Join the “Hands Off” compaign

“Hands Off!” is the message being sent by thousands of pensioners to politicians of all parties – hands off our benefits, our winter fuel payment, our bus passes…

AMP members can join the campaign to protect universal benefits by signing an online petition and e-mailing their local MP via this website: http://www.handsoff.org.uk/e-petition

In just over a month, signatures have reached 25,000 – but 100,000 are needed before the petition closes in May (2014) to force a debate in Parliament.

Politicians from all the main parties have suggested that the winter fuel allowance, free bus pass, TV licences for the over-75s and prescriptions for older people should either be means-tested or withdrawn altogether after the 2015 election.

The “Hands Off’ campaign, which is backed by the most influential older people’s organisations in the UK, aims to safeguard these benefits and emphasise their importance in achieving a decent standard of living for millions of pensioners. The organisers say it is an unfair myth that pensioners have not been touched by austerity measures.

Dot Gibson, secretary of the National Pensioners’ Convention – to which the AMP is affiliated – said:  “The real reason why pensioners need additional benefits such as the winter fuel allowance and the free bus pass is because our State pension is so inadequate.  Universal benefits help to keep people active, independent, warm in their homes, and healthy and involved in their communities. Universal benefits need to be defended not only for today’s pensioners, but for the pensioners of tomorrow as well.”

People of all ages – family, friends and local contacts – can sign the petition to influence Parliament and whoever is in power after 2015.

Equitable Life: the scandal continues

By TOM BROWN, chairman, AMP

 

MPs have been urged by the AMP to re-investigate a compensation scheme which is leaving individual members with losses of thousands of pounds.

Letters are currently being received from the Equitable Life Payment Scheme (ELPS) telling Mirror pensioners they will receive only 22.4 per cent of their entitlement as calculated by the ELPS.

A member who had been informed of an “actual loss” in value of £5,000 has now been told that converts into a “relative loss”’ of £888.00 – and, after applying the 22.4 per cent formula, his actual settlement is £254. Somewhat ruefully, he adds: “Having promised to split any payment with my wife, I’m left with £127!”

AMP chairman Tom Brown has told the MPs of “the frustration felt by our members and, no doubt, thousands of other needy pensioners”,and asks: “What is the purpose of the Equitable Life Payment Scheme? Is its aim now to save money at the expense of pensioners?”

The AMP members affected are those whose Mirror Group Pensions AVCs were paid by the company into a “with profits” benefits scheme with Equitable Life and left to mature. At the time, it was regarded as a safe investment with the world’s oldest mutual insurers – but in 2004 a government report found the company had made over-generous payouts and it was calculated there was a £4-4.8bn loss.

In October 2010, the coalition government announced that compensation of £1.5bn would be paid. Up to now, the scheme has paid out only about half of that to some half a million policy-holders.

Trinity Mirror’s pensions office has been most co-operative in supplying details of affected pensioners and deferred members to the Equitable Life Payment Scheme and that has resulted in the payments now being offered.

In July (2013), the House of Commons Public Accounts Select Committee published a highly critical report on the administration of the Equitable Life Payment Scheme.

Asking committee chairman Rt Hon Margaret Hodge MP to re-open that inquiry, the AMP declares:

“The letters our members have received from the administrators of the payments scheme are extremely dismissive, confusing and negative, and make unsupported assumptions about the losses suffered by individuals. In addition, we are left with the impression that private investors appear to be receiving quicker and better payments than pensioners from company and occupational schemes.

“Worst of all, when our members query why the level of compensation is less than the financial contributions they made – in some cases receiving nothing at all – they are told there is no appeal. Surely this is contrary to justice and unique in the administration of a publicly-funded compensation scheme.

“Our claimant-members are being told that although they lost what to them are significant sums of money, they are not due adequate compensation because of an assumed “relative loss”. The Scheme’s reasoning is that if members had taken their AVC money and invested it themselves, they would still have made a loss.

“This assumption is so illogical it is risible; yet it is seriously advanced that the EL Payment Scheme’s actuaries know what investments individuals would have made and how these investments would have performed.

“On questioning this, they are told ‘the calculation of an individual’s relative loss is a highly specialised area requiring detailed and complex actuarial modelling’. As one disgusted member commented: ‘In other words, take what you’re given – you’re too dumb to understand how we worked it out.’

“The AMP requests that your Select Committee should reopen your inquiry with particular attention to the highly dubious criteria being used to determine whether claimants have a case and the amounts they should receive; the arbitrary use of a mythical ‘relative loss’ figure; and the unjust absence of an appeal procedure.”

