RETIRED MEMBERS SECTION

TUC PENSIONS CHAMPIONS WEB SITE

THE TOP LINK TAKE A LOOK AT THE 395

My Latest reply to my MP on the pensions debate

Dear Andy
My disappointment with your responses regarding the Government's pensions policy is primarily because I don't think you are reflecting the views of your constituents when it is backbench MPs like yourself - who are not on the payroll vote - but who are free to use their influence to get a fairer deal for pensioners before the next election, while I am on the point of representation, I sickens me when I hear MPs that have been given a position in government abrogating their responsibilities to their continuance by refusing to put their name to a campaign against an injustice brought forward by those that elected them, with a lame excuse that protocol says
they don’t.
.
You keep on about the absence of a manifesto pledge linking earnings to pensions. I never said there was one. What I still say and nobody can deny this - is that before 1997 the distinct impression was created that Labour would both end means testing and restore the link. OK the party leaders never put it in the manifesto - that's not clever it is devious and gets politicians a bad name, what I will point out I have video footage where brown addressing the labour party conference said labour would eliminate means testing were still waiting.

On the 25p Age Addition. What is your answer to the fact that the winter fuel allowance and the TV licence concession can be taken away at any time by a future Chancellor. If you were writing to me a year ago you would have no doubt mentioned the £200 grant towards council tax, which I believe was a sweetener because of the local elections, and lo and behold was withdrawn this year and so could the other allowances you mention. What is different about the 25p is that it is part of the pension and cannot be withdrawn wily-nily by any Chancellor, If it was believed that the additional 25p was needed when the pension was £6 surely it should have increased in value in line with the basic pension, that is why we think it should be updated. Can you tell me of another benefit that has remained unchanged for 35 years?
I have a letter from the DWP admitting that the 25p is an "anachronism" - to me that means it is passed its sell-by date and is in need of revision, just like the £10 Christmas bonus introduced by Ted Heath at the instigation of Jack Jones - great at the time - pretty meaningless now.

You make the point that giving more to all pensioners will inevitably mean that better off pensioners get their whack, quite right to, they paid their stamp and deserve their share, the low tax threshold automatically ensures that any excess is taken back through the tax system?

What disappoints me most Andy is that the Government really has nothing new to say about existing pensioners. I'm just surprised that so little is done for those at the poorest end. Have you thought of getting a meeting of pensioners in your constituency and asking them how they feel about things - like waiting until 2012 0r 2015 to restore the link.

More in sorrow than in angber Andy

Sincerely
Peter Smith

Fury over pensions bonanza for bosses

Britain's top businessmen will collect up to £1m while companies axe final salary schemes for employees

Oliver Morgan
Sunday September 3, 2006
The Observer


Britain's top businessmen can look forward to retiring on pensions of more than £500,000 a year, with leading earners reaching nearly £1m, according to research to be released this week.
The figures come at a highly controversial time, just two weeks after the Association of British Insurers warned that excessive pensions for directors were damaging the reputation of business when ordinary employees were having their benefits cut. Many leading UK companies are negotiating reductions in benefits or increases in the retirement age for employees in order to tackle pension fund deficits.

The report, to be published in this week's Labour Research magazine, shows that 112 directors of FTSE 100 firms will have pensions worth at least £200,000 a year, with 27 expecting one of £500,000 a year - a weekly income of £9,615.

Meanwhile, the TUC will this week produce a detailed analysis of the comparison between boardroom pensions and those for normal staff, which is expected to show directors receiving 'luxury' payouts while employees savings 'suffer'. 'Pensions hypocrisy' will be a high-profile issue at this year's TUC congress in Brighton, which takes place next week.

Top of the UK's pension earners is Lord Browne, chief executive of BP, whose annual payout would be £991,000 if he retired now, equivalent to £19,000 a week. He is also entitled to a lump sum payment of a year's salary, which would be worth some £1.5m if he leaves the oil group at the end of 2008, as is currently planned. Others in the top five include Sir Francis Mackay, who stood down as chairman of Compass in the summer (£830,000), Howard Frank, chief operating officer of cruise company Carnival (£795,000), John Sunderland of Cadbury Schweppes (£762,000) and Antony Burgmans of Unilever (£762,000).

The survey, which looks at company annual reports for 2005-06, also found that FTSE 100 directors can often retire at 60, well below the statutory retirement age, which is set to rise to 68 in the coming decades. In some cases they can go much sooner - as was the case when Scottish Power chief executive Ian Russell left earlier this year. His pension was doubled to £6.8m on termination of his contract and he was able to retire immediately at 50. Russell's was the deal that prompted the ABI to write to FTSE companies urging remuneration committees to rein in over-generous pensions.

