Landscape with figures
THE OCCUPATIONAL Pensions Board is troubled (as I was saying) by what it calls inappropriate references, mostly from peo- ple who are worried about their occupa- tional pensions. Signalmen, for instance. Railtrack threatens that if they do not fall into line by the end of the month, they will forfeit their share of the British Rail Pen- sion Fund. I hope that Jimmy Knapp will nip down to Sotheby's and slap a legal notice of attachment on the fund's Hobbema landscape, before the trustees can sell it for £3 million. He will then argue that, as the Barber judgment laid down, pensions are deferred pay. The fund which provides them is not in the management's hand to be played or withheld as a bargaining card in a trade dispute. Mr Knapp should compare notes with a reader of mine who in his youth worked for Beecham. He moved on after 13 years' service, and has now asked his old firm what he can expect from its contributory pension scheme. A round £18 a month, he was told. Underwhelmed, he
consulted the pensions ombudsman, who passed him on to the Occupational Pen- sions Advisory Service, which told him in so many words that it was not a pressure group for pension improvements. Of course there are many claims on SmithKline Beecham's pension scheme — the highest paid director gets £1,898,000 a year plus £1,162,000 by way of unfunded pension contributions for him — and every little helps. Under our arbitrary system of pension provision, where the money in the pot is everyone's and no one's, these things hap- pen. It would be inappropriate to raise them with the Occupational Pensions Board.
Previous page