Write on!

Several ex-MGN colleagues have found success in the literary world – with both books and e-books.

For the latest info about the publishing exploits of HILARY BONNER (former Mirror showbiz editor) ANDREW GOLDEN (ex-Sunday Mirror and one of our pension trustees), STEVE ATKINSON (ex-Mirror reporter) and GERI HOSIER (former Sunday People assistant editor) go to the Members’ Noticeboard drop-down menu in the Join Us section.

Huge loss to the AMP

DEREK ROGERS, AMP committee stalwart and highly respected industry figure, died on October 22 (2013). Tributes from AMP chairman Tom Brown and former MGN director Brian Downing, OBE, follow the obituary in the Farewell pages.

TM chairman to attend our AGM

In something of a coup for the AMP, Trinity Mirror chairman David Grigson has agreed to attend our AGM in London on October 22, when he will be the principal speaker.

The company’s chief executive Simon Fox had also hoped to attend but has a prior appointment that day. However, he promised: “I will do my utmost to attend in 2014.”

If you have any questions or comments to put to David Grigson at the AGM, please use the website contact form or send them via email to: [email protected]

If you would prefer to write: AMP, 133 Bradbourne Vale Road, Sevenoaks, Kent TN13 3DJ.

******
In a surprise development, Trinity Mirror has beefed up its profile with the appointment of two new senior executives, Sue Douglas and Rupert Howell, as publishing director and chairman, respectively, of Sunday Brands Ltd. The subsidiary will be responsible for The Sunday People, Sunday Mail (Scotland), Wales on Sunday, Sunday Sun (Newcastle), and Sunday Mercury (Birmingham).

Sue Douglas has a solid background in editorial and publishing, and Rupert Howell is a marketing expert. The pair had recently been involved in negotiations with TM regarding a buy-out of The Sunday People.

You can read the full story here:   http://www.iii.co.uk/investment/detail/?display=news&code=cotn:TNI.L&action=article&articleid=8992363

Trinity Mirror AGM – one man’s view

AMP committee man Derek Rogers, left, covered his second successive Trinity Mirror annual general meeting (May, 2013), and in the process obtained verbal commitments from company chairman David Grigson and chief executive Simon Fox that they would attend the association’s own AGM this October. Here’s his personal view from the floor…

I spent the half hour before the meeting, which was held at the Hilton Hotel, chatting with a number of shareholders of varying levels of investment; one or two were significant holders.

Noticeably absent was any form of demonstration or protest group inside or outside the hotel – a marked difference to last year. The atmosphere in the lounge before, during and after the meeting was relaxed, positive, agreeable and completely free of the underlying anger so evident 12 months ago. Indeed there were frequent outbursts of genuine laughter.

Though not all were completely satisfied with the new board’s progress, the big difference this year was that the directors answered all questions in a forthright and blunt manner and illustrated a deep commitment to returning the company to a strong position.

I would judge there were about 180 people present. The general feeling in the room appeared to me expectant rather than critical, and delegates seemed impressed with chairman David Grigson’s style.

The entire board was present and each member was introduced individually by the chairman, with a brief outline of their portfolio and some personal background. He constantly invited board members to speak, comment on or amplify his statements. I can only describe his performance as chairman as impressive.

The meeting was in four sections: Chairman’s opening remarks and report for the past year; Simon Fox’s visual presentation on the aims and objectives of the new board;  Questions; Voting and closure

The chairman praised the company’s management and staff who had, he said, performed brilliantly in a difficult market – many company objectives had been met. He was confident his team would continue to perform well throughout 2013. He made a number of claims of success and pointed to the increase in the share price as evidence of the rising confidence of the City in TM’s performance.

Sly Bailey’s remuneration was discussed and the detailed explanation as to why the company was obliged to honour her legal contract seemed to be accepted by the floor.

There were no critical remarks or rebuttals of the chairman’s claims from delegates, and in fact the level of expectation rose steadily throughout the meeting. Overall David Grigson said he was pleased with the results of the first year of office for the new board, and was confident 2013 would see further improvements.

Other areas covered by the chairman:

Debt reduction, which he claimed had been substantial. There was a passing reference to the pension deficit, very quick and in no great detail… nobody pressed that point then or during questions and I let sleeping dogs lie – for now.

Particular comment was made about the phone-hacking scandal and those TM journalists who are under investigation. The chairman confirmed the board would not countenance activity such as phone hacking, but would stand by those accused until more was known about the charges. He would make no further comment for legal reasons. This story will run and run.