The report states directors of energy group BG and financial services provider Friends Provident can leave at 55, while those asked to leave drugs group AstraZeneca can retire at 50. Moreover, 77 of the FTSE 100 companies still have final salary schemes for directors. Some 90 FTSE companies have final salary schemes for employees, but most of these have been closed to new members. One top-100 firm, Rentokil Initial, has closed its scheme to existing members.

Labour Research's Neal Moister said: 'It is very hypocritical for so many senior business figures to advocate pushing the state pension age up while they negotiate a completely different set of rules for themselves.' And Brendan Barber, general secretary of the TUC, said: 'Pensions hypocrisy is a blight on Britain's biggest companies.'

· Marcus Agius will become the bestpaid chairman in the FTSE 100 when he takes over at Barclays in January, earning a quarter more than his nearest rival and 50 per cent above the going rate for Britain's biggest companies.

Agius is to be paid £750,000 a year for a three-day week, a £100,000 increase on the salary of his predecessor, Matt Barrett. According to research by benefit consultancy Independent Remuneration Solutions and voting adviser Manifest, the next highest-paid non-executive chairman is Paul Skinner at Rio Tinto on £591,000, followed by Lord Stevenson at HBOS on £562,000. BP, whose £118bn market value is more than twice Barclays' £43bn, pays its chairman, Peter Sutherland, £500,000 while Vodafone is to pay Sir John Bond, recently appointed as chairman, £475,000.

MINUTES OF THE EXTRAORDINARY RETIRED MEMBERS SECTION NATIONAL COMMITTEE MEETING HELD ON 18.1.06

Present: D Bates, R Jackson, J Housley, A Moynihan, D Press, P J Smith, B Tagg, D Weddle, A West, E Whitfield

In Attendance: S Allen (Equalities Adviser), J Cryer (Political Adviser)

Apologies: K Norman (General Secretary), A Reed (National Organiser)

Minutes of the Meeting held on 25.10.05:

Were agreed as a correct record

Matters Arising from the Minutes:

1. Proposed rule change on the Constitution of the RMS National Committee – This has been noted by the EC and added to the Agenda for this year’s AAD
2. Payment of Subscriptions by Direct Debit – The Finance Manager has been asked to do a feasibility study
3. Concessionary travel – his has been noted by the EC and placed on the agenda for the next Officer’s Meeting

Notes of the Annual General Meeting:

• A report has gone into the next ASLEF Journal

Turner Report on Pensions:

• The NPC have produced a briefing report
• John Cryer’s briefing has been circulated - plus a more in-depth report he has produced was circulated at the meeting
• The TUC have produced a briefing report
• Ray Jackson has taken a motion to his branch which is considering the rights of people who are already retired
• The RMS should consider inviting Pauline Cawood to speak about women’s pensions at the Annual Forum
• The NPC want comments by mid January – the TUC are asking for comments by 24th February – the EC need to be advised of these discussions and that notes will be submitted to the NPC
• The Committee want the EC to re-affirm its commitment to the NPC
• The Committee wants to ask the EC if a pensions logo or ‘strapline’ can be added to the union’s envelopes and letterheads
• The TGWU have sent their retired members a document discussing the contribution made by today’s pensioners

Main Objections to the Turner Report:

• The link between the state pension and earnings is not intended to be restored until 2010
• The need for people to work beyond the age of 65

John Cryer:

• The assumptions in the Turner Report are:

1. There are massive pension inequalities (means testing is blamed)
2. A massive input of cash is needed from the state
3. The contributions to pensions from the private sector will not be growing

• Government policy over the last 20 years has been to reduce expenditure on pensions as a percentage of GDP
• The Turner Report talks about retirement at the age of 67 – not 69 as is reported in some press
• Turner puts forward two proposals:

1. Increase the state pension and link it (eventually) to earnings
2. Introduce the NPSS (National Pensions Savings Scheme) – a replacement for the state second pension. This would include a compulsory contribution from employers

• There is also a proposal for one massive state pension – one size fits all – but this was rejected as being too complicated to implement
• The report sets out to reduce means testing

General Discussion on the Turner Report:

• Need to ensure that the plight of women pensioners is highlighted in any submissions we make
• The ASLEF submission to the TUC will concern all aspects of the Turner Report – not just the effects on current pensioners
• We have to be careful because some of our members will want to work past 65 and we need to oppose this vigorously – in the same way we do rest day working
• The motion carried at the AGM has now been overtaken by events as the Government have removed that clause from the law changes coming into effect in April

ASLEF Rule Book:

• The Chair has written a suggested rule change on the RMS section. This has been accepted by the EC and will appear on the Agenda for this year’s AAD.

