Pension Protection Fund and Occupational Pension Schemes (Levy Ceiling) Order 2025

Debate between Lord Palmer of Childs Hill and Baroness Drake

Wednesday 23rd April 2025 Grand Committee

[Baroness Drake (Lab)]

Yes, reserves. Taking into account that and the levy reduction, it triggers the need to reflect that it is equally important to have regard to what is a fair striking of the balance between levy payer and member interests. This is the issue that I want to pause on, because it is something that the Government should reflect on—particularly regarding, as others have mentioned, the PPF indexation rules as they apply to compensation for service pre 1997.

As my noble friend Lord Davies set out, the Act sets the annual increase for PPF compensation in payment for pensionable service accrued after April 1997; that is set at the CPI and capped at 2.5%. However, that is the limit of the PPF’s power, which means that, for pension benefits accrued for service pre 1997, compensation payment does not increase at all—it just does not. No matter what the year or the economic circumstances, there are no means of increasing the compensation payments for pension benefits accrued prior to 1997. Over the period of retirement, particularly given recent high inflation, the rules on pre-1997 service compensation have had a significant, even acute, financial impact on those affected.

The PPF provided some information on the costs of improving compensation rules in a published letter in December 2024, in response to requests from the Commons Work and Pensions Select Committee. Unlike my noble friend, I shall, if I may, refer to some figures. Using those figures, if the Government allowed the PPF to apply prospectively CPI capped at 2.5% to pre-service compensation payments, it would increase liabilities by £2 billion, reducing the reserves from £13.2 billion to £11 billion but still keeping a 150% funding level even if that was done. However, for an ad hoc increase to the pre-1997 compensation payment, recognising that period of higher inflation we have been through, the figures would be significantly lower than those I have quoted.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, said, the rules set in 2004 were set cautiously because nobody was really clear on the level of schemes that would fall into the PPF. There was a lot questioning about the sustainability of the PPF; it is a compliment to the PPF that it has proved it is sustainable. So some of the rules were set very cautiously, but the PPF is now in a strong financial position, with some £32.2 billion of assets: £19 billion in liabilities and reserves of £13.2 billion. The risk of future claims has fallen, either because, as the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, pointed out, there is a big shift to buyout, or because the funding of schemes is much stronger. The risks are falling correspondingly: the annual levy has declined from £648 million in 2023 to £45 million in 2025-26, with further reductions anticipated.

Not only has the levy in quantum declined hugely; the levy has also declined as a proportion of the PPF’s funding mix. Roughly one-third of the funding comes from the assets transferred to the PPF from those members’ pension schemes. Similarly, another third comes from the investment returned on assets, and 11% comes from assets recovered by the PPF on behalf of those schemes. Less than a quarter—23%—of the funding comes from the levy, and that is going to fall. However, the benefits of the PPF’s strong funding are deployed more to move the levy towards zero, and consideration is being given to abolishing the industry-funded PPF administration levy. This inevitably raises the question of fair balance between levy payer and member interest, particularly for pre-1997 service, as it is quite tough that there is no facility to improve those compensation payments and they never increase.

Like others, I absolutely support the Government’s priority to deliver growth, driving employer investment in their businesses. I also recognise that the PPF liabilities are captured in the whole of government accounts, which obviously introduces a sensitivity. I am not disregarding those issues, but I note that the PPF’s own three-year strategy has set a goal of working with government to progress a review of the indexing of compensation. There is a growing concern, given the level of funding and reserves, about the fact that, at the moment, service accrued pre 1997 can never be increased. It is something that starts to tilt a fair balance between levy payer and member interest. Although I recognise that these things are not easy, will the Government give further consideration to a fair striking of balance of interests?

[Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Davies, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Altmann and Lady Drake, for their contributions to this interesting evening. I bring fellow Peers back to the order before us—the Pension Protection Fund and Occupational Pension Schemes (Levy Ceiling) Order 2025—which is the basis for our discussion today, rather than the wide-ranging subjects we have dealt with.

The order says that the Pension Protection Fund levy cannot exceed £1.4 billion, but the Pension Protection Fund has announced that it plans a levy of no more than £45 million, as referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, and potentially of zero. I cite this from the 2025-26 plans of the Pension Protection Fund.