His description of directors’ remuneration was of great interest to the room. Apparently, in future all remuneration will consist of a basic salary commensurate with market conditions – but by far the greater part of the amount a director can earn will be linked to the company’s share price. Challenging targets have been established and directors will receive payment above basic salary only if a certain level of share price is achieved and held. Targets are high; the room was impressed.

Simon Fox then took centre stage and made the presentation he has been delivering to major investors and interested parties in the City. His performance was impressive. Using slides he illustrated his analysis of the separate activities of the business, where those activities overlapped, and how TM intended to tackle each sector. Then he finally described how all the components would be brought together under the heading “One Trinity Mirror”. (That had a resonance with advice said to have been given to a certain political party, and was greeted with smiles).

One downside of his message was that the company’s performance in the digital area has been poor, and since this is an area of expertise he was familiar with, he was personally overseeing activity and developments in this vital and growing market, leading a suitably qualified team. This was loudly applauded.

He insisted time and again that TM cares deeply about its employees, customers, readers, advertisers and investors, and, having listened to them all, tries to respond quickly and frankly. (A cynic might say that any company would say that, wouldn’t they?, but on this occasion no one did).

He generated a feeling of confidence and optimism that was almost tangible in the room. His speech covered print services and their development; property holdings and usage – Group Finance Director Vijay Vaghela was co-opted to offer remarks on this subject too. At the end of his presentation Simon Fox was roundly applauded, in my view, rightly so.

There were a number of NUJ delegates who were also shareholders. They put a range of questions to the board including: Was the board aware of the enormous stress under which NUJ members in Birmingham and elsewhere were working as a result of unreasonable management demands and staffing levels?

The chairman and CEO both responded, pointing out that TM took great care to provide the best working conditions possible for all their workers, though unfortunately the exigencies of the newspaper business and the fiercely competitive market conditions all combine to produce stress. But Simon Fox said he would investigate the problem and reply directly and in depth to the questioner.

There were also comments on sliding circulations and the poor digital performance. Simon Fox and Mark Hollingshead both responded: circulations were holding better than expected and compared favourably with competitors. They accepted digital services were poor. Both areas were being dissected to establish the best way forward. The latter service particularly was acknowledged to be understaffed and would be beefed up slowly as new systems became operational. The reply satisfied the room.

A comment from a woman investor brought smiles to all faces. There were, she said, not enough women on the board, and what was to be done about it? It seemed to catch the board on the wrong foot and their reply was less than convincing. I got the impression the matter had never occurred to them; they are interested only in a person’s ability to perform a task, not their gender. Still, the questioner had a good point and the board knew it.

Other questions covered redundancy, raised by an NUJ member from the north; cover prices, raised by an investor who compared other cover prices with those of TM.

Property was raised a number of times, most interestingly in a question about whether the board intended to remain in Canary Wharf. That seemed a tricky one and even the chairman flannelled a bit. The contract has some time to run, five years I think was mentioned, and an assessment will be made nearer the time, he said. Vijay was unable to comment on that or on the overall value of the property portfolio. He was frankly a bit shifty in his replies on this subject. This subject will crop up again, I think.

Secretary & Group Legal Director Paul Vickers is very involved with matters arising from the Leveson enquiry and made a short report on the inquiry. He wasn’t able to say much because of “confidentiality”, but it’s an area taking up a lot of his time.

SUMMARY: This was a very different board to last year. Its whole attitude and style has changed. The image of the company in this meeting engendered feelings of confidence and optimism. The press statement released by the chairman accurately reflected the meetings’ view and the City clearly agreed because the share price shot up 15 pence before close of play a day later.

As reported earlier, I spoke with a number of directors and all evinced interest in AMP matters. The chairman and CE both agreed enthusiastically to attend our AGM. I have written to confirm details, though I have learned since that a TM group meeting the Midlands might affect their attendance. Whatever happens they now both know more about us, and both said they want know us better.

My comment on the meeting… well, I enjoyed it. I came away feeling that the titles we all hold in such affection are now in much better hands. I think we should make every effort to develop contact at the highest level and keep the board aware of what we think and do. There is a new era abroad at TM, one where professionalism rules and “the old days” are just that. To them it’s only the future that matters. Their entire business life and reputations depend on a good performance, and anything we can do to help will, I am, sure be appreciated.