RMS Annual Forum:

• 30 rooms have been booked for the Friday and Saturday nights. These are allocated as 25 for RMS members and 5 for speakers (GS/NO etc)
• Speakers – Sharon is to invite:
Bill Tobutt (TGWU), Jack Jones (TGWU), Mick Clapham MP, Pauline Cawood (ASLEF WCC), Gwyneth Dunwoody MP
• Sharon Allen and John Cryer are also to attend. The General Secretary and National Organiser are to be invited in good time so that they can put it in their diaries
• Sharon to draw up a draft agenda in time for the next meeting

Attendance at 2006 AAD:

• Sharon to find out if an RMS observer will be invited and for how long



Attendance at 2006 District Councils:

• The RMS are encouraged to attend each District Council at least once over the coming year

Pensioner’s Parliament:

• To be put on the agenda for next month’s meeting

Correspondence:

• Card from Bill Tobutt at the TGWU advising that they have provided their Parliamentary Group with a briefing on the Turner Report
• Head Office Circular concerning legal cases involving RMS members
• Head Office Circular re Brady tribunal
• Head Office Circular re the new rule book
• EC Minutes 30th-31st October 2005
• Appeal from Greater London Pensioner’s Association for funds – It was agreed that this should be noted
• Correspondence from Yoker Branch about getting more RMS members active in the branch – the Secretary has responded

Impress Account:

• The RMS Treasurer wants copies of the bank statements – Sharon is to ask the Finance Manager if that will be possible
• Copies of the RMS annual financial statement were circulated

Membership Figures:

• Membership of the RMS currently stands at 1424

Any Other Business:

• The Chair reported on a proposed Bill coming up (the information is on the TULO website), the Bill is trying to insure that bus services do not get can cancelled without proper consultation
• Travel Concessions – The Railways Pensions Management website gives details of all travel concessions available to former train drivers. Brian Tagg is to raise the question of travel concessions at the next Railways Pensions 1994 meeting

From: LOVE, Andy MP
Sent: 27 February 2006 14:53
To: Peter PJ Smith
Subject: RE: Pensions


Dear Peter,

Since the NPC lobby of last year, the Government has received both the interim and final Report of the Pensions Commission. This recommends a number of changes including compulsion for employers to ensure better coverage of private pensions, linking the state pension to living standards and raising the retirement age to 67/8, which the TUC is opposed to. This is the starting point to a comprehensive analysis as to how we can provide dignity in retirement at a cost that taxpayers will be prepared to pay.

I note your comments regarding price rises but can confirm that inflation is currently 2% and is predicted to remain at that level for some time. Wage increases were at 4% but have been reducing for the last few months.

Companies with pension funds who go broke are now covered by the Pension Protection Fund which will provide around 90% of benefits to those affected.

The Nat Ins Fund pays for pensions and a portion of the NHS. It fluctuates from year to year and when it is in deficit then the balance has to be made up from the General Fund. Actuaries calculate the cost of additional benefits and the impact on the surplus/deficit and the Government is responsible for ensuring that the fund is kept in balance. It is not possible to take money from the NI fund to balance the books elsewhere.

EDM's have little impact in Parliament, simply publicising issues brought to the attention of individual MP's. I rarely have time to look through the 2000 plus published each year. Having brought 1596 to my attention, I have now read and am very happy to sign and add my name to the other 38 signatures. David Burrowes has not signed the EDM, nor has any other Conservative MP.

I hope that this is helpful

Regards,
Andy Love MP


-----Original Message-----
From: Peter PJ Smith
Sent: 22 February 2006 21:59
To: Peter PJ Smith
Subject: Pensions


Dear Andy

The government keep saying the working generation must save for a pension by joining pension scheme, may be you can tell me why it deals in double standards, as fast as an employee joins one, the employer either hypes the cost making it impossible for an employee afford it or it rips them of, or fails to provide one and yet the government does nothing to stop it, I belong to a pension scheme that is ring fenced by the government ( which I am waiting for it to renege on ) in other words like your pension if it fails the tax payer foots the bill, and yet the government allows the employer to have a pensions holiday or use the funds for its own gain.

I note that Alan Simpson MP has tabled an Early Day Motion on Railway Pensions and note your name is not there in support of it and yet David Burrow is, I would have thought this motion was un necessary, but it shows by its lack of support by MPs shows they could not care less as long as their pension is OK.

