Pension Schemes Bill

Lord Hain Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 23rd March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I apologise—during my first contribution I should have declared my interests as a non-executive director of a pensions administration company and as a board adviser to a master trust. I also take this opportunity to wish the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton, a full and speedy recovery; we missed him.

These amendments—and I am very grateful for the support of the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso—are all related to enabling either the pension protection fund or the financial assistance scheme to recognise the losses suffered by the oldest members of the schemes, who have lost the inflation increases they would have had in their schemes. I understand and appreciate that the Government have decided that, for the future, they will increase for inflation all pre-1997 benefits that were available to the scheme members in their original scheme. However, that does not really help those who are towards the end of their lives and whose pension, or compensation, is mostly comprised of pre-1997 accruals.

Although I understand why the Government are reluctant to commit to an open-ended amount for the future—which the current proposals will of course do, and we are grateful for that—my amendments seek to find an alternative way of recognising the losses in a one-off payment, a lump sum. I have drafted the amendments carefully to allow the Government to authorise that, and to enable the Pension Protection Fund to push some of its reserves into this kind of payment. I have not specified an amount. It would obviously need to be related to the amount each member has lost, but if the member is going to qualify for future uplifts, these amendments would also allow for an extra payment to recognise the amounts that were unpaid because of the inflation increases they had in the scheme but have lost.

The failure to pay any increases has resulted in the oldest members finding that their pensions have been whittled away, in many cases to less than half their value. I pay tribute to members such as John Benson and Phil Jones from Allied Steel and Wire—Phil Jones is seriously ill and now living on less than half his promised pension after 20 years of losing the inflation uplifts—and Richard Nicholl and Terry Monk. These are elderly gentlemen who have campaigned for years. I see the noble Lord, Lord Hain, in his place: he was instrumental in achieving our financial assistance scheme breakthrough in 2007, for which these members are extremely grateful, after a long campaign from 2001 to 2007.

The reality of the situation for the Pension Protection Fund is radically different from that which prevailed in 2004, and indeed in 2007. In those days, it was unclear how the PPF would fare. The rationale for getting rid of the pre-1997 increases was based on the fact that there was no legal requirement for employers to do that, and a recognition of the need to control costs, potentially, in future, should a massive number of large schemes fail and the PPF prove unable to afford the benefits. It was unclear how many employers might become insolvent, what types of schemes would be affected, and how much the PPF would have to pay. It was going to be able to collect its revenues from employer levies, assets from the unfunded schemes, assets of insolvent employers that were recovered, and investment returns, but it was unclear at the time how any of that would pan out.

In practice, the PPF has been an amazing success. It now finds itself with a significant surplus, with assets relative to its compensation liabilities far in excess of what is required to pay all the future pensions. The provisions of the Pensions Act 2004 state that these huge reserves, of well over £14 billion, cannot be used for anything other than member compensation or funding related to the PPF itself. The PPF is a separate statutory fund; it is not the property of government. Therefore, I am trying to suggest the payment of a portion of that £14 billion. Full retrospection is calculated to cost £3.5 billion. I am not talking about that, but even after that payment, the PPF would still be 150% funded—50% more than it needs to pay its expected liabilities.

However, I am not talking about that. The Government or the PPF could work out a sum—whatever it might be; perhaps it could be £1 billion—that could be allocated to paying the lump sums for those members who were promised their money but have lost it. It would be hugely welcomed by those members. They tend to be the oldest ones, and often the ones who have campaigned for so long, at such personal cost, for the other members of the Pension Protection Fund and the Financial Assistance Scheme.

Amendments 124, 128, 132 and 136 relate to the Pension Protection Fund paying those lump sum payments. Amendment 154 is about mirroring that for the Financial Assistance Scheme. I accept that the Government may have to find public money for that, but I argue that—after allocating billions of pounds to the Mineworkers’ Pension Scheme and the British Coal Staff Superannuation Scheme to increase the already full benefits that those members were receiving at the expense of the taxpayer—spending a small fraction of that on remedying this injustice, for so many people who are becoming gradually poorer every year, would be a sensible way to spend some of the surplus in the Pension Protection Fund. As the members say, the Government’s hugely welcome current proposals to increase with inflation in the future will not make any of them better off now. It will make sure only that they get worse off more slowly—but is that really all we can achieve given the success of the Pension Protection Fund? I beg to move.

[Lord Hain (Lab)]

My Lords, I strongly support what the noble Baroness said and commend her for her work with the Pensions Action Group. I was Secretary of State in the DWP at the time and was lobbied effectively by her in a very good campaign. I managed to persuade the then Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, in favour of it—mostly against his initial will and as a result of a fierce argument, during which my private office thought I might be sacked. That policy succeeded. Pensioners who had suffered a terrible injustice—150,000 were robbed of their pensions when their companies went bust; those companies took those pensioners down with them—were given the assistance that I believe they deserved.

I do not know exactly how to remedy the issue that was not addressed then—the lack of indexation—and whether it is through the proposal set out in the noble Baroness’s amendments. That seems to make sense to me, but I can understand why my noble friend the Minister would find it difficult to concede. However, there is an injustice that needs to be addressed. I simply wanted to make that point.

I personally met members of Allied Steel and Wire—ASW—in Cardiff. Many who had served some 30 years suddenly found themselves, on the point of retirement, losing their pensions—all their plans had gone up in smoke. This was a terrible injustice. Some 150,000 workers across the country were in that predicament. The Government acted—I am proud that we did—to remedy that, but there was one gap that was not addressed, and the amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, seek to do that. I hope that the Government will find a way to accept the basic case that she put.