Documents page and a typical press article can be found on our Media Comments page.
What did the Court of Appeal rule?
1). The Parliamentary Ombudsman has an important role in ensuring ministerial accountability - if a Secretary of State does not accept a finding of maladministration, he is obliged to provide a full, reasoned and “cogent” explanation to Parliament.
2). It is not enough for a Secretary of State to have a different, bona fide view from that of the Parliamentary Ombudsman; there must be some respect for her office and the nature of her expert investigation. In the words of Lord Justice Chadwick (para 91):
“I am not persuaded that the Secretary of State was entitled to reject the Ombudsman’s finding merely because he preferred another view which could not be characterised as irrational. As I have said, earlier in this judgment, it is not enough that the Secretary of State has reached his own view on rational grounds: it is necessary that his decision to reject the Ombudsman’s findings in favour of his own view is, itself, not irrational having regard to the legislative intention which underlies 1967 Act [which established the Ombudsman’s office]: he must have a reason (other than simply a preference for his own view) for rejecting a finding which the Ombudsman has made after an investigation under the powers conferred by the Act.”
3). Here (as Judge Bean had concluded in the High Court) it was not rational for the Secretary of State to reject the Parliamentary Ombudsman’s findings that the government material about occupational pensions was misleading. For example, Lord Chadwick commented (at para 94):
“it is impossible to suggest that the reader of leaflet PEC 3 would not have been led to think that both pensioner members and members in service were to be provided with the same degree of protection: the protection would be provided in a manner which reflected the difference between rights to a pension in payment and future rights but the degree of protection would be the same in respect of each class of members.”
4). However, Parliamentary Ombudsman findings are not ‘binding’ as the campaigners and the Ombudsman had argued, save in the Local Government Ombudsman context which is different because there is no Parliamentary accountability for Councils and the statutory intention was different.
5). It was not correct for Judge Bean to find that there was no causal link between the identified maladministration and many of the forms of injustice identified by the Ombudsman – outrage, lost opportunities to make informed choices or take remedial action, distress anxiety, uncertainty and distortion of reality. These were caused by the maladministration and it would be irrational for the Secretary of State to argue otherwise.
6). The Secretary of State was, however, entitled to conclude that the maladministration had not cause or significantly contributed to all losses, and that he had not acted maladministratively when setting the MFR level on Government Actuary Department advice.
Why is the Pensions Minister appealing to the House of Lords?
He refuses to accept that he should provide cogent reasons for rejecting the findings in any Ombudsman report, or that he was irrational to do so here, or that the maladministration identified by the Ombudsman actually caused injustice. The Court of Appeal will decide whether it will give him permission to appeal in the next few days. The Minister can ask the House of Lords for permission directly if it is refused by the Court of Appeal. Their decision may take as long as six months from now.
Are the campaigners planning to appeal on the parts of the case they lost?
Not at present. An appeal to the House of Lords could take well over a year to be decided. It is more important now that the outstanding injustices identified by the Ombudsman and the Court of Appeal are addressed in the way the Ombudsman recommends. If the case does go to the House of Lords, the claimants will want to defend their position and argue that findings are binding as they have done in the High Court and Court of Appeal.
What are the likely effects of the judgement if permission to appeal to the House of Lords is refused?
The recently extended Financial Assistance Scheme may well meet some of the financial losses identified by the Ombudsman. However, she also concluded there were non financial losses than needed to be remedied.
Specifically, the Ombudsman recommended that “the Government should consider whether it should provide for the payment of consolatory payments to those scheme members fully covered by my recommendations - as a tangible recognition of the outrage, distress, inconvenience and uncertainty that they have endured. She also recommended that “the Government should consider whether it should apologise to scheme trustees for the effects on them of the maladministration I have identified, particularly for the distress that they have suffered due to the events relevant to this investigation”.
Most likely, the DWP will need to agree to consider individual cases where additional injustice can be shown, or make a further general extension to the Financial Assistance Scheme to address the additional injustice at a general level.
* * * * * * * * * * * * *
FAS Improvements, 17th December 2007
As you no doubt know by now, the DWP has come up with a much improved settlement for the lost occupational pensions. Special thanks are due to Dr Ros Altmann who spent a great deal of time in discussions with the DWP.
We met pensions minister Mike O'Brien and his civil service team with Ros and he went through the details finalised with Ros in their meetings
The settlement is not 100%, and this will no doubt come as a disappointment to some people. However this is not a settlement like a negotiated pay deal where both sides have signed a piece of paper. There is nothing to stop anyone campaigning further for 100% or full indexing or additional compensation (as recommended by the Ombudsman) if they wish,
- The deal puts us on very similar terms to the PPF, in some cases better because this is government financed deal whereas the PPF terms includes a clause that says pensions can be reduced if the PPF finds itself short of money.
- The FAS will now pay 90% of the pension entitlement statement we that should have been received when the scheme was wound up. Note this is not 90% of the pension you would have got at retirement. The European Court verdict was not helpful here as it said protection did not have to be 100% so the government have, in my understanding, legal backing for something less.
- The FAS now recognises the scheme age of 60 or 62 for men and 60 for women (was previously 65 for both) In the case of people who have already passed their scheme age the payments will be backdated subject to a maximum backdating to the time the FAS was first agreed in 2004.
- There is inflation protection (maximum 5% pa) of your pension until you reach the scheme age. This means if you are 40 and have an entitlement of £3kpa your pension will still have £3kpa purchasing power when you reach 62
- The cap, currently £26k, is now protected against inflation (previously it was fixed)
- After retirement the portion of your pension that is post 1997 will have protection against inflation (max 2.5% pa) This is the same terms as the PPF and the 97 date is fixed because that is when indexing became a legal requirement. This is, in my opinion, the worst part of the deal, but anyone wishing to campaign on this should be aware that you would effectively be campaigning for the FAS and the PPF and as the PPF is open ended and its potential payments unknown that will be a difficult task.
- You can now take a tax free lump sum (subject to existing tax legislation) which will be very useful for people with an endowment mortgage shortfall.
- You can now take early retirement on grounds of ill health. (previously you had to be terminally ill with less than six months to live to get this). In the proposals as written this payment can only start at 60, but Ros is arguing for a discretionary scheme where it can be taken earlier with medical examination by DWP doctors. The DWP are nervous of this as they say there is a lot of invalidity benefits abuse and do not want the same to happen with the FAS, but they will discuss this further with Ros
- Solvent companies are now included. There are several companies who, quite legally, closed their schemes leaving their workers in the same position as those who lost pensions through insolvency. The government has acknowledged that this was a result of bad legislation and in future employers closing schemes have to provide a full pension buyout. Those who were caught in the past will now be compensated the same as everyone else
It would seem that Gordon Brown and Alastair Darling fought against this and there were some very heated meetings where Peter Hain and Mike O'Brien stood up for us and said something must be done. As Mike O'Brien said in our meeting, he does not think Peter Hain and Mike O'Brien will survive the next cabinent re-shuffle! The rescue of Northern Rock savers gave us a very good weapon in our discussions with the DWP as we were able to say that why can you rescue them but not us.
It has been achieved by the work of many people. Ros Altmann (who has done many hours of work over the past five years on a pro bono basis), of course, deserves special mention for her tireless work. The Pension Action Group campaigns and protests which kept the subject in the media's attention, the press, (particularly the Mail and Telegraph), the pensions professionals (who kept up pressure on the DWP because they saw it harming public confidence in pensions) and people who joined in our demonstrations have all played their part
Not a total victory, then, but probably the best we can achieve for now in the time available. Anyone who disagrees is free to continue the campaign! There have been deaths and suicides and with many people in their sixties time is not on our side.
In 2002 we met the then pensions minister Ian McCartney who told us "I can offer you little hope, in fact I can offer you no hope at all". We've come a long way since then.
* * * * * * * * * * * * *
Brown and Darling Blocking Pensions Justice
Here is the text of the press release issued by the Pensions Action Group on 9th December 2007:
MINISTERIAL ROW: BROWN AND DARLING APPARENTLY REJECT DWP PLEAS TO END PENSION SCANDAL
Hain and O'Brien want to rescue destitute pension victims before Christmas as official report points to easy affordability.
The Prime Minister and Chancellor are apparently preventing the DWP from rescuing the pensioners whose company schemes collapsed since 1997. Peter Hain and Mike O'Brien are apparently battling to persuade their colleagues to allow them to put an end to the worst pension scandal this country has ever seen. The official DWP review has shown that a proper rescue is affordable and Hain wants to announce it this week, before Christmas, but it seems Numbers 10 and 11 are standing in the way. There is still time for a change of heart, as Parliament sits this week the Review could be published and its findings accepted, in order to give the victims a decent Christmas at last. Will they show the leadership qualities required?
