Pension Schemes Bill

Clive Jones Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)]

My constituent David worked for 3M for 31 years, 23 of them pre-1997. His pension payment for service prior to 1997 has not increased since 2008, since when it has lost 40% of its purchasing power. Other constituents have lost more. Another constituent worked for ExxonMobil, which he says gave him written documentation that he would receive annual increases at 80% of RPI. However, since legislation changed in 1995, that has not happened. Those are just two of the 40-plus constituents who have contacted me about the injustice experienced by pensioners whose pension schemes are failing to provide an inflation increase on their service prior to 1997. I know that many more across the country face the same injustice. Their stories are deeply troubling. Rather than enjoying a well-earned retirement, pensioners are left struggling to keep pace with the cost of living, often while their pension scheme is in surplus.

[Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)]

I have a similar constituency case with a similar example of discretionary increases. Those were 80% of RPI, but in 2023 that was reduced to half. That has left my constituent, among others, unable to afford their bills and their home. Although I am pleased to see the pre-1997 pension indexation in the Budget for PPF and FAS members, I remain concerned for constituents such as mine. Does my hon. Friend agree that there needs to be a plan for those impacted by a sudden decrease in inflation payments?

[Clive Jones]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. There needs to be some sort of plan, and sooner rather than later.

The Government appear to recognise the injustice and are proposing to use surplus funds in the PPF to provide inflation increases on some pre-1997 pensions. Why are we not seeking to resolve the same issue for company defined-benefit pension schemes? Many of these pension schemes have a funding surplus but choose not to use it to support their former employees, despite often being asked to do so by trustees who are ignored by foreign-based employers. Surely that cannot be right.

Research by the Pensions Regulator has revealed that even among schemes whose rules allow for discretionary benefits, less than a third had provided those benefits in the previous three years. Employer discretion has failed in practice and will continue to fail unless Parliament acts. The Pension Schemes Bill fails to address this issue.

Only by amending the original legislation can we ensure fairness for those with pre-1997 service. The Society of Pension Professionals argues that legislation on pre-1997 benefits is unnecessary, but the evidence is clear: discretion, more often than not, is exercised to the detriment of pensioners. As I have said, trustees lack the authority to act and pensioners are left behind. The problem appears to be concentrated in a small number of large companies. They were meant to provide long-term financial security for their employees. We must remember that all defined-benefit schemes paid levies into the PPF, creating a surplus that now funds indexation. If pensioners in the PPF deserve protection, so do those in live schemes who helped build the surplus in those schemes.

The Government have taken the first step by restoring indexation for some. They must now take the logical next step by extending inflation protection to all pre-1997 pensioners in live schemes. I believe that pre-1997 pension service should receive inflation protection on the same statutory basis as post-1997 service. This is about fairness, dignity and justice for those who worked hard, paid into schemes, were made promises, and now deserve security in retirement. Pensioners affected by this injustice live in every constituency, and they deserve the support of this House of Commons and the Government. Our constituents affected by these injustices simply ask for fairness, and hopefully the Minister will make sure that it happens soon.

[Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)]

I hope to devote a large portion of my speech to new clause 36, which stands in my name, but let me first swiftly acknowledge the new clauses tabled by the hon. Member for Poole (Neil Duncan-Jordan), the right hon. Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North (Liam Byrne), the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Manuela Perteghella) and the hon. Member for Llanelli (Dame Nia Griffith).

While pension fund managers should no doubt ensure that they deliver sufficient returns to their clients, they must also reflect on the duties that they have not only to those who make contributions, but to society at large. That means not using public money to prop up industries that rail against our primary objectives, be they preventing violations of human rights, upholding our commitment to net zero or delivering unfettered justice for those who have been wronged, as in the case of those whose pension contributions made before 1997 have not risen with inflation. I wholeheartedly align myself with the hon. Member for Mid Dunbartonshire (Susan Murray) on the need for ethical parameters.

In tabling new clause 36, I hoped to bring a focus to the practices relating to pension funds that fall under the local government pension scheme—those that make provision for the employees of schools, universities, local authorities and police forces, to name just a few. Those pension fund managers preside over £390 billion in assets, under the management of members of the investment banking sector. Given that much, if not all, of the funding that flows from our schools, councils and the like comes from taxpayers’ money, we have a right to ensure that none of it is being put to waste. I regret to report, however, that these local government pension funds are heading for an absolute embarrassment of riches. While public money sits idle in a vault, lining the pockets of the investment bankers who manage the funds, we are experiencing deep funding crises in our schools, our universities and our local councils.

