RPI to CPI Early Day Motion 1032

JohnB47

Interested_Taxpayer wrote: »

Yes you are right viridens and the report on both channels was disgraceful. They ignored one of the vital core issues i.e. the move from the RPI to the CPI. As we all know, no matter what pension you get you stand to lose between 15% and 25% of it over a lifetime by this Condem robbery. This is not only for public sector pensioners but a vast number of private sector pensioners as well and the news channels should report this.

However, one Union has got it right. Have a read of the following from the PCS website.

http://www.pcs.org.uk/en/news_and_events/news_centre/index.cfm/id/4FE40A25-0CAB-43CE-B3514886820BA8A8

All of you from other Unions and Pensioner organisations should urge them to reflect something similar and make this absolutely clear to the Government.

Thanks but I can't get that link to load. Is it correct?

Interested_Taxpayer

JohnB47 wrote: »

Thanks but I can't get that link to load. Is it correct?

Yes. I have just tried it again and it opened. Here it is again.

http://www.pcs.org.uk/en/news_and_events/news_centre/index.cfm/id/4FE40A25-0CAB-43CE-B3514886820BA8A8

JohnB47

Interested_Taxpayer wrote: »

Yes. I have just tried it again and it opened. Here it is again.

http://www.pcs.org.uk/en/news_and_events/news_centre/index.cfm/id/4FE40A25-0CAB-43CE-B3514886820BA8A8

Thanks - it's working for me now.

dggar

Ripoff wrote: »

Hi All, the e-petition has hit over 70k now and still rising, but slower than before so we really do need to keep getting our message out there.

I have concerns that the Gvmt will do the dirty on us again and not use the September 5.2% CPI bearing in mind it should have been the 5.6% RPI, they may try and use a lower months figure, political suicide I suspect if they do go that far. Watch this space.....


....WE are being ripped off good and proper and I wonder how many of the people out there that don't see this as an issue will finally wake up and realise what this Gvmt are up to.

BBC news this morning was hinting the the the Septmeber CPI figure(5.2%) would not be honoured next April. Rather an average of CPIs over the previous year.

viridens

dggar wrote: »

BBC news this morning was hinting the the the Septmeber CPI figure(5.2%) would not be honoured next April. Rather an average of CPIs over the previous year.

-Which would be another shameful retrospective change to the written rules of my pension scheme. I hope the unions/TUC are quick to counter this.

Interested_Taxpayer

CSPA NEWSLETTER

Number 77 04 November 2011

Dear Colleague

RPI/CPI: OUR DAYS IN COURT

The two Judicial Review (JR) challenges against the decision to switch the indexation of occupational pensions from the Retail Prices Index (RPI) to the Consumer Prices Index (CPI) received their High Court hearings on a joined basis on 25 to 27 October 2011. The first JR application (entitled the PNB Claim by the Court), made on behalf of the Alliance, the Police Federation, the National Association of Retired Police Officers (NARPO) and the trade unions FDA, Prospect & GMB, focussed, in the main, on the straightforward legal point that, as CPI did not, as the law required, measure 'increases in the general level of prices', it was beyond the statutory authority of the Secretary of State for Work & Pensions to use it; the second application (given the title of the Piper Claim by the Court), by a consortium of trade unions that included PCS and the Prison Officers' Association (POA), covered a wider range of legal arguments relating to legitimate expectations, the Human Rights Act and the Equality Impact Assessment. As the Court had, previously, decided to join the applications, the two sets of legal teams for the two consortia of organisations ensured that they would support and complement the other's cases for the hearing.
On the first day of the hearing, members from most of the organisations associated with the two JR challenges gathered outside the Royal Courts of Justice (RCJ) to peaceably show their support for the legal action and to publicise the hearings. The demonstration received lots of welcome publicity on TV, radio and the newspapers, with many subsequent interviews with representatives of the different organisations involved - the issue and consequences of the RPI/CPI switch reached a wider audience!
At the start of the hearing, the Court had to declare an interest in the cases as each member of the Bench was a member of the Judicial Pension Scheme; in the event, there were no objections raised about the competence or integrity of those on the bench to hear the joined cases. The Court also agreed that the National Union of Teachers (NUT), the National Federation of Occupational Pensioners (NFOP) and the Association of Chief Fire Officers (ACFO) could join thePNB Claim as additional claimants.
All of the first day of the hearing (morning only) and over an hour of the second day were taken up by the submission made by the Counsel for the PNB Claimants, Michael Beloff QC, on the legality of the decision to use CPI as the indexation measure for increasing Official Pensions as required to be based on a determination under the 1992 Social Security Administration Act. The Court was being asked to find that CPI, measures consumer reaction to price rises rather than the increase in the general level of prices, and was therefore was out-with the Secretary of State's range of legal options and that the issue of whether cutting spending was wrongly the driving force for the decision rather than the selection of the most appropriate indexation measure - as Michael Beloff QC appropriately asked whether the Government put the economic horse before the statutory cart?
Nigel Giffin QC then presented arguments for the Piper Claimants, focussing in the main on the issue of legitimate expectations and potential breaches of the Public Sector Equality Duty under the 2010 Equality Act, with no great mention of the Human Rights Act, on the basis that little would have been added to the arguments set out under those for legitimate expectations. It has emerged that the Government may well have made mistakes with regard to its responsibilities under the 2010 Equality Act and the Court has asked for further written arguments from both the Counsels for the Piper Claimants and the Government.
In response to the PNB Claim, the Government's Counsel argued that the methodology used for CPI was generally accepted in expert circles and was thus a legitimate option available to the Secretary of State to determine changes in the general level of prices; additionally, if CPI was an available option under the terms of the 1992 Social Security Administration Act, it was legitimate for the Government to take account of the reduction in costs of future pension payments through the switch of indexation measures. With regard to the Piper Claim, the Government's Counsel contested whether any of the grounds cited represented legal barriers to the ability of Government to decide the best method of assessing rises in the level of prices; and that, even if the DWP had not undertaken its required equality impact assessment, the Treasury, who had driven the change of index, had done so..
In a his reply, Michael Beloff QC for the PNB Claimants ably refuted the arguments of the Government's Counsel about the legality of the use of CPI, pointing out that such a switch required primary legislation and that, even if CPI was viewed as a legitimate index elsewhere, the issue was whether it met the statutory test. However, whether the Court shares that assessment, we will have to wait and see!
The Alliance's legal advisors expect that the written exchanges over the provisions of the 2010 Equality Act should be concluded in a couple of days and that, as the Court has indicated that it was keen to give an early decision, the judgement could be laid as early as the end of November 2011!
We will report further as soon as we have the judgement.

