Pension Schemes Bill

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 3rd December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Torsten Bell]

My hon. Friend has discussed this challenge with me many times and is a powerful campaigner for his affected constituents. I give him absolutely that assurance, and I extend to him the same offer I have given to other hon. Friends: I will be happy to meet him and affected constituents, or trustees who have been affected by this issue.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

The Minister has indeed been most accessible, and I am extremely grateful to him for the meeting he held with members of the ExxonMobil pensioners group. I am still being lobbied very hard by ExxonMobil pensioners who are concerned that whereas changes introduced in the Budget will benefit members of the FAS and PPF schemes, private defined-benefit scheme members will not benefit. He knows far more about the subject than I do, but can he not see that there is a feeling that they are being discriminated against? Is there nothing he can offer to make them feel somewhat more included in the beneficial steps being taken for members of other schemes?

[Torsten Bell]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that and for our conversations on this matter in recent months. Although I think it is completely reasonable that people would feel like that—so would many of us if we had seen the high inflation of recent years eat into our non-index-linked pension payments—let me explain the consistency of the Government’s position. We are providing pre-’97 indexation on compensation relating to pensions now held within the PPF to those who were in schemes that did provide for indexation. There is no question of retrospectively changing the entitlement within the schemes; we are simply requiring that the compensation within the PPF and the FAS recognises that the schemes that people were in did previously recognise the need for indexation.

Other schemes within PPF and outside the PPF, including the one that the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) mentioned, did not provide for indexation in their scheme rules. He is right to say that, on those matters, the changes that I have outlined today on the PPF do not provide relief. I have gone on to say that because of the changes we are bringing forward in the surplus rules, I think the trustees—as was discussed with some of his trustees—do have more ability and more leverage with which to ask for those discretionary increases, but I completely appreciate that that is different in form from the compensation indexation that we are providing within the PPF.

[Sir Julian Lewis]

The problem, as the Minister knows from our meeting, is that the trustees are rather hemmed in by not having the leverage or the freedom to act if the company itself—particularly if it is headquartered abroad—is disinclined to pass on any surpluses that it might have available.

[Torsten Bell]

I recognise the right hon. Member’s point. I think the level of pessimism may be overstated. My view is that our changes on surplus, which put trustees clearly in the driving seat, provide for more ability for trustees to seek to change that balance of power within their relationship. I do not want to prejudge the individual discussions between all trustees and their employers—those will be different in different circumstances—but trustees are in a stronger position given the changes on surplus release that we are introducing through this Bill. But I am not pretending for a second that that solves overnight the points that the right hon. Member is making.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Nia Griffith]

I rise to speak to my new clause 22. There is a group of pensioners who have worked hard for very prestigious companies, and those companies have grown rich and successful on the back of the work that those pensioners have done. These are companies with good reputations. People think of them as being honourable and successful. Many of us will have a computer with “HP” on it. Companies such as Hewlett Packard Enterprise, 3M and a number of others that have already been mentioned have treated their pensioners very shabbily indeed, because they are refusing to index-link the pensions of former employees that were accrued before 1997. In other words, people who worked hard to help build up the success of those companies have had no increase for as long as 23 years. Just imagine how much less they can buy with that pension now compared with 23 years ago. The cost of living crisis over the past few years has exacerbated their problems, eroding their pensions at a frightening rate. What is absolutely terrifying for many of those pensioners is how on earth they are going to manage in the next few years.

Through new clause 22, we are asking for the index-linking to take place from now on, not retrospectively for all the years when there have been no increases, nice though that would be. This is not about some form of compensation for the past. It is about going forward and trying to future-proof these pensions so that they at least they maintain the value they have now. It would not be a retrospective measure; it is about how we want the companies to behave from now on in respect of their pension funds, just as any other legislation would apply from now on.

When the employees were recruited to these companies, they would have thought, “Oh, this is a good job. It’s a good company and it’s got a pension scheme.” They would have assumed that any pension scheme worth its salt, particularly from a reputable company, would be index-linked. Sadly, however, these companies have found a loophole in the Pensions Act 1995, because it refers to 1997 as the start date for its provisions. In other words, the companies have been able to say that, according to the letter of the law, they do not have to index-link pensions accrued pre-1997, even though it would be in the spirit of the Act to do so. New clause 22 would amend the Pensions Act 1995 by removing references to 6 April 1997 from section 51 of that Act, thereby requiring annual increases to pension payments in line with CPI and RPI to apply to pensionable service both before and after that date.

Why do we need to legislate? We need to do so because efforts by trustees over many years have failed. We have had instances of unanimous votes by trustees for inflation-based rises being rejected by companies. We have had trustees appointed by companies. Essentially, the power structure is such that the company has the final word, no matter how healthy the pension funds are.

A recent newsletter for 3M pensioners said,

“Given that the Scheme’s financial position is very positive, and the funding level exceeds the regulatory expectations for solvency levels… we had hoped that the Company would permit some discretionary increases to affected members. Sadly, the Company did not agree to this and has not changed its position on the matter.”

Time and again, pensioners have been given that type of answer to a very reasonable, rational request.