The background is that, when the PPF was created, the worry was that if things turned out badly and lots of underfunded DB pension schemes went bust, the hole in the PPF would be met by jacking up the levy on the sponsors of surviving DB pension schemes—in other words, the employers. Two protections for the employers were put in place: the levy cannot rise by more than 25% from one year to the next and it cannot exceed the levy ceiling, which is the number in this order.

What actually happened was that the levy grew for a while, though got nowhere near the ceiling, but then started to fall owing to a combination, as has been referred to, of good investment returns at the PPF, lower than expected numbers of insolvencies—which is great news—and improved scheme funding. That all gives rise to it being in “robust health”, as the noble Lord, Lord Davies, defined it, and the comments around surplus or reserves, which we are not to talk about.

I guess that the PPF would like to charge a zero levy but does not feel that it can; once it is zero it can never be reintroduced, because it cannot rise by more than 25%, and 25% of zero is zero. It has therefore been lobbying the DWP for a while to allow it to set a zero levy and still be able to bring it back later if, unhappily, things go wrong. I think it has won the argument and I hope that a measure to this effect will be included in the forthcoming pensions scheme Bill that has been referred to.

This order, which is what we are talking about, is a formality and the ceiling obviously does not bite in any conceivable world. Can the Government confirm that, following the success of the PPF, they plan to change the rules to make it possible—this is the important part—for the PPF to charge a zero levy? Other noble Lords have referred to this flexibility that is needed. I hope the Minister can give us a positive steer on that.

Occupational Pension Schemes (Collective Money Purchase Schemes) (Amendment) Regulations 2023

Debate between Lord Palmer of Childs Hill and Baroness Drake

Tuesday 13th February 2024 Grand Committee

[Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount for his clarification of the papers, which is very welcome—as usual. This is a statutory instrument with a more than usually snappy title, which will probably be more noted than some of the things in the instrument.

This statutory instrument is good news. It helps pave the way, as I understand it, for the introduction of the UK’s first collective defined contribution pension scheme, which I believe is by the Royal Mail. Collective defined contribution schemes in various forms are common in Scandinavia, the Netherlands and Canada. Work on these risk-pooling arrangements started during the coalition years when we, the Liberal Democrats, worked collaboratively with the Labour Front Bench and the Communication Workers Union to get the Royal Mail to implement the first scheme of this sort. I believe that it has not yet gone live, although perhaps the noble Viscount can tell me more about that.

The next developments of CDC, in my view, are, first, the extension of multi-employer or industry-wide CDC—when does the Minister expect to publish the next consultation on this?—and, secondly, the development of retirement-only or decumulation-only CDC schemes, so that a person could take his or her own pot and pool it with other people’s. Any comments on that would be gratefully received.

These regulations tidy up some issues that are causing practical problems. The main part is to do with what happens each year, as the noble Viscount said, when a scheme reviews whether it has enough money to meet its target pension payouts. As things stand, if the scheme is short, it can reduce planned pensions. But what happens if, a year later, it thinks that things are better? What these regulations appear to make clear is that the first thing you do is reduce or eliminate the planned pensions cuts. I think this was covered by the Minister’s comment about “a smoothing mechanism”.

One thing that comes out of this SI is that, as so often, there seems to be a lot more valuation work for actuaries. I am sure they will be very grateful. I am very grateful for the guidance in the papers and the elucidation from the Minister. I think the principles are right and we on these Benches agree with the instrument.

[Baroness Drake (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for setting out the intent of these regulations so clearly and for arranging a briefing session with DWP officials engaged with CDC, who also provided a very helpful briefing document. It probably has reduced the number of questions that my noble friend and I have—although I suspect the Minister will take very little comfort from that observation.

The regulations amend the Occupational Pension Schemes (Collective Money Purchase Schemes) Regulations 2022, in two key ways. In the first instance, they amend how reductions to members’ benefits in a CDC scheme can be smoothed following a fall in the value of assets held. Given the Government’s opposition to any buffer fund in a collective DC scheme to manage volatility and assets, intergenerational fairness or cuts in benefits, clarity on how the legally permitted smoothing mechanisms operate is indeed important.