After the instant rescue of Northern Rock savers, at a potential cost of billions of pounds to the taxpayer, the continued delay in settling the pension wind-ups scandal is totally inexcusable. Responsible Government should be about admitting mistakes, putting them right and moving on. Sadly, it seems Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling are incapable of doing so and this lack of integrity and compassion has led to a bitter row within Cabinet.
Peter Hain told one of his constituents yesterday, a former member of the Dexion pension scheme, that the DWP Review has found there is certainly sufficient money to offer all the victims at least as much as is paid by the Pension Protection Fund 'at little or no extra cost to the taxpayer'. He also suggested that the pension campaigners should keep up pressure on the Treasury and Prime Minister, because the DWP Ministers want to settle this situation immediately. Peter Hain and Mike O'Brien want to behave decently and it beggars belief that their Cabinet colleagues are preventing them from doing so. What has happened to the 'moral compass' of Labour?
Many of the victims are desperately ill, saved for decades in employer schemes which the Government assured them were safe and protected by the law. They need their pensions now, many are past retirement age and either still working despite failing health, or have become too unwell to keep working.
The victims were promised that the latest of a long line of reports on their situation would be published by the end of November. The report is ready, but the DWP has not published it. Peter Hain and Mike O'Brien are furious that they are being forbidden from doing the decent thing, especially just before the 'festive season'. What message does this send about how our Government is functioning?
How can any responsible politician be so heartless as to refuse to end the suffering of these innocent victims, who have waited so many years for a proper rescue and have had every single independent verdict in their favour? The Parliamentary Ombudsman, Public Administration Select Committee, UK High Court Judicial Review and European Court of Justice have all laid the blame for this situation squarely on the Government and said that the Financial Assistance Scheme (the scheme set up in 2004 to rescue the victims) is inadequate. In fact, thousands of those already past pension age are still waiting for payment. This is the worst pension scandal the UK has ever seen - far worse than Maxwell - one that was created and prolonged by the Government. It represents the most shameful, cruel betrayal of hard-working, decent citizens.
Alistair Darling himself , when Secretary of State in the DWP, committed the Government to compensating people who were misled by the Government about their pensions. This is what he said, in Parliament, in 2002:
"The public rely on Government information and they are entitled to be reassured that leaflets are accurate and comprehensive. As a matter of principle, when someone loses out because they were given the wrong information by a Department, they are entitled to expect the Government to put it right. It is important that Governments should be honest about what they do. Whatever else they do, they should not put people in a position in which they do not have adequate pension cover."
For more information contact:
Dr. Ros Altmann - 07799 404747
Peter Humphrey - 01442 403356
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
All Night Vigil 20th/21st November 2007
The weather in November is not really suitable for our traditional “Stripped of our Pensions” protest, so it was decided to organise an overnight vigil timed to draw media attention to the imminent publication of the Young Review. Over sixty people took part in shifts allowing us to run from 4pm on the Tuesday afternoon to 10am on the Wednesday morning. Despite the absolutely foul weather people came from all over the UK to join in, notably John Benson from Cardiff who actually managed two demonstrations (in Cardiff and London) in one day, Mike Marsden from St Helens, and Keith and Pat Sargent from Gainsborough.
 The vigil was held in Whitehall directly opposite the entrance to Downing Street. We were pleasantly surprised when Pensions Minister Mike O’Brien visited us early on the Tuesday evening. He spoke with everyone present and spent some time with widows Jean Wade (front) and Marlene Cheshire. He said he sympathised with our position, but could not say anything further until the review had been published.
 The Shadow Secretary of State Chris Grayling also appeared (and left a very welcome bottle of malt whisky to help fight the cold). The photo shows on the front row from the left, Dave Allen, Marlene Cheshire, Chris Grayling MP, Dr Ros Altmann, Mike Penning MP, David Gauke MP and Alan Marnes. During the vigil many other MPs arrived to give support including Jenny Willott, Bill Cash, Julie Kirkbride, Nigel Waterston, Paul Rowan, Derek Wyatt, Alan Simpson, Danny Alexander and Liberal Democrat peer and campaigner Lord Oakshott. Apologies for any omissions, it was hard to track who came to see us in the heavy rain!
 During the vigil a letter was delivered to Number 10 Downing Street. The letter assured Gordon Brown that the protests will not end until the pensions are restored, and said his actions were causing great harm to peoples' trust in pensions. Numbers accessing Number 10 are limited and the letter was delivered by (Back Row from left) Pete Humphrey (Dexion), Marlene Cheshire (Dexion), Andrew Parr (ASW Sheerness), Carol Herring (Bradstock), Jean Wade (ASW Sheerness widow) and at front (in the wheelchair) Phil Healy (ASW Sheerness). Phil is currently awaiting a replacement hip operation. Disappointingly a standard reply was received just two days later which thanked us for the letter and said the government had noted the contents. On the way out Jean & Marlene suddenly wondered if Gordon Brown was in, and returned to Number 10, knocked on the door and asked to see him. The rather surprised official who answered assured us he wasn’t.
 A simultaneous protest was held outside the Welsh Assembly building in Cardiff. Amazingly John Benson, the organizer, was present for the Cardiff start then came up to London by bus for the overnight shift. Assembly Members from the Conservatives, Lib Dems, and Plaid Cymru came out to speak to the protesters, but as usual Rhodri Morgan and the Labour members never appeared.
There was excellent press, radio and TV coverage of both events. Special mention should be made of Jeff Prestridge from the Mail on Sunday who came and spent the overnight shift with us. Jeff has publicised our campaign for over five years and we would like to acknowledge his continuing support
Overall, then two very successful, if rather damp, protests. Thanks to everyone who came, particularly Dr Altmann who rearranged meetings to join us, the Metropolitan Police for their usual good humour, Alan Marnes for doing all the police paper work, Andrew Parr for the liaison with Number 10, Richard Nicholl for arranging a nearby hotel to allow comfort and rest breaks during the night and Adrian de Segundo for the gas fire (even if it did go out at 2:30 am!)
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Labour Party Conference 25th September 2007
The by now traditional annual protest took place at the Labour Party Conference in Bournemouth on Tuesday 25th September
The day started with an unusual event; a Conservative fringe meeting at a Labour party conference. This was well attended by the media. Chris Grayling, shadow Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, organised the meeting to give the Conservative view on the subject. He started by outlining the history of the lost pensions and then said that the Tories, if elected, would re-establish the lifeboat scheme recently rejected in the Commons
Andrew Parr (ASW Sheerness) then described how the loss of his pension had affected him and his family. Despite having a serious heart condition he would have to keep on working for three years past his retirement date
Dr Ros Altmann then spoke referring to the injustice that had been caused and the methods the government could, indeed should, take to restore the pensions. She said this is the worst pension scandal the UK has ever seen and we heard on Monday from the new Prime Minister about British values. These values have been violated by his handling of this scandal and his abandonment of those whose lives are in ruins because they did what the Government encouraged them to do. She also compared the many years that have passed with the days that the government took to respond to Northern Rock
 After the meeting, the 250 or so protestors formed up in Exeter Crescent and, led by eight (!) police horses and Pete Humphrey (Dexion) and Phil Healy (ASW) in wheelchairs, marched to the conference centre. Chris Grayling and the local Bournemouth East MP Tobias Ellwood accompanied us on the march.
The protest at the centre lasted about twenty minutes when we moved on to the beach for the traditional strip. As usual this caused much media interest, particularly as Val Day and Jacquie Humphrey joined in!
 To everyone’s surprise, Neil Kinnock came down from the conference to talk with us. The reasons for this are very unclear, but he was surrounded by a crowd who accused him of letting us down by voting against the lifeboat scheme in the Lords. This meeting was reported widely in the media, with many reporters comparing Neil Kinnock’s pension, said to be over £75k from his time as an MP and from his post as transport commissioner in the EU, with the pensions of the protestors. The photo shows Kinnock being harangued by Jacquie Humphrey
 As we were dispersing from the beach, Jack Straw MP was walking down the road to his car. With Allan Pollock in the lead, the group surrounded Jack Straw, asking him for help and also asking him to arrange a meeting with Gordon Brown. For the record, he said he could not do this. Allan quietly leaned on the car door, and Jack straw had the look of a rabbit caught in the headlights of a car. Surprisingly his minders simply stood by and did not intervene. The photo shows Marlene Cheshire laying down the law. Eventually Jack Straw, and his minders, simply walked back into the conference centre
According to press reports Gordon Brown had planned a walkabout photo-shoot, but cancelled it when he saw us outside.
