Our fighting fund

The AMP’s Pension Contingency Fund, as reported in last autumn’s Mirror Pensioner newsletter, goes from strength to strength.
The fund was set up in [to be advised] to ensure the association would be able to meet legal fees and other expenses should the need arise. Some members continue to make their voluntary monthly donations via the monthly pension payroll with deductions made at source, while others prefer to pay by standing order from their bank account.

At the 2011 AGM it was agreed to maintain the fund for a further year given the present uncertainties, and the Scottish annual meeting subsequently endorsed this decision.

The need for the Fund’s continuation will now be reviewed at the next AGM.
AMP membership stands at around 2,800, but there are some 7,000 pensioners and dependents in the MGN pension schemes who are eligible to join. Every extra new member helps to increase our financial and numerical strength, so if you know a pensioner or deferred pensioner who is not a member we urge you to persuade him or her to join us. It’s only £10.00 to join for life, and payments to the Contingency Fund are voluntary.

Find out more in our Join Us section.

2783 – It’s a record!

Yes, it’s a fact! AMP now has 2783 members which is a record. Membership has increased by 34 members recently and nearly a third of our members contribute monthly to the AMP contingency fund.

If you are reading this page and not a member of AMP it is easy tojoin us. Just send a £10 cheque for lifetime membership to our treasurer Roy White at 219 Corbets Tey Road, Upminster, RM14 2YW or click here for more information.

That Vital 3% GMP/SERPS Query – An Update

MGN Old Scheme Annual Pension Increases
Last year’s AMP Autumn Newsletter referred to the “Vital 3%” query that followed on from our Spring 2011 newsletter that raised a query on the 5% annual pension increase formula for the Mirror Group Pension Scheme (Old Scheme).

The minimum 3% Guaranteed Minimum Pension (GMP) annual increase was a requirement for companies that opted out of the State Earnings Related Pension Scheme (SERPS) – as the Mirror Group Pension Scheme did until 1992.

Following the Spring 2011 newsletter, the subsequent letter from the Company and Trustee Board to all members in April 2011 further explained the situation when members reached the State Retirement Age. However, the letter did not include any explanation of the 5% increase option’s bracketed rider – 5% of the excess over GMP (plus 3% on GMP earned since 5 April 1988) – the basis of our original query.

Since then we have been assured that the GMP/SERPS query is being seriously and properly considered by the Trustees and their legal advisors.

Giles Orton, a senior partner at Eversheds LLP, (and our legal representative since 1991) has advised that “I have reviewed the matter for the Association of Mirror Pensioners. I am not satisfied that affected members are not worse off. Though nor am I satisfied that members are definitely worse off. The inter-relationship between the SERPS pension and the former GMP is far from straightforward. I have put some queries to the Trustees which they have not so far been able to answer”.

It was hoped that an answer would be given at the last AGM. However, we had been advised earlier this year that another more urgent and related issue had arisen that is presently being discussed by the Trustees with the Trustee lawyers and Leading Counsel. This other issue may have to go to Court for a direction. Consequently, an answer to our GMP/SERPS query has been delayed in the meantime.

However, we hope to hear further at a meeting with the Trustee Chairman and our respective legal advisors later this month.

Whilst SERPS increases have been around 3% for the last decade the move by the Government to the lower Consumer Price Index (CPI) as opposed to the present Retail Price Index (RPI) is likely to mean that SERPS increases could well be lower than 3% in the future (even 0% again). So far, the Government has not made a commitment to identical annual basic State pension percentage increases.

The Government’s proposed new single tier State pension of some £140 per week has also raised doubts on whether the SERPS or other State pension additions will be incorporated or annual increases frozen in the future.

That is why the Committee feels that it is important to clarify the pension increase rules as soon as possible.

If the State is wholly responsible for the annual Guaranteed Minimum Pension of 3% increase then all Old Scheme members may well lose out in the future!

Something for our Patrons to raise in Parliament?

Trustee Board changes

The closure of the MGN Pension Scheme to future accruals from 1 April 2010 means there should no longer be any ‘B’ directors – those representing contributing members – on the Trustee Board.

We are all pensioners, or deferred pensioners, now!

The AMP has long been concerned at the unequal representation between active pension members, deferred pensioners, and those receiving their pension. This should now be eliminated.

Under existing rules the AMP believes the three ‘B’ directors should have resigned, offered themselves for re-election together with any new nominees, and ALL members of the pension schemes voted for three new ‘C’ directors.

It was unfortunate timing that 1 April 2010 also saw the handover of the Independent Chairmanship from Michael Pickard to Joanna Matthews.

To avoid adding to Joanna Matthews’ workload, and to retain three experienced directors, the AMP was therefore willing to accept the three ‘B’ directors switching to a ‘C’ director role.

But this can only be a temporary measure. Some 1300 deferred pensioners – soon perhaps 25% less after recent announcements – voting for three directors, while the 9000 other pension fund members vote for the other three directors is unacceptable.

The Trustee Board have announced their intention to carry out a review, but with a one year time scale. This is also unacceptable. Democracy must be restored, and several member directors’ periods of office end soon.

How long does it take to accept that ALL pensioners and deferred pensioners must be able to vote for ALL their member directors.

Or does the Trustee Board think that all directors are equal, but some directors are more equal than others?

NOT ONLY DO WE WELCOME ALL THE NEW DEFERRED PENSIONERS TO JOIN THE ASSOCIATION OF MIRROR PENSIONERS, WE WOULD ALSO WELCOME YOUR VIEWS ON THE CHANGED VOTING RIGHTS, PARTICULARLY FROM OUR EXISTING DEFERRED PENSIONER MEMBERS.

Bill Rowntree