| The second meeting of the All Party Parliamentary Group on Pensioner Incomes (APPG) was held in the Jubilee Room of the House of Commons on February 10th 2004.
Here is just one person's account of what occurred - others no doubt saw it
differently.
Apart from formalities of APPG administration, almost all the activity revolved around three people, Nigel Waterson (NW), Steve Webb (SW) and Malcolm Wicks (MW). They had agreed to form a panel, and speak for the three main political parties.
The meeting was planned to be about the state pension, with occupational
pensions to be covered on a different occasion. The meeting was planned to
start with five-minute presentations from the panel, followed by questions.
In practice this amount of discipline proved unobtainable and the initial
remarks lasted longer and the topics ranged to occupational pensions.
The panel were not harshly partly political in their remarks but the
outlines of party positions were made clear:
Means testing. MW preferred not to use this term, talking of universality / selectivity instead. NW and SW were very critical, pointing to the disincentive to saving. SW emphasised limitations in take-up and NW emphasising how much would need to be saved to get clear of the means testing "trap". MW noted that selectivity was the least expensive way of providing help where it was most critically needed.
Restore-the-Link. NW noted that this was now Conservative policy. (In
alignment with the TUC and the National Pensioners Convention, although that
was not mentioned.) He noted that this would not be an undiluted extra cost
to the state because it would trade-off against other expenses. SW was not
formally opposed to restore-the-link but regarded it as re-inforcing some poor characteristics of the current system such as how the emphasis on years
of work disadvantaged women.
Pensions Protection Fund. There appears to be all-party support in principle. Since the Pensions Bill was to be published in a day or two there was an implicit agreement not to say much more until then.
Victims of underfunding followed by windup. MW stayed with the posture we
have heard before - legislation cannot be retrospective, dont want to raise
false hopes, not sure of the cost, but working on it seriously. NW advised
us that the Conservatives were taking the issue very seriously and working
on it. SW was more scathing about nothing having been done - compensation
is being suggested, not retrospective legislation; if the cost isn't known
it should be.
Predict and Provide. Roger Turner suggested that it would be constructive
to try and reach agreement about what income in retirement was appropriate
and work from there to agree the best mechanisms to provide that income.
The panel were not enthusiastic about this approach. SW did mention "Minimum Income Standards" and suggested the government was not keen to have numeric targets that might be missed.
Trustees and Pensioner Associations. Although these topics were raised by
the audience, and the panel recognised the importance of restoring trust and
confidence amongst members about the management of their trust funds, it
appears that specifics about the need for "fair and open" selection of Member Trustees, and the promotion of Pensioner Associations, are currently "below the radar" of party policies.
Overall: An interesting broad brush look at the politics but from a problem
solving point of view short on facts. The Pensions Policy Institute gave
some projections at the beginning of the meeting but not with the same scope
and detail as the House of Commons Work and Pensions Committee on "The
Future of UK Pensions" obtained. For all such predictions there is an element of "other things being equal" and we know that the Pensions Bill and other moves will in fact change society's work and savings behaviour. Predicting these behaviour changes remains a big challenge.
Brian Marks
Chairman
A further report of the same meeting by the National Federation of Post Office & BT Pensioners can be downloaded from here. (Word format, 26kb)
|