In the evening, the Fabian Society was holding a meeting which pensions minister Mike O’Brien was attending. A small group stayed on in Bournemouth to lobby outside the meeting. Surprisingly they were invited in for a short talk with him after the main meeting had finished. The meeting went well and he was left in no doubt of how we all feel.
All told a very good day. We got excellent media coverage and were yet again lucky with the weather; in fact it was so warm that Allan Pollock and Adrian Segundo went for a swim after the strip!
Thanks to everyone who turned up and took part, and to the Dorset police for their usual good humour and common sense. Particular thanks to Alan Marnes for doing all the paperwork and liaising with the police and local authority.
* * * * * * * * * * * *
Northern Rock
The failure of the Northern Rock and the subsequent run on the bank, the first for over 100 years was a salutary lesson and an example of Government hypocrisy. The sight of many queues of worried people outside the branches lead to the government “guaranteeing” (that word again) deposits and pledging within days what could be £21bn of tax-payers’ money to solve the problem.
Many people think that with the public having seen how we have been treated they do not trust the government’s promises. Five DAYS and a bucket load of tax-payers’ money is found to sort out Northern Rock. Over five YEARS and we are still waiting for restoration of our lost pensions.
* * * * * * * * * * * *
Judicial Review Appeal
The government’s appeal against the Judicial Review verdict was heard in the Court of Appeal on 25th to 27th July. The verdict will be given in the Autumn. It seems highly likely that the case will proceed to the House of Lords whatever the verdict as the case clarifies the role of the Parliamentary Ombudsman and as such is wider than just our pensions saga. A Press release from Dr Ros Altmann can be found on our Documents page.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Pensions Bill Receives Royal Assent
The Pensions Bill received Royal Assent on Thursday 26th July. Although the Lords’ amendments for a lifeboat fund were rejected (using the 1911 Parliament Act) this does bring several improvements to the FAS which should be noted:
1. The Government has passed its own amendment to the Pensions Bill which puts the annuity purchases of FAS schemes on hold for nine months and trustees are only allowed to buy annuities if they first get permission from the FAS. That is great news, because at last the Government has listened to the points I have made since 2003 about the waste of annuitising as at present and, once the Young review identifies the savings that can be made by not annuitising, the money will still be there!
2. The announced extensions to the FAS come into force straight away. This means
a. Anyone currently getting the so-called 60% initial payments will receive higher payouts at the (so-called) 80% of core. You should contact the FAS if you are getting 60% to ask for your increase and also contact your trustees.
b. The higher cap will apply straight away, so if you were capped at £12,000 before your cap will now increase to £26,000.
c. Trustees are being urged to make sure that they tell FAS about all members over age 65, so FAS can start paying as soon as possible. PLEASE contact your trustees and ensure that they are now providing the data to FAS and that they recognise this is really urgent.
d. The £10 a week minimum is removed, so even if you are entitled to less than £10 a week from FAS, you should still get it.
Nowhere near PPF yet, but at least much better than before. Still nothing from scheme pension age and no inflation linking.
If you are in a scheme that is in wind-up, contact your trustees to ensure they know about the need to inform FAS of anyone over age 65 straight away.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Pensions Bill Returns to the Commons
The Pensions Bill, complete with the Lifeboat Fund amendments from the Lords, returned to the House of Commons on Tuesday 17th July. We had very short notice but managed to organize a small group of protesters who demonstrated in Parliament Square. We must thank the Metropolitan Police for rushing through the paperwork for this in record time, the “Serious Organised Crime and Police Act” makes protests with little or no notice very difficult to organize. Thanks also to Graham Nuttal for the photograph.
There was three line whip on the day, and we were hampered by the lack of support from Northern Ireland MPs who were at a meeting in Belfast. There was a very strong debate and on logic alone our case was won, but insufficient Labour MPs rebelled and the vote was lost by 303 votes to 253.
Normally the Bill would now have returned to the Lords for further debate but the Government used an obscure bit of legislation called the 1911 Parliament Act to ignore the Lords and go straight to Royal Assent. This Act is rarely used, the last time was for foxhunting, and like the rejection of the Ombudsman’s report, its use seems to becoming more common. Further comments on this can be found on our media page.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Young Review
The interim Young Review was published on 12th July. The final report will be published at the end of the year. Basically it was a mixture of good news and bad news. The good points were the suggestion of putting annuity purchase on hold, and the suggestion that there was sufficient money in unclaimed assets in banks and building societies, commenting on the events in Eire where this had been done. There were no comments on solvent employers, more will follow in the final report.
More detailed comments from Dr Ros Altmann can be found on our Document page.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Commons Vote Tuesday 17th July 2007
The Pensions Bill, with Lords’ amendments, returns to the House on Tuesday 17th July. It is critical that everyone seizes the moment to lobby MPs as hard as possible, and a small static demo is planned in Parliament Square at noon. The short notice has made it this difficult to organise, both for travel arrangements and police approval.
This represents the best chance of achieving improvements on FAS as it currently stands and one of the critical things to get over is that the government must do better. The FAS, even as amended, is not addressing the injustice the Ombudsman identified. That is being challenged in the second judicial review (see below).
It is instructive to compare the FAS & PPF. In essence, the FAS 'core' pension takes the members' expected pension and then:
* deducts all the inflation linking
* deducts the whole tax free lump sum (which many people planned to use to pay endowment mortgage shortfalls). It also means the FAS and PPF are subject to different tax rules.
* deducts some of the revaluation
* deducts the early retirement allowance
* deducts most of the ill-health cover
* deducts much of the widow's benefit
* deducts all the dependent children's benefit
* ignores the scheme pension age (even for women who have to wait from 60 until the age of 65)
and then takes 80% of that figure as the basis payment.
By contrast the PPF (on which the lifeboat proposals are based) takes 90% of the members' expected pension that:
* includes some inflation linking
* includes the tax free lump sum
* includes an early retirement and ill-health allowance
* includes more widow's benefit
* includes dependent children's benefit
* fully recognizes scheme pension age.
What is more, the proposed FAS extensions do not benefit a great many of those who had their complaints upheld by the Ombudsman and who won the first judicial review.
Very unusually the Public Administration Select Committee (PASC) (which last year produced a damning report) published another report on Friday 13th July calling for MPs to support the Lords’ amendments. The committee (chaired by Labour MP Dr Tony Wright) has several Labour MP members including Cardiff MP Julie Morgan
* * * * * * * * * * * *
Judicial Review in the Court of Appeal
This is listed for three days beginning on 25 July 2007. It will take place at the Royal Courts of Justice on the Strand and the hearings each day will run from 10.30 am until about 4.30 pm with an hour for lunch. The Court will hear from the DWP (probably first – though we are contesting that), our barrister Dinah Rose QC, the Ombudsman’s barrister, James Maurichi, and (hopefully only briefly) a barrister representing the Attorney General.
We do not know the court number – we will only find out the day before. As many of you that can attend on all three days will be welcome. It is very important that the Court is confronted with the scheme members its decision will affect.
* * * * * * * * * * *
Second Judicial Review
This challenges the scope of the extensions to FAS by arguing that the reconsideration of the Ombudsman’s first finding and first recommendation has not been undertaken lawfully. The case has been listed to be heard on 24th and 25th October, again in the High Court. But the DWP is threatening the four claimants with over £70,000 of legal costs it expects to spend in its defence. We will be applying to the court for an order to protect the four by limiting those costs or directing that they cannot be recovered in a public interest case like this one.
* * * * * * * * * * * *
Success in the House of Lords
The important amendment which was defeated in the Commons by just 22 votes was re-introduced in the Lords and debated on Weds 6th June. It won by a striking majority:
For 181
Against 126
Majority 55
The Lords are traditionally less affected by party politics and this showed.
We did our trademark striptease outside parliament and there was excellent TV, radio & press coverage. John Bull (Ray Egan) came all the way from Birmingham to assist us despite not having lost his pension and he even joined in the striptease (complete with union jack underpants).Several press photographers wanted us to do the stripped act outside Downing Street and surprisingly the police gave permission so many ran with the story of our Downing Street protest.