RPI/CPI SWITCH - E-PETITION

This is a repeat of an item which I included in Newsletter Number 73 (06 September 2011). When I checked this morning, the e-petition had attracted 72,130 signatures. We would like to attract 100,000 signatures, so as to stand a chance of securing a Parliamentary Debate. Therefore, if you have not yet signed, please do so and ask your friends and family to do likewise. Our sister organisations are making a similar call to their members.

The following e-petition, proposed by Mr Jim Singer, a PCS member in Scotland, and calling for the re-introduction of RPI as the indexation measure for pensions, has been posted on the Directgov website:
1535 Many workers in the Public and Private Sector have contributed to their pensions on the understanding that on retirement these Pensions would be increased each April by the preceding September's Retail Price Index (RPI) rate. From April 2011 the Government has transferred these increases to the Consumer Price Index (CPI) measure which in the Treasury's own words "...is designed to take account of the fact that consumers tend to shop around, switching to cheaper alternatives when prices of similar goods change." This change, which has been introduced in most cases without any prior consultation, will mean a steady reduction in spending power for pensioners as they progress into their retirement. Given the promises that have previously been made, the RPI measure should be reintroduced without delay to ensure that the spending power of these Public and Private pensioners is maintained.
Along with the other organisations in the RPI/CPI Campaign Group, the Alliance is urging its members to support the e-petition. If it is supported by 100,000 signatures, that might lead to a Parliamentary debate!

I would, therefore, be grateful if you would sign the petition and ask your family and friends to do likewise. http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/1535


Yours sincerely

[FONT=&quot]John Amos[/FONT]

John Amos
Deputy General Secretary

fwor

Interested_Taxpayer wrote: »

Have a read of this

http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-staggers/2011/09/cpi-rpi-lower-cut-chancellor

Oh they are crooks alright and Osborne is the Commander in Chief!

Thanks for pointing to that - a well-written article.

The e-Petition is approaching three-quarter point, so it looks well on target - though if the government continues the "it's already in place and not up for negotiation" line, then a debate in the house may be a short and pointless one...

Interested_Taxpayer

fwor wrote: »

Thanks for pointing to that - a well-written article.

The e-Petition is approaching three-quarter point, so it looks well on target - though if the government continues the "it's already in place and not up for negotiation" line, then a debate in the house may be a short and pointless one...

I hope not but much will depend on how the Opposition front bench perform. It would certainly help if some of the posters on this thread were given the opportunity to brief the Opposition
However in my view any chance of raising the profile of this ConDem robbery again is worth taking.
Let's get 100,000 signing the petition first.

Moby

Total respect for what you are doing!

datostar

dggar wrote: »

BBC news this morning was hinting the the the Septmeber CPI figure(5.2%) would not be honoured next April. Rather an average of CPIs over the previous year.

Well, how remarkable. 2 years ago (I think, or was it 3?) when the September RPI was 0% and no pension increase was paid at all the following year, there was no outcry from pensioners and unions because it was realised that there would be good years and bad years and they were prepared to keep faith with long-standing agreements. There were no government moves to average RPI over the whole year (and significantly, no pressure from unions and pensioners' associations to do so, either) which would have delivered an increase. If they do this, they deserve no trust and prove themselves unreliable, hypocritical, deceitful and altogether a bunch of shysters.