(You can view the company’s statement here: http://www.trinitymirror.com/documents/financial-reports/2013/ims-may-20…)

New petition

The National Pensioners Convention, to which the AMP is affiliated, has launched a new online petition calling for the continuation of universal pensioner benefits such as concessionary bus travel, the winter fuel allowance and free prescriptions.

It reads: “Politicians from all the main parties have suggested that the winter fuel allowance, free bus pass, TV licences for the over 75s and prescriptions for older people should either be means-tested or withdrawn altogether. This represents an unfair attack on the benefits that older people have campaigned for over the years – partly in recognition of the inadequate level of the state pension – and we call on Parliament to oppose any such changes.”

When the petition reaches 100,000 signatures, it will go before the Work and Pensions Select Committee and be debated in Parliament.

You can sign the petition: HANDS OFF UNIVERSAL PENSIONER BENEFITS’ PETITION HERE: http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/49599

You can ask your MP to defend age-related tax allowances

AMP chairman Tom Brown has attended his first National Pensioners Convention executive meeting and reports that among issues covered were the Pensions White Paper, women’s pensions, RPI/CPI, care provision, the bedroom tax and transport. And, of course, the Budget.

The recent Budget confirmed the freeze on and eventual phasing out of the age-related personal tax allowance. The necessary 100,000 petition signatures have been reached – after we posted it on our website: “It can’t have been a coincidence!” says Tom – and it’s hoped there will be a debate in the Commons on Monday, April 29.

Affiliates such as the AMP and supporters are asked to inform their MPs of the likely date of the debate, ask them to take part in it and support the case for the age-related personal tax allowance to be unfrozen.

You can find contact details of your MP here: http://findyourmp.parliament.uk/

The full NPC budget report and more can be read at http://npcuk.org

Here’s an edited extract:

From April 2013, the basic personal allowance for income tax for those aged under 65 will rise to £9440, and is planned to reach £10,000 by next year’s Budget.

However, the Chancellor has frozen the age-related personal tax allowances for someone aged 65 to 74 at £10,500, and for someone aged 75 or more at £10,660, until they align with the standard personal allowance.

On current trends, this is likely to be around 2015. Thereafter, the allowances will rise in line with CPI.

This means that those retiring after April (born after April 5, 1948) will therefore receive a lower personal tax allowance of £9440.

This measure is expected to save the Exchequer £3.3bn by 2016/17, and according to Treasury figures will result in 4.4m existing tax-paying pensioners losing an average of £80 next year, while future pensioners will suffer a loss of around £197.

By contrast, those earning more than £150,000 a year will see their tax drop next April from 50 per cent to 45 per cent – giving them an extra £10,000 windfall.

Questions of independence

THE Scottish independence referendum next year could mean major changes on pensions – but so far there are more questions than answers, writes AMP chairman Tom Brown.

If Scotland votes “yes” to separation in autumn 2014, it would not only mean transferring state pensions to the new independent government. Pensioners south of the border should also be concerned because politicians on the anti-independence “Better Together” campaign are claiming there would be serious consequences for company pension funds like ours.

The Scottish National Party government in Edinburgh is to publish its own pensions plan in the next few weeks and say solutions will be found.

There was a heated row at the Scottish Parliament over a leaked document prepared by Finance Minister John Swinney for his Scottish Cabinet colleagues, in which he said: “I expect that the Fiscal Commission working group will consider the affordability of state pensions.”

Outside the chamber, I asked First Minister Alex Salmond about the status of company pensions in an independent Scotland. He and his advisers had no immediate answers but the FM obviously realised that this is a potential time-bomb and wants to defuse it.

The Shadow Pensions Minister in the Westminster Parliament, Labour MP Gregg McClymont, spelled out the problem for “cross border” funds such as Mirror pensions administered in London and making payments to those resident in Scotland. He told a BBC Scotland Question Time programme that under EU rules liabilities for cross-border funds have to be fully funded.

Experts in the pension industry confirm that under the EU directive such schemes have to apply for designation as a cross-border scheme where liabilities would need to be fully funded at all times. Given the size of the accounting deficit in Mirror pensions this is clearly impossible. There are also concerns that Scotland would no longer be covered by the Pension Protection Fund.

The SNP says it is confident these issues can be resolved by negotiation which will result in fairness for Scottish pensioners.

On behalf of the AMP, I will be raising these issues with the National Pensioners Convention as a matter of urgency. While it is not the function of the NPC (nor, for that matter, the AMP) to tell people how to vote in the independence referendum, there is a duty to ensure that pensioners have all the answers they need about how they may be affected.