What happens now is the bill, with the amendment, will go back to the House (probably in July) and be re-considered by MPs. They can reject it again and it will go back to the Lords again and a game of ping-pong can develop. Ultimately the government can use something called the Parliament Act to discount the Lords' ruling, so it's not over by a long way.
If included in the bill he amendment would:
a) Bring payments up to 90% of pensions entitlement (unfortunately the European Court of Justice verdict blew the chances of 100% out of the water).
b) Pay pensions from the scheme age (60 for women, 62 for men at Sheerness) rather than from the FAS age of 65
c) Dispense with the slow and laborious FAS payment scheme and allow trustees to start paying pensions locally
d) Remove the requirement to buy annuities
e) Include employees of solvent companies (not relevant here but very important for those affected)
f) Improve payment to surviving partners
g) Give some (but not total) protection against inflation
h) Achieve all this in the short term with a Treasury loan which will be re-paid from unclaimed assets
The annoying thing is all this was proposed four years ago in a Private Members bill from Frank Field MP which was never called
The Lords' amendment does not affect any possible union legal action, the two High Court Judicial Reviews or the Andrew Young review of the FAS. These are all still ongoing
The next part of our campaign will be to persuade MPs not to reject the amendment for a second time.
The score is now five-nil:
The Parliamentary Ombudsman has found in our favour
The Select Committee found in our favour
The European Court found in our favour
The Judicial Review found in our favour
and now
The House of Lords has found in our favour
Add this to all the media pressure, how long can the government still say it is nothing to do with them?
* * * * * * * * * * *
Cardiff Demonstration 28th April 2007
Nearly 100 people took part in a demonstration in Cardiff on Saturday 28th April
The group assembled in Adam Street by the infamous poster of Gordon Brown and did a sit-down protest in the middle of the road. After a near miss with a car the police arrived and suggested that we had made our point and said they would assist with a march into the centre of town. They escorted the march to Cardiff’s pedestrianised High Street where leaflets were handed out to the shoppers.
Thanks to everyone who turned out (including the Welsh choir!) & Plaid Cymru Assembly Member Jon Owen Thomas. Special mention should be made of John & Sally Hayter who drove down from Kent to join in.
The protest was widely reported in the South Wales media
* * * * * * * * * * * * *
Pensions Bill Amendments April 18th 2007
There were three proposed amendments for the Pensions Bill which is currently passing through Parliament. The first, union supported, from Julie Morgan (Lab MP for Cardiff), one from Dr Tony Wright (Lab, and chairman of the select committee which found in our favour) and a cross party one with proposers David Cameron, Menzies Campbell and Frank Field. All the amendments were aiming for 90% PPF levels, but with variations in how this was achieved.
The best proposal (in terms of what it could deliver and when) was the cross party amendment which proposed that pension funds started paying pensions once a member reached scheme age (as the PPF does), with a lifeboat fund set up initially with a Treasury Loan which would be repaid with money from unclaimed assets. This lifeboat fund would then top up the scheme funds as and when required. The cross party amendment also gave limited indexing which the others didn't. The mechanism was very similar to the Mirror Group rescue fund which was up and running in six months, compared with the five years we have been fighting.
There were long discussions in the morning between the unions, Julie Morgan and the government which resulted in Julie Morgan withdrawing her amendment on promise of a review of the working and funding of the FAS. Tony Wright’s amendment was mainly aimed at getting solvent company employees included and was withdrawn when the government said they would examine this
The cross party amendment went to a vote and was lost by 22 votes. If 12 MPs had changed sides we would have won.
Several Labour MPs we thought would support us didn't. For example, Derek Wyatt, Kevin Brennan, Sandra Osborne, and Anne Begg all abstained or voted against the amendment. Anne Cryer deserves a wooden spoon, she signed all four EDMs but still voted against the amendment.
We should acknowledge the fifteen Labour MPs who voted for the amendment:
Frank Cook, Jeremy Corbyn, David Drew, Frank Field, Mark Fisher, Kate Hoey, Kelvin Hopkins, John McDonnell, Michael Meacher, Bridget Prentice, Alan Simpson, Gisela Sturat, Robert Wareing, Mike Wood and Tony Wright
The Pensions Bill now goes to the House of Lords where we will have a further chance of making changes. It will return for the final reading in the House in late June.
Two small good points came out of the debate. Some solvent employees where a compromise agreement was reached are now included in the FAS, however others are still excluded, and the FAS payments will start at 80% regardless of whether the scheme has completed wind-up.
Part of the reason that Julie Morgan withdrew her amendment was the announcement that a review of funding for the FAS. This will be chaired by Andrew Young, Directing Actuary at the government’s Actuary’s Department. An interim report will be given in the Summer of 2007 and a final report at the end of 2007. It will, however, be late 2008 / early 2009 before any proposals take effect. Topics that will be examined include additional funding (i.e. unclaimed assets and levies) and whether it is sensible to force the purchase of annuities. Comments can be sent by e-mail to:
Pensions Bill Amendments
A new Pension Bill is going through Parliament in this session. There have been several amendments proposed which, if accepted, will improve on the current level of payments from the FAS to something like the PPF. Changes would include 90% level of payment (as opposed to the 80% level of the FAS), scheme age being used instead of 65, ability to take a tax free lump sum etc. The best amendments are those tabled by Dr Tony Morgan (the chairman of the Select Committee which produced such a damning report) and Cardiff MP Julie Morgan. These also have LibDem support. Unfortunately a Tory amendment, whilst offering improvements, is less good, only offering money (from unclaimed assets) at some time in the future when the Tories are in power and when (they say) they can view the full finances of the state.
The amendments will be debated on Wednesday 18th April. Please contact your MP by phone (02072-193000) or better still come to the House of Commons on the morning of 18th April, to lobby (speak personally to) your MP and ask them to vote for the amendments tabled by Dr Tony Wright and Julie Morgan. The debate can be seen on the Parliament Channel on Sky or Freeview
* * * * * * * * * * * *
Pensions Action Group Posters
 The forthcoming local elections in England and the Assembly elections in Wales and Scotland are expected to show a large swing against Labour. The Pensions Action Group have paid for posters to be put up in Cardiff (City centre) and Edinburgh (city centre and Waverley station) linking Gordon Brown to our plight. The timing of the posters could not have been better with the news about Gordon Brown’s action over the removal of ACT broke just a week before the posters were erected. The posters themselves, planned & designed over a month ago, were fortuitously spot on.
Thanks to John & Sally Hayter for the original idea, John Benson for co-ordinating the Cardiff posters and Marcus Stout for the Edinburgh posters. Thanks also to Richard Nicholl for negotiating with the poster board owners.
The unveiling of the posters was a media event and was widely reported on TV and in the national press. Tony Blair visited Cardiff a few days after the posters were unveiled and was so angered by what he saw that he contacted the local press and gave a statement about the government’s position. The paper rang John Benson who said that if Tony Blair was so concerned the Pensions Action Group would be delighted to meet with him and Gordon Brown for discussions. We wait to see if this offer is taken up, but we won’t hold our breath.
* * * * * * * * * * * *
Gordon Brown and ACT Revelations
One of Gordon Brown’s first acts when Labour came to power was the removal of something called Advance Corporation Tax relief. This highly technical procedure meant that dividends which pension funds used to receive tax free would now be liable for tax. This was a real stealth tax as who, apart from experts, would think that removal of ACT could do anything to their pensions? Wrong. It initially took £5bn out in the first year (think, it would take about £3bn to restore our lost pensions) and has grown now to something like £8bn per year. Pension funds have lost something like £100bn in the ten years of Gordon Brown’s management of the economy. Very serious money. The removal also meant that pension investments were taxed twice, once each year on the growth, and once more when the investor retired. In addition ACT removal meant that it was advantageous for pension funds to move out of shares and in to bonds. This movement of funds was a factor in the fall of the FTSE in the late 1990s.
There have long been rumours that this was done against expert advice, and for over two years the Times has been trying to get access to the relevant papers under the Freedom of Information Act. The Treasury strongly resisted, saying it was not in the public interest. Surprisingly, they suddenly released them on a classic “good day to release bad news” with Gordon Brown out of the country and all MPs just having left London for the Easter break. The released papers show that all the experts, civil servants, Bank of England, actuaries, NAPF, were appalled by the suggestion and pointed out the potentially dire side effects.
This advice was ignored, ACT relief was removed and from there it was all downhill. Final salary occupational pensions have literally been decimated. Returns on private pensions are at a historic low. In 1997 our pension system was, in the government’s own words, “the envy of Europe”. In ten years Gordon Brown has destroyed it.