Year after year, since the moment when these pension funds were established, we have seen the same tactics deployed by those who preside over them. Councils, schools and others end up putting too much of their budgets towards employer contributions, leaving them with less money to spend on the things that matter, while obscene amounts of money are left to be used as a lucrative plaything for the investment banking sector.

When calculating the money that councils, schools and the like must pay into their employees’ pensions, the pension fund managers first estimate the annual rate of return that they expect to get from their assets. To do that, they enlist the work of an actuary firm—usually one of the “big four”—which takes into account market conditions and various risk factors in order to come up with a figure. The work of these actuaries is incredibly precise, yet every year they end up drastically underestimating the amount by which the local government pension funds will grow over the next year. Why? Because the local pension boards set the assumptions and parameters on the basis of which they make such calculations, often with the intention of overstating elements that may hit the fund’s assets, such as market volatility and uncertainty. From there, by default, they then skim a substantial percentage off the fund’s assets, usually about 0.5%. While that may not seem a lot, given that, for example, West Midlands Pension Fund holds £21.2 billion-worth of assets, it means that at least £1 billion is being scraped off the top every year.

When a highly conservative estimate for growth is combined with lofty management expenses, the result is one thing, and one thing only: our councils, schools and key institutions end up putting more than they need into the banking sector, under the guise of securing their employees a comfortable retirement. Then, once they get to the end of the year and have mysteriously exceeded their artificially conservative projections for growth, the pension fund managers are left with an even bigger pot of money, from which they take their mandatory percentage fee.

It is this repeated cycle of grossly inflating the contributions of our state institutions that is resulting in more and more taxpayer money being used not to fix our crumbling public services that benefit society as a whole, but for city bankers to make big bets on the market and make profits. It is the equivalent of pension funds setting the rules of the game, marking their own homework and keeping the proceeds for themselves, rather than refunding those who put into the system. It has got to the point that even the LGPS Scheme Advisory Board, which advises local pension boards, has said that they need to stop overcharging their clients and underestimating their growth. Unfortunately, however, all the power lies in the hands of the Secretary of State to make the changes that would put much-needed investment back into our schools, councils and the like.

I will give an example. Research by David Bailey, of the University of Birmingham, and John Clancy, of Birmingham City University, has shown that Birmingham city council has handed over £1.2 billion in employer contributions to the West Midlands Pension Fund in the past 10 years. By 2022 the council was being asked to pay an extra 37% on top of its standard bill, whereas the nine other core city councils in the UK were asked to pay an average of around 17%. Birmingham city council is calculated to have overpaid the West Midlands Pension Fund by roughly £547 million. In 2023 the council declared section 114 bankruptcy, and this year it has approved council tax rises of 21% and £300 million in cuts to vital services.

Hypothetically, had that payment never been made, Birmingham city council would have needed neither to declare bankruptcy, nor to approve budget cuts that reduced its offer to bare-bones skeleton services. The implications that clamping down on the excesses of local pension boards would have for local councils, schools and universities, and for the British taxpayer, are truly incomprehensible, yet as things stand we are shying away from rebalancing the books and from deploying as much of the Government’s investment into public services as we can.

That leads me to my new clause 36, which would put a cap on the investment expenses that can be claimed on LGPS pension funds. In the case of the West Midlands Pension Fund, the management expenses that are charged amount to an increase of four percentage points in employer contributions. Because the fund charges 60 basis points in management fees, Birmingham council tax payers are paying £13.4 million to the investment managers, which works out at £50 on every band D council tax payer’s bill. However, if new clause 36 were to be put in place, only £3.30 would be charged to every council tax payer’s bill. In the same period, the pension fund has consistently failed to report where the investment management expenses that it charges go, and whom they benefit.

As I say, my new clause 36 would implement a cap on the fees that investment bankers can take from pension funds. While that would certainly mark a great step forward in ensuring that excessive wealth gets put into the hands of the private sector, we must also do more to ensure that our schools and councils pay no more in employer contributions than they must, so that they can put more investment into things that really matter—whether that is local government funding for adult social care or for schoolchildren with special education needs, or being able to put more teaching staff in our classrooms.