This piece first appeared in Saga Magazine in September 1999
The text here may not be identical to the published text

"You steal our pensions and we'll steal your votes". A plain message to the Labour Government half way through its first term in office. The slogan was on a placard carried by one of around 200 angry pensioners who gathered in London at the end of July to present a petition to the Prime Minister. Its demands were simple. Give us a pension of £75 a week now. More than 100,000 people had signed the petition and it was wheeled up Downing Street to the door of Number 10 on a barrow by George Leslie. Like everyone I spoke to at the protest, George was a Labour voter. He is still an active member of the Transport and General Workers Union retired members association. And he was bitterly disappointed.

"We're here to draw attention to the raw deal which this Government has given to the pensioners. They've not honoured their pledges. They've not done what we expected of them."

He wore a placard saying "What crime did pensioners commit to get New Labour" The word 'New' crossed out and replaced with 'Hard'. It was a sentiment echoed by everyone there. Like Joan Henderson.

"There are ten million pensioners in this country. We could bring down a government. I've voted Labour all my life. But we're seriously thinking of not voting next time."

Husband Roy confirmed here feelings.

"The last time Tony Blair mentioned pensioners was before the Election. We've been forgotten."

Joan adds

"Between us we get £123 a week. We draw on our savings. We've had a holiday this year but it might be our last. We are getting poorer - council tax, petrol, food, television licence, they all go up. We can't afford things any more. People voted Labour thinking they would help pensioners and they haven't."

The £75 pension was a simple and modest demand. It could have been more. Age Concern estimates that a pension of £150 a week is needed for pensioners to live in what it calls 'comfort and dignity'. And many pensioners reminded me that if the pension had risen with earnings rather than prices since 1979 it would be more like £95 a week now than the £66.75 it rose to in April. But the figure of £75 was a rallying cry that Age Concern, Help the Aged and the National Pensioners Convention could unite on. And the big advantage is that the figure of £75 comes from the Government itself.

In the year Labour was elected to power, it promised to introduce what it called a 'minimum income guarantee' for people over 60 - £75 a week for single person and £116.60 for a couple. If anyone over 60 had an income below that, the Government would pay the difference. And there were higher rates at 75 and 80. So the Government has admitted that no pensioner should live on less than £75 a week. The problem is that many people do. Dr Gary Kitchen is the national organiser of the National Pensioners Convention. He explained the problem.

"Last year the Government announced the minimum income guarantee. But that is just another name for income support. About 700,000 pensioners don't claim it through pride or ignorance. And another 600,000 cannot claim it because their savings are too high - they have more than £8000. They were going to ensure that take-up was more automatic from April 1999. They did some research last year but so far there are no concrete proposals to increase take-up. But people who have paid National Insurance Contributions over a lifetime are entitled to an adequate pension. And £66.75 - £8.25 below income support levels - is not adequate. It's as if you put your money into a bank all your life and when you come to take it out they say 'well you've got enough money, you don't need it, so you can't have it', That would be a scandal. Pensioners deserve it."

And 'deserving it' was another theme of the day. Led by the veteran trade union activist Gordon McLennan, they sang 'Pensioners deserve more, we shall not be moved' as the protest went from Downing Street to the headquarters of the Department of Social Security in Whitehall. Maureen Delenian was almost in tears as she told me of her experience of becoming a pensioner. She is now 62.

"I earned £17,000 a year. Then I retired and I'm supposed to live on £5000 a year. How? I get a firm's pension of £45 a month which takes me just above the level to get income support. I paid £100 for my last dental bill - I can't afford another this year. After all my outgoings I have £38 a week to live on. So I am using up the savings I have put by. What happens when they run out? We've paid into the National Insurance fund all our lives - for this! It hits women especially hard because by definition we are the lowest paid."

The pensioners had a powerful new ally at their protest. Bruce Kent, still a vice president of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, and now working for pensioners rights too. He told me he does have to admit to being officially old - he was 70 in June - and he was one of the delegation delivering the petition to the door of Number 10. Bruce Kent has not just threatened to desert New Labour

"I tore my card up the day Tony Blair said he would be willing to use nuclear weapons. But that's another subject. This idea that pensioners are a drain on society, it's nonsense. How many voluntary organisations could function without retired people? How many schools would have governors? The problem is the Labour Government is frightened of tax. The reason they go on about means-testing benefits is they're terrified to put taxes up to a reasonable rate."

Keeping income tax low was of course one of Labour's key election pledges. And the rally came just a day after Tony Blair published the Government's Annual Report for 1998/99. He had indeed kept income tax low and cut the VAT on domestic fuel from 8% to 5%. But there was one pledge in the Manifesto that did not get listed among the 177 government commitments in the Annual Report. The Manifesto on which Labour fought the 1997 Election stated "We believe that all pensioners should share fairly in the increasing prosperity of the nation." That pledge seemed to everyone on the rally not just unfulfilled, but forgotten. And they interpreted it in a very specific way. Only if the retirement pension was raised in line with earnings would the income of pensioners rise in line with that of people in work. Pensions in April this year were increased by 3.2% - the rate of inflation in September 1998. If it had risen in line with earnings the extra would have been 5.1% - a rise of £3.30 to £68 rather than the actual increase of £2.05 to £66.75. But if pensions had risen with earnings over the last 20 years - the link with earnings was broken from 1980 - the single pension would now be almost £95 - and a married woman would get almost £56 instead of £39.95.

"Restore the link with earnings" sang Gordon McLennan. "We shall not be moved" replied the crowd.

The link with earnings was introduced by Barbara Castle in the 1970s. It was part of a reform which also saw National Insurance Contributions changed from a flat rate amount to a percentage of pay. That means that the contributions going into the fund rise as earnings rise. But the main benefit paid from the Fund - retirement pension accounts for 80% of the money paid out - rises only in line with prices. So has the Government forgotten this pledge? Chancellor Gordon Brown may consider he fulfilled it when he announced this year that the minimum income guarantee will be raised in line with earnings, as long as the economy can afford it. So the poorest pensioners, or at least those who claim income support, will see their incomes rise as national prosperity grows. But the rest - including of course the 700,000 who fail to claim it and the 600,000 whose incomes are low enough to claim but whose savings are more than the £8000 limit - will not. And the cost of the minimum income guarantee comes not from the National Insurance Fund but from general taxation. So over the years, all other things being equal, the Fund will slowly move into a surplus. Gary Kitchen said there was one now.

"The Government Actuary predicts a surplus this year of £5.9 billion. Raising the pension to £75 would cost, net, £3 billion. Affording it is not a problem."

When Saga Magazine asked the Department of Social Security how the pledge to pensioners had been fulfilled a spokeswoman said

"We have introduced the minimum income guarantee, we have awarded a fivefold increase in winter fuel allowance from £20 to £100 and we have restored free eyesight tests."

But that answer would not satisfy the pensioners in Whitehall in July. Helen Crew from Birmingham, vice-president of the National Pensioners Convention, knocked on the door of Number 10.

"This petition is a way of keeping up the pressure. And a way of talking to people about the issues - many of those who signed were not pensioners themselves."

And her colleague Zelda Curtis said the struggle goes on.

"People must listen to us and do something about it. 110,000 signatures is 1% of the pensioner population. That's not bad. The Government has made £75 the starting point for poverty. That's a good start for us. This is just Stage 1."

And as the assembly of 200 people broke up, under the watchful eye of seven police officers, their T-shirts and placards stood out from the tourist crowd with their parting shots and "Increase State Pensions Now", ""British Pensioners - Paupers of Europe", and "Not dead yet".

September 1999

e-mail Paul Lewis on paul@paullewis.co.uk