A press release by Dr Ros Altmann can be found on our Documents page, and a typical media comment can be found on our Media Comments page.
* * * * * * * * * * * *
Stripped of our Pensions March 21st 2007
Wednesday 21st March was Gordon Brown’s last budget before he almost certainly takes over from Tony Blair as Prime Minister, so as Gordon is perceived as the block on our campaign it was decided to hold our traditional “Stripped of our Pension” on Parliament Square before his budget speech. Alan Marnes did the usual negotiations and paperwork with the Metropolitan Police who, because they had a lot going on that day, imposed an upper limit on numbers.
 Despite truly awful weather conditions on the preceding day (2oC, strong icy Northerly winds and snow showers) nine brave souls (from the left, Graham Dodds, Alan Marnes, John Benson, Andrew Parr, Pete Humphrey, John Hunt, Roger Day, Keith Sargent and Adrian Segundo) turned up and stripped off. Somebody must like us, because just as we did the striptease the sun came out, the wind dropped and the temperature of 4oC seemed almost balmy. Numerous MPs from all political parties came and joined us, holding up placards for a media photo-shoot. Amongst these was Conservative Shadow Spokesman for Work and Pensions Phil Hammond MP and Lib Dem shadow spokesman David Laws MP. Ros came along to offer welcome advice and support. After the photo shoot the strippers circled all round Parliament square to the delight of the tourist. We gather a police escorted limousine that passed contained Princess Anne, but we don’t know what she thought!
 We also did a football penalty shoot stunt on the grass in Parliament Square, based on the four government defeats from the Ombudsman, the Select Committee, the European Court and the High Court. A score of four nil as the placards said
 With Bob Forty dressed as a Gordon Brown goalie, Roger Allen dressed as a referee (complete with whistle) and Peter Wheeler dressed as a very imposing judge a mock penalty shoot-out took place where Pete scored four conclusive goals to chants from the strippers of “FOUR – NIL”
The imminent budget speech mean there was a media scrum present so we had good coverage on TV and radio and in the following day’s newspapers.
Thanks to everyone who turned up, Alan Marnes for the paperwork and the Metropolitan Police for their usual good humoured control of the proceedings.
* * * * * * * * * *
Budget Announcement 21st March 2007
Gordon Brown’s surprise announcement in the budget caught everybody by surprise, not least of all ourselves. Everyone had retired to The Sanctuary in Tothill Street after the demonstration for warmth food and drink, and we were watching the budget speech on News 24 in the pub when we suddenly saw that Gordon had made an announcement about us. Then the mobiles started to ring and it was media mayhem for the rest of the day!
As usual you have to treat the figures with some cynicism and not be awed by the sums involved. It is peanuts in government terms. For example the quoted £8bn is given in cash terms over sixty years, in reality it is £33m a year (in today's money) for sixty years. This is money down the back of the sofa in terms of government spending. For example the DWP paid out over £700m in error last year which cannot be re-claimed and has been written off!
Three important changes to the FAS were announced:
1) When a scheme closed, everyone should have received a pension statement of their entitlement from their scheme administrators. Until yesterday the FAS topped up on a sliding scale to 80% of the core pension for those who were near scheme retirement age, down to 50% for those who were fifteen years for retirement when the FAS started. From yesterday the 80% band applies to everyone, i.e. the pension you will receive from age 65 will be 80% of the core pension. Core pension is a rather imprecise term and is roughly the entitlement you had when the scheme closed, excluding cash lump sums, indexing, retirement through ill health, early retirement and other similar extras. Payment is also made from age 65, even if your scheme had an earlier age of 60 or 62
The 80% figure is, as far as we can see, protected against inflation until you are 65, then freezes once you retire. Inflation will then decrease the value of the pension at about 3% per year. This lops off about a third over eight years and halves the value over twenty years
2) The old FAS had a cap of £12k. This meant that anyone with a higher entitlement than £15k would hit the cap and not get 80% (0.8 * 15 =12). People with long service and/or high salaries were thus losing out. The cap has been raised to £26,000 which means people will get 80% of their pensions up to £32k5 (26 / 0.8 =32.5). There is, though, one caveat which is unclear. The old FAS cap was not protected against inflation so those, say, 20 years away from retirement could hit the cap even though their original pension entitlement was much less than £12k. The PPF cap (which is also £26k) IS protected against inflation and increases every year. It is not clear whether the new FAS cap is now protected. If not, a sub £26k pension could hit the cap by time you reach retirement.
3) The minimum cut off of £520pa has been removed, so everyone gets 80%. This will benefit people with short service, but how a pension of, say, £100pa will be handled is unclear. At this level the pension will cost more to administrate than it is worth so there may be a lump sum buyout of small pensions.
Whilst welcome, the improvements do not restore the lost pensions in full, and the lack of indexing after retirement means pensions will decrease annually (3% halves an income over 20 years, compare this with what happens to council tax and energy costs which are the main expenditures for a retired person). There is also the delay in payment from scheme age (commonly 60 or 62) to 65.
Other things like commutation for a lump sum, early retirement through ill health and partner's benefits on death before retirement are all missing
Employees of solvent companies which, quite legally, closed their schemes are excluded. Some people have lost all their pension and do not get a penny from the FAS or the PPF.
The Pensions Action Group are therefore continuing their campaign, and the appeals in the High Court will probably be heard at the end of June 2007.
We also gather that Community & Amicus are not happy with the budget statement and are lobbying MPs to come up with something better. Their court action is still on the cards
There is currently a Pensions Bill going through the House, and Julie Morgan (Labour MP for Cardiff) and others have tabled amendments calling for an increase in the FAS to at least PPF levels with indexing. This will be debated before October 2007
A press release from Dr Ros Altmann can be found on our documents page
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Judicial Review Appeal
The government have appealed against the Judicial Review verdict that the Ombudsman’s findings cannot be rejected. Our legal team has appealed against the findings on causation, the way that changes to the MFR were made and the Human Rights issues. The government refused to support an application for the case to be fast tracked to the House of Lords so the appeal will be heard in the High Court, probably in late June or early July. We gather that the verdict has increased the power of the Ombudsman which has caused concern in all government departments, not just the DWP
Secretary of State John Hutton stated in the House that the Government will meet our costs for the appeal and will not claim costs if they win. The statement was not clear, however, as to whether this will extend to our appeal or just the single point of the government’s appeal. Clarity on this point has been requested
* * * * * * * * * * *
Judicial Review Verdict Wednesday 21st February 2007
 We had expected to hear the verdict within four to six weeks of the hearing, but unexpectedly the judge, Mr Justice Bean, delivered his judgement much earlier.
There are four parts to the judge's ruling. As the photo of Jacquie Humphrey clearly shows we were very pleased with the outcome:
1) The judge upheld that the information produced by the government was misleading and the government was guilty of maladministration. He went on to say that a government could not reject an Ombudsman's finding of maladministration (i.e. the government cannot be judge and jury on itself), save in very narrow, exceptional circumstances. If the government disagrees with the Ombudsman, the case has to be resolved in court. Outside the issue of our pensions this is a very important constitutional judgement which affects the way the government must operate. As a result of the judgement, the proper role of the Ombudsman as an independent arbiter of whether or not there is maladministration has been protected and strengthened.
He also took apart the government’s defence of the various booklets. The defence barrister had said:
[..] the MFR is described as being “aimed” at making sure schemes have enough money. It “is intended” to ensure schemes are protected. Adherence to the MFR entails that there “should” (not “will”) be enough assets. Nowhere does the leaflet state or imply that adherence to the MFR provides a guarantee that all liabilities will be met
To which the judge replied:
[..] Such minute textual analysis of a pamphlet aimed at the general public can in my view only give comfort to those who consider that it is unwise to believe anything one reads in a government publication. It is particularly ironic when applied to a leaflet whose back cover boasts that it has been awarded a Crystal Mark for clarity by the Plain English Campaign. PEC 3, especially page 15, gives the clear impression that following the enactment of the new law scheme members can be reassured that their pensions are safe whatever happens. I have no doubt that this is what it was designed to do. I agree with the Ombudsman that it was inaccurate and misleading
For these reasons the judge quashed the government’s rejection of the Ombudsman’s first maladministration finding.
The second part of the win was the judge’s rejection of the government’s argument that it would have done nothing, even if maladministration had been admitted. He said he could not accept the response politically would necessarily be the same. The judge therefore went on to quash the rejection of the Ombudsman’s first recommendation. The government therefore now has to re-consider the Ombudsman's report, but it will be doing so under an intense media and political spotlight. We will be pressurising them along the lines of:
• The Ombudsman found in our favour
• The Select Committee found in our favour
• The European Court found pensions in the UK were not adequately protected
• The High Court have found in our favour.
