The National Association of Pension Funds annual conference is taking place in Brighton on 9 and 10 May.

On Thursday, in the opening address, Chairman Peter Thompson accused the government of failing to care about work-based pension schemes.

Mr Thompson also accused the government of focusing on the NHS at the expense of the impending pensions crisis.

"The Chancellor seems to think we should all have a long, healthy and poor retirement. Maybe this is in tune with his Puritan principles," he said.

Here is Peter Thompson's speech in full:

This time last year, in my inaugural address on being appointed as Chairman of your Association, I made what seemed to me to be the fairly obvious statement that, for a number of reasons with which we are all now familiar, the affordability of the standard 1/60 promise with LPI is inexorably increasing. I also said that a number of defined benefit schemes with which I am familiar had closed to new entrants and that more bad news should be expected from April 2001's actuarial valuations.

My remarks caused something of a furore at the time, as many of you will recall. But let us look at what has happened subsequently. The move from DB to DC has continued and if anything accelerated; the average level of contributions to replacement DC schemes is significantly lower than the DB schemes which they replace; and most of the new DC schemes are contracted in to the State Second Pension. Published and unpublished surveys confirm all these trends, and also confirm that they are continuing. Maybe I was too optimistic a year ago.

I frankly doubt whether the Government is particularly concerned about the move from DB to DC. Indeed, in the era of the flexible and dynamic labour market which we are often told we live in, we are frequently reminded that DC may be more appropriate. How inconvenient, then, to read in last week's FT that "Britain is suffering from a string of myths about the world of work". A new report from the Economic and Social Research Council states that "a disturbingly wide gulf exists between the over-familiar rhetoric and hyperbole we hear daily about our flexible and dynamic labour market and the realities of workplace life."

The average job tenure is, according to the report, actually increasing (by nearly 20% during the 1990s), rather than decreasing, as we are told it is supposed to. These latest findings bear out earlier research, carried out by, amongst others, Pam Meadows for the NAPF, which has all shown that the often-repeated slogan about the increasingly flexible labour market is indeed a myth. Repeating something a lot does not make it true, although people may come to believe it and accept it as true.

Even if the Government is not concerned about the move from DB to DC, it really should be concerned about the overall reduction in the level of saving for retirement. And a reduction there undoubtedly is, even allowing for the effect of contracting-out rebates and other factors. Employers have been the cornerstone of pension provision for millions of workers in the last few decades, and just when saving levels need to increase they are reducing.

Let me be clear about the NAPF's position on these matters. The NAPF exists to represent the interests of employer-sponsored retirement provision. That is, all sorts of employer-sponsored provision, whether defined benefit, defined contribution or hybrid. Employers should be free to make the type of retirement provision which best suits their needs and those of their employees, and the regulatory and fiscal framework should encourage them to do this - after all, one consequence of such provision is likely to be a reduced dependence on the State in later years. Defined benefit and defined contribution provision both have their place and it is not for the Government, or the NAPF for that matter, to tell employers what sort of provision they should make for their employees.

Let's look for a moment at the Government's record in the area of pension provision, especially as it has impacted employer-sponsored provision. The 1997 Budget wasn't a good start, with the withdrawal of ACT reclaim, although we have to recognise that there is no point now in asking the Government to reinvent ACT so that pension funds can get relief from it.

The Government set out its pension policy in the Green Paper Partnership in Pensions in December 1998. Let's remind ourselves what it said then:

"By 2050, the proportion of pensioner incomes coming from the State, now 60 per cent, will have fallen to 40 per cent, and the proportion coming from private provision will have increased from 40 to 60 per cent."

What has happened since that Green Paper was published? Well, the Minimum Income Guarantee has been introduced and is to be transformed into the Pension Credit. The Basic State Pension has been significantly increased, following the protests about the 75p increase in April 2000, and the earnings-related State Second Pension has replaced SERPS. At the same time, as I have already observed, employers are tending to reduce rather than increase their financial commitment to occupational pensions. All these factors will have caused the 60/40 bias in favour of State-provided pensioner incomes to move more towards the State rather than away from it.

Last month's Budget was a disappointment. Another missed opportunity. Not a mention of pensions, let alone of employer-sponsored pensions, nor indeed of saving at all. Instead, an increase in direct taxation on employers and employees. No recognition of the fact that, whilst one of the causes of the increased financial needs of the NHS is improving life expectancy, the flip-side of that is the need for increased saving for retirement. The Chancellor seems to think we should all have a long, healthy and poor retirement. Maybe this is in tune with his Puritan principles.

I am often asked what the NAPF would like from the Government. In the interests of representing our members' views, we recently asked our members what they thought we should be asking for from the Government. By far the single commonest wish was for simplification - serious simplification, not tweaking around the edges, and not adding another layer of rules on top of those which we already have. Much work is going into the simplification reviews which are under way at the moment. I know that both Alan Pickering and the Inland Revenue are aware how much is resting on the outcome of their respective reviews and we are all looking forward with keen anticipation to the publication of their reports.