Pensions Act 2004 and the Equality Act 2010 (Amendment) (Equal Treatment by Occupational Pension Schemes) Regulations 2023

Debate between Lord Palmer of Childs Hill and Baroness Drake

Tuesday 14th November 2023 Grand Committee

[Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount for his complete exposé of all the problems that have existed and how the Government are trying to rectify them. Our Benches agree with these SIs. There is no problem with them. I see other noble Lords have lots of notes; I know from experience that I can be brief knowing that they will deal with the minutiae. This seems to be more rules bringing old EU law into domestic legislation. These SIs raise broader points about discrimination in pensions, which is roughly the scope of the legislation. However, as usual, in bringing old EU laws into place we are missing the opportunity to make pledges to follow the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman’s recommendations. It reports conversations with WASPI—Women Against State Pension Inequality—women. I would appreciate it if the noble Viscount could comment on how that is going to be dealt with.

Will the noble Viscount give the committee an update on the LEAP—legal entitlement and administrative practices—exercise through which the Government are doing a corrections exercise for historic errors and underpayments to women? I understand that these processes are taking place, but I do not know quite how far they have gone or how quickly they are going or when the majority of cases will be dealt with. I hope that the noble Viscount can put a bit of meat on that and give us some timeframe for LEAP and WASPI women, which are two issues close to my heart.

[Baroness Drake (Lab)]

My Lords, I declare my interests set out in the register as a pension scheme trustee. I welcome these statutory instruments and thank the Minister for the clarity of his explanation of their history. The equal treatment by occupational pension scheme regulations before us maintain the protection of the right not to be discriminated against on the grounds of sexual orientation in relation to pension benefits, particularly survivor benefits, which would be lost on 31 December 2023 but for these regulations. That is a pretty compelling reason for welcoming them.

Those protections were originally secured through the EU framework directive for equal treatment and confirmed by our Supreme Court in the Walker case. They apply to occupational pension scheme benefits and to compensation to beneficiaries of pension schemes that enter the Pension Protection Fund.

My first thought was: gosh, the Government are taking things to the wire, time-wise, given that the House rises on 19 December. It does raise worrying concerns about what other pension protections for UK citizens, previously preserved by Section 4 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act, will be lost because of a failure, whether by intent or neglect, to meet the 31 December 2023 deadline for changes to domestic legislation to be made for them to be retained. What level of confidence can the Minister give the House that all protections of pension benefits for members and beneficiaries preserved by Section 4 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act are or will be captured in changes to domestic legislation prior to 31 December? Is it intended that some of those protections will not be preserved? If so, which are they?

These regulations also restate retained EU law on the right to equal pay between men and women where discrimination arises from the legislation on guaranteed minimum pensions by amendments to the Equality Act and the Pensions Act 2004, so the right continues to apply to occupational schemes and PPF payments. Very importantly—it is certainly close to my heart—the regulations retain the intent of the 2004 ECJ judgment of Allonby to nullify the requirement for a real-life opposite-sex comparator to demonstrate unequal treatment. Instead, a notional or statistical comparator can be used. That is such an important judgment and it demonstrates the value of the many ECJ judgments that contributed so importantly to progressing gender equality issues. As my noble friend was reflecting, so was I; I was actually a commissioner of the EOC, which supported the Allonby judgment at the time the ECJ pronounced its decision.

Unless the amendments to legislation are made by 31 December, this particular important protection is lost. Again, that is another compelling reason for welcoming these regulations. What level of confidence can the Minister give us that all rights to equal pay between men and women in the payment of pension benefits to members and beneficiaries, previously preserved by Section 4 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act, are or will be retained in changes to domestic legislation prior to 31 December? While welcoming what we can see, we are nervous about what we cannot see, so we seek assurances on that.

The regulations before us on PPF compensation are also necessary because again, under the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023, without them the more generous PPF compensation payment calculations, which flow from the 2018 Hampshire judgment from the European court, would be lost. So too would the effects of the further clarifying 2020 Hughes judgment in the High Court, which was to disapply the then-existing cap on PPF compensation to those below their scheme’s normal retirement age, when the employer became insolvent. The High Court considered that it constituted unlawful age discrimination. For the intent of these judgments to remain, the regulations before us are required by the deadline of 31 December 2023, and of course there is an obvious and compelling reason why they are welcome.

It is very fortunate that the Government decided as policy to retain the effects of these judgments. It would have been a pretty poor show had they not, given the impact on individuals—and particularly so, given that the PPF is currently well funded, so much so that it is reducing its levy. We are very dependent on government to identify those elements of retained EU law to be retained in domestic law. What assurance can the Minister give that every element of retained EU law that impinges on the eligibility of pension scheme members for PPF compensation and the level and value of that compensation will be retained in domestic law after December 2023?