It's normally three strikes and you are out, the government have had four, when will they see sense?
2) The judge gave a mixed view on causation, (showing that the misleading information actually caused loss). The Ombudsman had ruled that the government should take a broad brush approach (as it had in relation to very similar maladministration in inherited SERPS) and consider compensating all those who had lost their pensions. The judge said this went too far. His words were:
If the First Finding had been limited to the causation of injustice to any scheme member who had read the offending leaflets, or who relied on advice from colleagues or others who in turn relied on the leaflets, it would not be open to challenge. But I cannot follow the logic of the Ombudsman’s finding that everyone who between 1995 and 2005 suffered losses on the winding up of their pension scheme was the victim of injustice in consequence of maladministration
This is actually helpful – up to a point - as its says that where it could be demonstrated that an individual had done research and influenced other people it can be assumed that the other people have suffered loss.
We will need to see how the government responds to this. If the judge’s approach is correct (we have permission to appeal against this part of the ruling, so his word may not be final), it still does not let the DWP off the hook as a strict approach to causation could lead to up to 125,000 individual complaints, or even that many judicial reviews.
3) The judge did not agree that the changes to the MFR were maladministration. This is debatable and we may appeal. Again, we have permission to appeal against this part of the ruling.
4) The judge dismissed the human rights case outright. Again, we can appeal this if we wish. The human rights point is particularly important for those wholly excluded from the FAS, as the government cannot say it has made proportionate arrangements to compensate everyone when they are excluded.
Notes from Dr Ros Altmann
The government should be pressed in parliament to answer the question whether they now accept that the information that they provided to the public was misleading, and that they were responsible for maladministration. Or are they still maintaining the position which the judge has said that the judge said no reasonable secretary of state could rationally adopt?!
WHAT WE ESTABLISHED IN YESTERDAY’S RULING
Government is guilty of maladministration by providing inaccurate information about the security of final salary pensions
Its information for the public misled people into believing their pensions were safe, when they weren’t
The Government’s decision to reject the Parliamentary Ombudsman’s finding of maladministration was unlawful
The Secretary of State’s reasons for rejecting the finding of maladministration were not reasonable or rational, so this decision was unlawful
The Government must reconsider its rejection of the Parliamentary Ombudsman’s recommendation to compensate people and restore their full pensions
The Government agreed to pay all the costs of the case and also the costs of any future appeals
WHAT WE DID NOT WIN ON - The Government’s figleaf!
The judge said that, in law, he could not accept that compensation must be paid to ALL victims of failed pension schemes, because they have not 'so far’ ALL established that they relied on the official information
The judge said he was not convinced that the decision to weaken the MFR in 2002 was taken with maladministration. The judge did not agree that the Government has violated the Human Rights Act
My comments on these points are as follows (also checked with the barrister):
On causation, the court has made the point that it is hard to see how it could be said that everyone who lost pension rights between 1997 and 2004 has suffered injustice in consequence of maladministration. For some people, official misinformation may have had nothing to do with it, and they may not have had remedial steps open to them (paragraph 70).
However, at paragraph 85 he goes on to say that the first recommendation must be reconsidered on the basis that “maladministration occurred, but that causation in individual cases has not so far been established”. Of course, many indiciduals will have no difficulties in establishing causation. They can do this by explaining how they read leaflets themselves, in hard copy or on line, or that they were told that their money was safe by others who had read leaflets - such as trustees who had read the OPRA leaflets - or that they understood from press reports (also influenced by misleading press releases and the 1996 leaflet) that their money was safe. They would then need to just explain how they at least lost chances of remedial action as a result (for example they could have diversified their savings, tried to negotiate higher contributions from their employer, retired at the first opportunity, not put AVCs into their scheme etc etc). In theory, all 125,000 or so could lodge individual claims for compensation with the DWP on this basis. This will be impossible for DWP to process. Therefore, there is a strong incentive for DWP to reach a global deal - as they did in the inherited SERPS case, where the causation issues were closely comparable. The key point we need to stress on causation is that the judge has said that the recommendation for full compensation must be reconsidered on the basis that causation has not yet been established in each individual case - in other words, he is not saying that it could not be.
The rejection of the Ombudsman’s finding about the 2002 MFR decision is not the Central issue. The Ombudsman made it clear that her recommendations for redress did not turn on the third finding in any event. In any case, I am quite sure that we would win on Appeal on this issue too, it is just that we did not spend time explaining the detail of how the MFR calculations worked, since it was not crucial to our case. Unfortunately, as the judge says in his ruling (point 76) he found the Ombudsman unclear on this matter. The explanation we would give is that the decision to weaken the MFR in 2002 was taken on the basis of only looking at the investment markets and the effect of those on the MFR calculation assumptions for ONGOING schemes, but failed to check what would happen on wind-up to members’ for a 100% MFR-funded scheme. Given that the original intention of the MFR was to protect members’ pensions ON WIND-UP (this was admitted by John Hutton in his response to the Ombudsman report) the fact that the Government did not bother to check what was happening to annuity rates, nor consider the impact of the priority order and cost of annuities on pensions of non-pensioner members on wind-up, is clearly maladministrative. We did not have the opportunity to go into the detail of this in court, but may do if there is an appeal. Importantly, however, the Ombudsman’s recommendations were not based on this finding.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Government response
John Hutton made a statement on the judgement in the House on Thursday 22nd February. Essentially he said they need time to consider, and have not decided on what grounds, if any, they might appeal. He did, though, make the welcome announcement that they would not pursue the claimants for costs in this case or in any appeal. The Hansard report and the subsequent short debate can be found here. His statement, and comments by Dr Ros Altmann and John Halford, can be found on our documents page.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Judicial Review, 8th to 10th February 2007
 The long awaited Judicial Review took place in Court 1 of the Royal Courts of Justice over the three days 8th to 10th February. Four claimants, Henry Bradley, Robin Duncan, Andrew Parr and Thomas Waugh, claim that the government, in particular the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, did not correctly consider the contents of the ombudsman’s critical report. The photo shows, from left to right, Tom Waugh, Robin Duncan and Andrew Parr. Henry Bradley, who lives in Northern island, was unable to attend, but this does not affect the hearing which was consisted almost entirely of presentations from the DWP’s and our barristers. A detailed description of the proceedings by Dr Ros Altmann can be found on our documents page.
Costs are a potential problem; although Bindmans (our solicitors) and Blackstone Chambers (our barristers) are working on a no win no fee basis, the four claimants are still liable for the DWP’s costs, estimated to be over £125,000, if we lose. Although everyone thinks the chances of this are remote (think of the publicity) it is still a worry for the claimants
 The day started with a demonstration by over three hundred people in Parliament Square. The demonstration was timed to coincide with the end of Prime Minister’s Question time, and we had asked MPs to come out and support us. Over fifty MPs joined us and showed their support.
We were all rather annoyed by a simultaneous event taking place in the House. Big Brother winner Shilpa Shetty was visiting the house, and many MPs decided it was more important to meet with her. We have been trying for five years to meet with Tony Blair without success, but he deigned to meet Shilpa and gave her a signed photograph. We obviously have to get somebody into the Big Brother house if we want to make an impact. The action of these MPs drew a lot of media criticism, typical is the article from Ian Cowie of the Telegraph which can be found on our Media Comments page.
 After the MPs joined us the demonstration moved up Whitehall where John Benson delivered a 5,000 signature petition initiated in Cardiff, and the Saga petition (which achieved 12,235 signatures via their web-site and magazine) were both delivered to number 10. The petition from Alan Simpson MP will be delivered in a few weeks before the end of this parliamentary session
We had excellent media coverage, possibly the best to date. Jacquie and Peter Humphrey were interviewed on GMTV, Dave Allen was interviewed on BBC Breakfast TV, Andrew Parr Jean Wade and Marlene Cheshire were interviewed for lunchtime ITN news and there was extensive coverage on Radio 4 Today, Sky News and many local radio and TV stations. Apologies to anybody who has been omitted from this list. There was very supportive press coverage, a typical example, from the Telegraph, can be found on our media comments page.
 The demonstration then moved to the Royal Courts of Justice for the end of the afternoon session. In the photograph Jean Wade and Marlene Cheshire are being interviewed by ITN at the extreme left and Ray Egan, who always comes along dressed as John Bull, can be seen on the right. The police split us into two groups either side of the door, so apologies to the right hand group who are missing from the photo!