A year ago I came on a lobby of parliament by the NPC, I gave you document called the Pensioners Manifesto now called the Pensioners Charter it spelt what was needed to give a person a quality of life in retirement and how the government can achieve it, and true to form the MPs have done nothing to address this except allow the government waist millions of pounds holding enquiries, ( whose findings it has no intention of implementing ) which would have been better spent implementing the charter.

I see as a pensioner we are to receive a Two and a half percent slap in the face called a rise, while employees get four percent,
While council tax will rise by six percent, gas gone up by fourteen percent, electric, water and I expect food will follow, petrol and travel cost go up and down like a fiddlers elbow.

As voters we are still waiting for you to full fill you manifesto promises or were they lies, we are still waiting for you to undo Tory policy not continue to carry them out, we are still waiting for you to be New Labour not Old Tories.

Maybe as you are on the Government Finance Committee you can dispel a rumour that the chancellor wont or cant use the thirty-five billion surplus in the national insurance fund to address the pensions problem, because he is using it to balance his books else ware , something I was given to understand was illegal.

Yours Sincerely

Peter Smith

THE NATIONAL PENSIONERS CONVENTION

ASHFORD REUNION 12 th JANUARY 2006

age concern pensions news

the pension service website

The worksmart pension and money page

Budget disappoints working and
retired rail workers

17 March

Keith Norman, the acting General Secretary of ASLEF, says that the Budget is a disappointment for all the union's members, both those in work and those who have retired.
‘Transport and mobility are central to this country’s economy,’ he said, ‘Yet I searched the Chancellor’s statement in vain for any mention of rail.'
'How on earth are we to reconcile this with a government that only last week was announcing an election pledge to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 20%?
‘Many ASLEF members were expecting the government’s stated environment policy to be given some hard-cash backing today to encourage a move from road to rail.
‘The fact that rail travel has been completely ignored hardly encourages an image of joined-up government.’
The union is particularly disappointed that the only mention of public transport is a reference to offering free local bus travel for pensioners sometime next year.
'Retired people are senior citizens, not second rate citizens,’ Keith says. ‘Does the government think they don’t merit the extravagant luxury of travelling by train?’ He also points out that the ‘concession’ will be a mystery to most UK pensioners who already receive free bus passes as a right.

The union says that its retired members will also be disappointed with the ‘smoke and mirrors’ announcement about 13% increases.
'The first impression was that the Chancellor was talking about 13% increases in pensions. This we would have welcomed. But in fact it is 13% increases in pension credits, which amounts to something like 25 p
a week. This disappointment is not going to be off-set by the gesture of handing them £4 a week off their council tax

ASLEF National Organiser Andy Reed added that “it was not only mean-spirited, but politically very dangerous.
‘It seems rather foolish to offer 11 million pensioners such a small share of the nation’s wealth a month away from a probable General Election,’ he said.
‘The Chancellor could end up paying dearly for his neglect of pensioners.

As of 1 st jan 05 it is now branch policy that ramsgate branch will pay the first years subs for retiring members , after a request from the retired members section

Retired Members' Section


ASLEF has an active Retired Members’ Section which seeks to improve the position of older people in ASLEF and campaigns hard to redress the inequalities older people face. ASLEF believes that every pensioner has the right to choice, dignity, and security as an integral and valued member of society. They require an adequate state pension linked to average earnings, comprehensive free health care and concessionary travel on public transport.

The creation of the ASLEF Retired Members’ Section means that we can work together to make sure that pensioners share fully in the increasing prosperity of the nation with good pensions and associated welfare benefits.

The ASLEF Retired Members’ Section has its own constitution and standing orders with a committee that is elected each year at the Annual General Meeting, to which all retired members are invited.

The Committee meets with the General Secretary and President of ASLEF three times a year where we cover a whole range of subjects affecting pensioners’ rights. The section is also affiliated to the National Pensioners Convention (NPC) and sends delegates to the Pensioners’ Parliament.

Any ASLEF retired member can apply to join the Section providing they are clear on the membership books on retirement and they have 10 years consecutive membership of ASLEF. They should make application in writing to the General Secretary. Retired members are entitled to participate in branch meetings by speaking and participating in debates, although they do not have the right to vote. They also have the right to free initial legal advice and other legal assistance may also be provided at the discretion of the General Secretary. Retired members also receive copies of the Locomotive Journal, a diary and remain eligible for other membership services, as determined by these rules or the Executive Committee.

aslef official website