However much simplification is recommended, though, it will not answer the question of increased pension costs arising from longer life expectancy. As I pointed out this time last year, increasing expectation of life is, in general terms, good news for us as individuals. But in economic terms it must mean either more saving for retirement; or lower retirement incomes (whether expressed as smaller pensions, or the same pension from a later age). The Government has a crucial role to play in encouraging saving for retirement, and fiscal as well as regulatory measures have a part to play here.

The NAPF has for years, in our annual Budget representations, asked Governments for a tax structure which treats long-term savings more favourably than short-term discretionary savings. If you are being asked to lock your hard-earned cash away for thirty years or more, and then to have to buy an annuity at the end, you should receive more favourable tax treatment than you do on your short-term savings which you can draw out at any time and spend on whatever you like. One suggestion which the Government may wish to consider is to extend the principle, already adopted for stakeholder pensions, of giving tax credits rather than just tax reliefs. For example, giving all basic-rate taxpayers higher-rate relief on pension saving would do much to encourage such saving, without giving any additional benefits to the better-off. And let us never forget, or let the Government forget, the difference between tax relief and tax deferral. The difference between the EET system which applies to pension saving, and the TEE system which applies to ISAs, is to do with the incidence of tax payments rather than their existence.

But I believe there is a more subtle change which affects the attitude of employers. This is the question of whether employers believe that the Government actually cares whether or not they provide pensions for their employees. Tax changes; the introduction of contract-based products such as stakeholder pensions which are not employer-specific and may be easier for Governments to control; and the frequent repetition of what we now know to be inaccurate statements about how the world of work is changing; all these lead to a scenario where employers can be forgiven for taking a view that the Government is at best neutral about whether they make pension provision for their employees. The Chancellor failed last month to reaffirm the Government's commitment to pensions. The Secretary of State, Alistair Darling, will be speaking to us tomorrow morning and I for one will be listening very carefully for signs of a Government commitment to the continuing success of employer-sponsored retirement provision.

I turn now to the thorny topic of FRS 17, which apart from simplification was the topic raised most often by our Members. As Alan Rubenstein pointed out at our Investment Conference in March, it is clear that FRS 17 is having a much greater effect on pension schemes than either the ASB or the Government expected. FRS 17 has been a source of continuing concern to many of our members and has, whether correctly or otherwise, been publicly blamed for the closure of some defined benefit pension schemes.

I have today written to Sir Bryan Nicholson, Chairman of the ASB's umbrella body the Financial Reporting Council, which is partly funded by the NAPF, expressing our continuing concerns over certain aspects of the operation of FRS 17. I have asked him to raise the matter at the next meeting of the FRC, which just happens to be next week. I have made it clear that the NAPF fully supports disclosure of relevant financial information on the operation of pension schemes where the company has a contingent liability. Our concerns centre on four main areas. First, the fact that, whilst pension schemes are under FRS 17 accounted for on a "mark to market" basis, many other areas of company operations are not. This may of course change in the future but then the volatility of the whole balance sheet would be greatly increased. Second, the use, in the liability calculation, of future pay growth assumptions in excess of RPI; few companies are committed to any such thing and the liability is thereby overstated. And third, the fact that in a few years' time we shall all have to comply with an international accounting standard, the shape of which is not yet finally determined. Yes, the international standard may look like FRS 17 - it may look a lot like FRS 17. But we don't know that yet and there seems little point in the UK adopting a standard for a very few years which we then have to amend when the international standard is introduced. Finally, it is overwhelmingly clear that there is a need for education amongst users of accounts as to what the figures derived under FRS 17 mean and what they do not mean: so, for example, a deficit of �200 million under FRS 17 does not mean that the sponsoring company is necessarily liable for �200 million, either in a lump sum (because any shortfall can be made good over a period of years) or at all (because of the overstatement of liability to which I have already referred). I shall look forward to hearing from Sir Bryan in due course.

I turn now to events within the NAPF itself. As you know, Jenny Rosser has been our Acting Director General since the beginning of the year, and I want to take this opportunity to record publicly my appreciation, and that of the rest of the NAPF Board, for Jenny's efforts on behalf of your Association this year. Jenny had thought she had retired from a long career in pensions at British Airways, but instead she has given willingly of her time and experience to assist your Association and lead the Secretariat during the last few months. The Association in general, and I in particular, owe Jenny a great debt of gratitude. Thank you, Jenny.

Also since the beginning of the year, a subcommittee of your Board has given a great deal of time to selecting and appointing the new Chief Executive of the NAPF. I am able to announce this morning that the new Chief Executive of the NAPF will be Christine Farnish.

Christine Farnish will be known to some of you through her current role, which is as Director of Consumer Affairs at the Financial Services Authority. She has been with the FSA since 1998, and has extensive experience in the whole financial services sector, including pensions, and a deep appreciation of the expectations of the consumer - and let us never forget that the member of the pension scheme is the ultimate beneficiary of our work both at the NAPF and in our day jobs. Before joining the FSA Christine spent four years at Oftel, finishing as Deputy Director General, and before that she had a career in local government.

Christine has extensive experience of management and a considerable network of contacts in Whitehall. I am delighted that Christine has agreed to become our Chief Executive and she will take up her new appointment on 1 July. I am looking forward to working with Christine as the NAPF moves forward to face with determination and resolution the challenges which face us in the coming years.