The verdict is expected in four to six weeks, but this is not guaranteed. Even if we win, it is possible, even probable, that the government will appeal and we will have to go to the appeal court and possible even the House of Lords. However each of these steps will bring much bad publicity for the government.
Thanks to everyone who turned out. As it was mid week most people had to take time off work and incur high traveling costs. The fact that we got people from all four countries in the UK was wonderful. Particular thanks to Alan Marnes who handled all the paperwork with two police divisions for the demonstrations outside parliament and the Royal Courts of Justice. The Metropolitan Police, who displayed their usual common sense and good humour, must now have a large file on our group!
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
European Court Verdict 25th January 2007
This is a mixture of good and bad news, and both the unions and government are reporting it with different spin. The verdict says, in full legalese:
1. On a proper construction of Article 8 of Council Directive 80/987/EEC of 20 October 1980 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer, where the employer is insolvent and the assets of the supplementary company or inter-company pension schemes are insufficient, accrued pension rights need not necessarily be funded by the Member States themselves or be funded in full.
2. A system of protection such as that at issue in the main proceedings is incompatible with Article 8 of Directive 80/987.
3. If Article 8 of Directive 80/987 has not been properly transposed into domestic law, the liability of the Member State concerned is contingent on a finding of manifest and grave disregard by that State for the limits set on its discretion.
The full verdict, with the discussion of the various points considered, can be found here.
The full interpretation, no doubt, will be drawn by the lawyers, but it seems that a common sense interpretation is:
Point 1 seems to say that Article 8 does not require full 100% compensation, although it does not say what the compensation should be. This issue would be resolved in the UK Courts
Point 2 is the good bit. It says that protection in the UK, including the FAS, is inadequate. This is the part that the unions are pushing (see press releases). However, the government say that the investigation took place before the recent widening of the scope of the FAS and would argue that (under point 1) that it is now adequate
Point 3 is the really difficult bit. It says, correctly, that the issue must be resolved in the UK courts but, and it is a very very big BUT, the court has to find there has been a “grave and manifest disregard”. This is a legal expression and makes a very difficult setpoint for the lawyers to reach. It is not sufficient that the UK government has breached Article 8 (point 2 makes that clear). The verdict (and the preamble) seems to suggest that the UK court has to decide this was done with something like malice or total incompetence
In the preamble the request for temporal limitation is dismissed.
We must also note that this case does nothing for those people who have lost their pensions with a solvent employer
It will take some time for the dust to settle, but it seems that the unions are currently trying for a political solution before going to the court again. Julie Morgan (Lab Cardiff North) has tabled an amendment to the pending pensions bill which goes before the House in this session. The amendment calls for the FAS to be considerably improved
As (at the time of writing, 28/1/07) almost half of the House has signed one of the three EDMs this amendment must have a significant chance of success.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Date for Judicial Review
The date for the Judicial Review, in which the High Court will rule on the Government’s handling of the scathing Ombudsman’s and Select Committee’s reports, is fast approaching. It will be held on 7th and 8th February 2007, although the verdict will not be announced for another four to six weeks. A demonstration will be held in Parliament Square on 7th February (see below)
The preparations for the review have been a real Judge John Deed plot. The government said it did not have time to prepare its defence (this means our legal team would not have much time to study it). The court granted an extension, which was missed by the government, then, pushed by our team, issued a final date by which the papers had to be received. The government said it could not meet this date and asked for the whole case to be delayed for some months, so our team asked the High Court to intervene and the review to be heard undefended. Literally at the very last minute the defence papers mysteriously appeared. The court awarded costs to our team for the work incurred in fighting the delay
In addition, our solicitors are hounding the Government for a firm decision on whether or not they will seek ‘unlimited costs’ from the brave pensioners named in the documents should they lose. The Government are still prevaricating and a formal complaint is being considered.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Protest in Parliament Square Wednesday 7th February
We will be holding a protest and photo opportunity in Parliament Square (outside the House) from 1pm on Wednesday 7th February to coincide with the start of the Judicial Review. We are asking MPs to come and join us after Prime Minster’s Question Time. Please contact your MP and demand they come outside and join us. Inform your local media of the event and your MP’s response.
Later in the afternoon we will be moving on to the High Court for a second protest. Both protests have been approved by the police (a major paperwork exercise conducted by Alan Marnes)
Please inform your media contacts of these events, they are probably the most important demonstrations we have held. We need a very good turnout so book a day’s holiday now and come and join us.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Dr Ros Altmann Campaigner of the Year Award
The Daily Telegraph, in one of its year-end issues, awarded a series of ‘prizes’ to the heroes and villains of 2006 in the financial world. It was enormously gratifying to see our own Ros Altmann at the top of the list, nominated as ‘Campaigner of the Year’ for her tireless efforts on our behalf. The Telegraph wrote: “The plight of 120,000 pensioners who are without a pension because their company scheme went bust has been propelled into the spotlight thanks to the tireless campaigning of Ros Altmann. Altmann, a former Treasury adviser and a governor of the London School of Economics, has also been lambasting ministers for their outright rejection of the report from the Parliamentary Ombudsman that found the Government had misled thousands of workers into thinking their occupational pensions were safe. Altmann wants a compensation package for victims and is not giving up without fight.”
You can read the full story here
Another of the nominations went to Gordon Brown, for ‘U-turn of the year’! Perhaps we can persuade him to do it again in 2007 by agreeing to pay us the compensation we deserve?
The Telegraph itself deserves a vote of thanks for all the support and publicity which they have given to our campaign over the years. They have taken on board the seriousness of our situation and have used every opportunity to cover our actions and put forward the arguments.
 Richard Nicholl (ex Burgess) found this Toby jug of Gordon Brown dressed as a highwayman which was too good to miss, so PAG presented Ros with one as a memento of her year’s campaigning. The text on his red box says, rather aptly, "Stand and Deliver"
* * * * * * * * * * *
European Court of Justice, Article 8
The European Court of Justice was asked last year by the High Court to clarify the meaning of Article 8 of the Insolvency Directive for the claim being brought by the unions Amicus and Community on behalf of workers at ASW who had lost their pension entitlement. We heard in July that the Advocate General had given the Court advice which was favourable to us, but no date was set for the final hearing. We now know that this will be held on 25th January in the Second Chamber. The verdict, including the implementation of any temporal limitation, can be found here from 9:30am. Don’t worry that it says it is about Freedom of Movement, that is the very broad category in which it lies
The verdict is by no means the end of the story. If the verdict is favourable the unions will return to the High Court later this year. Even if that case is successful the Government could, in theory, appeal to the Court then appeal again to the House of Lords.
* * * * * * * * * * *
EDMs 241 & 106
An Early Day Motion, or EDM, is a form of internal House of Commons petition which can be signed by MPs. They have no effect in themselves, but if an EDM carries a large number of signatures, the Government is likely to note the strength of feeling and modify its policy accordingly to avoid possible trouble from backbenchers. They are also keenly watched by the media.
There are 646 members in the Commons but, traditionally, those with Government responsibilities (ministers, whips, PPSs etc) and opposition front bench spokesman don’t sign EDMs, which leaves about 500 backbenchers as the maximum number of signatories. Those with ministerial ambitions are also markedly reluctant to sign EDMs which are critical of the Government.
250 signatures therefore shows that you have the support of the majority of backbenchers
Two EDMs have been tabled in support of our cause.
EDM 241 is a cross-party motion proposed by Tony Wright, who is chair of the Public Administration Select Committee which recently found in favour of compensation for lost pensions. This EDM has received 222 signatures at the time of writing.
The second EDM (106) is very similar but specifically requires the use of “Unclaimed Assets” and was tabled by the Conservative Shadow Secretary of State for Work & Pensions, Phillip Hammond, who was concerned that the earlier EDM might contain specific expenditure commitments which would be contrary to his parties current economic strategy. This EDM has been signed by 125 members.
When the duplicates are removed almost 300 MPs have expressed support for our case. This is tremendous news! It means that a majority of backbenchers support us, and we almost have an absolute majority of all MPs, even when ministers are taken into account!
The bandwagon is rolling and so we need to apply pressure to those MPs which have not signed in order to persuade them to add their names or justify their refusal. The next target is to get 324 signatures, the majority of the House. This is where you come in. As a constituent, you will have much more influence on your MP than an outsider.
Check if your MP has signed either of the EDMs
Look here for the progress of EDM 241
Look here for the progress of EDM 106
If they have not signed either, write and ask them to, explaining why you think they should.
You can write to your MP at:
<Joe Soap> MP
House of Commons,
London, SW1A 0AA
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Solvent scheme news
We have had notification from the DWP that the eligibility date for inclusion in the FAS, for what that is worth, has been extended to the 28th February 2007. That means if your company becomes insolvent before that date you may be eligible for assistance from the FAS. If your company is still solvent after that date you have entered No Man's Land as there is no protection or assistance available at all. You will not qualify for the PPF either.
It is important that you let your MP know about this, and push for an indefinite extension to FAS eligibility, as this will give us recognition. This lack of protection is a major headache for the government, as the EU Court's judgement may be influenced by any lack of protection, as demanded in Article 8, which the Unions case highlights.
Otherwise please make sure your local media is involved in the run up to the Judicial Review. January and early February are crucial months and we must gain as much publicity and awareness as possible.
Following several company closures our revised calculations now show that there are now only 20 'solvent company' schemes with about 5,000 people affected. Again push your MP to correct this injustice. The Ombudsman and the PASC found no distinction between solvent and insolvent company scheme members, so why does the DWP keep denying us any help?
Richard Nicholl
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Demonstration 13th December 2006
 We held another demonstration outside the House of Commons on 13th December, timed to coincide with Prime Minister’s questions. The theme was ‘begging for justice’ and linked our plight with that of the Farepak victims. They have lost several hundred pounds of their savings and faced a bleak Christmas this, one, year. Most of us have lost thousands of pounds and face a bleak Christmas each and every year, but there was no sign of Gordon Brown giving up a day’s pay for us, or of sending any of his affected constituents a hamper as he did for Farepak victims.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Judicial review update - 5th December 2006
The Department of Work and Pensions was supposed to have submitted its defence to the High Court by 22 November but failed to do so and, when asked, said that it would be ready by 13 December. Our lawyers challenged this and the judge, Sir Andrew Collins, responded forcefully: "I shall require a full explanation why the 35-day time limit was not met . . . The rules are there to be obeyed and an application to extend time should have been made before it expired . . . simply announcing there would be non-compliance is hardly acceptable." He then summoned them to appear before him on 5 December.
Miraculously, the DWP lawyers were able to produce their defence just before the hearing and, through making profuse apologies and some serious grovelling, were able to persuade the judge to accept it and not disqualify them from the hearing. Our team were awarded costs.
However, the Government have still not withdrawn the threat of seeking 'unlimited costs' from the brave pensioners who are undertaking the action. This could amount to hundreds of thousands of pounds if the case goes to appeal. The Pensions Minister James Purnell was directly challenged on this by Richard Burden in the parliamentary debate and this is what was said:
Richard Burden: "My hon. Friend said that the Government were waiting to hear from the pensioners' representatives, but it has now been established that it is the other way round. When will the representatives of the pensioners be hearing from the Government? "
James Purnell: "That has not been established. I said - this continues to be the situation - that the representatives have not made the case that the matter fits into the normal precedent whereby the Government would waive costs. We have said not that we will enforce costs, but that we will consider them, as we always do, at the end of the case."
In fact, our legal team have written at least nine times to the DWP asking for the threat of costs to be dropped and have met only with evasion and prevarication.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Parliamentary debate - Government remains defiant Thursday 7th December 2006
The long-awaited debate on lost pensions and the Government’s defiance of its regulators has now taken place in the House of Commons.
There was a powerful opening speech by the chair of the Public Administration Committee Tony Wright, who made the case clearly and eloquently for Government to recognise the authority of Parliament and to organise appropriate compensation for those affected. Although the debate was curtailed through lack of time, he was followed by speaker after speaker who all (bar one) supported and amplified the case he was making. Throughout the speeches there were a series of interruptions by members who had not been able to get on the list of speakers but who still had important and supportive points to make.
The one dissenting MP was the last to speak. Having heard all the arguments, who was it who could not see that the Government was at fault, and who believed the Parliamentary Ombudsman, the entire Parliamentary Select Committee and all of the previous speakers were misguided? It was the Minister for Pensions Reform, James Purnell. He looked a lonely figure as he insisted that everyone was out of step apart from him.
Because (in spite of all evidence to the contrary) he does not believe that the Government was at fault to the slightest degree, he does not feel that compensation is appropriate. Such help as he is prepared to offer is therefore merely a recognition of hardship rather than righting a wrong done by Government. And he feels that the Financial Assistance Scheme is the very best that can be offered, given the Government’s duty to be frugal with taxpayers’ money.
You can read a full transcript of the debate in Hansard here: http: //tinyurl.com/ydoeaq
There was no vote at the end of the debate, so Parliament has not yet delivered its verdict on the Government’s behaviour. We must therefore redouble our efforts to persuade MPs of all parties to convince the Government that it must change its mind.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Protests in Parliament Square - 6th & 13th December 2006
Two small protests were held on Parliament Green outside the House of Commons on consecutive Wednesdays, timed to coincide with Prime Minister's Questions. The theme of the first protest (which coincided with the pre-budget presentation) was 'Budgeting for Justice' and the second was based around Christmases past, present and future, with hampers of rapidly decreasing munificence.
Both were well received, with many passing vehicles sounding their horns in support and several MPs came out to see us, including Phillip Hammond, the Shadow Secretary of State for Work & Pensions.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
London Protest March Sunday November 5th 2006
 Over 300 people took part in a protest march in London on Sunday 5th November . The theme of the march was Guy Fawkes (the only man ever to enter Parliament with honourable intent). In addition the marchers had brought along their children and grandchildren from all over the country to demonstrate that the loss of a pension affects not just the workers but also many generations
 The grandchildren had all written individual letters to Gordon Brown and Tony Blair. These were collected in a mock up red postbox by suitably attired postman Bob Duncan (Dexion). The letters were marked for the attention of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown and delivered to 10 Downing Street by, at the back Mick Eaglestone’s granddaughters Maya Lewis (11) and Ruby Lewis (13) with John Benson’s grand daughter Danielle Benson (7) and Alan Marnes’ grandson Aaron Carter (3) holding the bag. Peter Humphrey and Dr Ros Altmann escorted the children.
After the letters had been delivered the march continued past Parliament to St Johns Smith Square where there were speeches from pensions expert Dr Ros Altmann, Adam Price MP, Jo Thornhill (from the Mail) and Sittingbourne and Sheppey Tory candidate Gordon Henderson. Dr Altmann also read out a letter from Tim Bull of Saga. This letter can be found on our Documents page. For the record, the use of a loudhailer for the speakers meant we had to pay Westminster Council £150 for a license.
Thanks as ever to the Metropolitan Police for the slick organisation and their unfailing good-humour and common sense.
There was a very good media turnout and excellent reports appeared in many newspapers. We were covered, with interviews, on local TV and radio but unfortunately the Saddam Hussein trial verdict pushed us off the nationwide TV news channels.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Farepak
The distribution company Farepak went out of business at the beginning of November, leaving, as an odd co-incidence, about 100,000 people without the Christmas goods they had saved for during the year. This was a tragic event for those affected who will, as a result, face a bleak Christmas.
The government’s response, though, was very interesting. Gordon Brown said it was a “National Disaster” (his own words) and wrong that people “could lose the money they had conscientiously saved”. A fund was started and MPs were asked to donate a day’s pay to the fund. Most are apparently complying. In addition the government leaned on the High Street chains of Tesco, Sainsbury, Morrison, M&S etc to make donations. They have also had quiet words suggesting help from Farepak’s bank.
All this is very fair and honourable, but does it not jar with the way the government had treated us? The Farepak customers have lost one Christmas and a few hundred pounds. We have lost all the Christmases for the rest of our lives and hundreds of thousands of pounds.
The government had no liability whatsoever for Farepak’s trading, yet it has acted responsibly. What is the difference? The cynical may think that it is a clever low cost media spin exercise to make Gordon Brown seem human.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Judicial Review
The Pensions Action Group have been granted a Judicial Review of the government’s rejection of the Ombudsman’s report. The hearing is scheduled for the High Court on 7th February 2007. The Group are represented on a no win no fee basis by solicitors from Bindmans and barristers from Blackstone Chambers. The four brave named claimants, through, do risk being liable for the government’s costs if we lose. The government are trying to bully us into withdrawing by refusing to agree the case should be heard on a pro bono basis.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Labour Party Conference Manchester, September 27th 2006
|