[Sir Julian Lewis]

May I applaud the hon. Lady’s speech? That is exactly what has happened to so many ExxonMobil pensioners in my constituency and beyond.

[Dame Nia Griffith]

Indeed, the right hon. Member mentions yet another world-renowned, multinational, household name.

Our Labour Government have just announced that we will change the law to enable the payment of inflation increases on the pre-1997 pensions to Pension Protection Fund and financial assistance scheme members. That is an important principle. If we are doing it for pensioners whose companies have gone bust, we should ensure that successful multinationals like Hewlett Packard Enterprise and 3M pay up for former employees.

--- Later in debate ---

We also welcome the British Coal staff superannuation scheme carve-out announced in the Budget last week. I suggest that the Minister ought to listen to my hon. Friend the Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover) and other colleagues. My hon. Friend’s new clause 1 relates to the AEA Technology. There is a strong case for that, as the National Audit Office has confirmed. I ask the Minister, with all due respect, to reflect on that and see it as an opportunity for another carve-out. Politics is about remedying such injustices.

[Sir Julian Lewis]

I applaud what the hon. Gentleman has said about the AEAT pensioners’ difficulties. It is quite shocking that, despite the fact that a previous Conservative pensions Minister, Paul Maynard, said that he would instruct his civil servants to work on a redress scheme, changes of Minister and Government have meant that the machine has carried on as before, even though a parliamentary Committee did an investigation, found in favour of the pensioners and said that they should get redress.

[Steve Darling]

The right hon. Member makes a powerful point. I am sure that the Minister will take note and reflect on it further.

I would like to reflect on the proposals to enhance pre-1997 pensions by up to 2.5%, which the Chancellor announced last week. Amendments providing for those measures have now been tabled. We know that there is significant surplus in the Pension Protection Fund. We question whether it is right for the Government to balance their financial books on the backs of that pension pot. I understand that their argument is that, because those billions are taken into account as far as Government finances are concerned, it is not possible to release as much as could be released from that pot to support pensioners with the cost of living crisis, but I urge Ministers to reflect on that.

Colleagues have also highlighted new clause 22 and pensioners who worked at American Express, Esso and Hewlett Packard. Those companies—strangely enough, it seems to be overseas companies—have left pensioners out in the cold. I hope that that consultation is able to pick up on that and give clear guidance to trustees on how they ought to support those members.

Surplus funds is another area that the Bill addresses. It is about getting the balance right. In winding up, will the Minister reflect on how surplus funds could support members and oil the wheels of the economy? That is important. Pensions should be about driving the economy. They are a big beast that should be an engine for change. In fact, the last area that I will touch on is how pensions should be the engine for change. As colleagues have alluded to, mandation feels a bit like the cold hand of Big Brother on the economy. I trust the Minister implicitly in respect of mandation, when he says, “Honestly, guv, it’s not really something I want to do,” but who knows who will walk in his footsteps? We need only look to the other side of the Atlantic, and at the gentleman in the Oval Office, to see the extraordinary things happening there.

Oral Answers to Questions

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Monday 27th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sir Stephen Timms]

I can assure my hon. Friend that there will be no changes to the eligibility conditions for the mobility component of the personal independence payment, or indeed other aspects of PIP, until the conclusion of the review, which I will be leading and co-producing with disabled people. That is expected to report in autumn next year.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

When severe mental illness strikes, it can be devastating and totally debilitating, but the problem from the Department’s point of view is that its symptoms are invisible. There have been reports of people faking mental illness in order to gain benefits. Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that his Department has appropriate checks in place?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

Yes, appropriate checks are in place. As I have just mentioned, we are undertaking a review of the PIP assessment, and we will need to look carefully, together with disabled people, at the way in which those decisions and judgments are made.

Oral Answers to Questions

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Monday 1st September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sir Stephen Timms]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. We have announced that Zara Todd will be the chair of the Department’s disability advisory panel. The panel was announced in the “Get Britain Working” White Paper last year. Separately, we will set up a group to work with me on the review of the PIP assessment. I will, of course, talk to the disability advisory panel about the arrangements, but they will be separate structures.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

Despite his new role in riding to the rescue of the Treasury, is the Pensions Minister still available to fulfil in principle the undertaking he gave me before the recess to have a meeting about the plight of ExxonMobil pensioners and the difficulties in them getting the discretionary surplus benefits to which I think they should be entitled?

[Torsten Bell]

Absolutely.

Pension Schemes Bill

Julian Lewis Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 7th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

I am extremely grateful to the Minister for taking my intervention and for the very helpful letter he sent me on 30 June about schemes of this sort, and in particular the ExxonMobil pension scheme. His letter encouragingly states:

“Following our reforms, trustees will continue to consider the correct balance of interest between members and the sponsoring employer when making decisions about the release of surplus funds. Trustees will be responsible for determining how members may benefit from any release of surplus…and have a suite of options to choose from—for example, through discretionary benefit increases.”

The trouble is that these pensioners have received a letter from the trustees of the ExxonMobil pension fund stating:

“The power to award discretionary increases is held by Esso Petroleum Company Limited (the “Company”). Whether or not any discretionary increase is provided is for the Company to determine: the Trustee has no power to award discretionary increases itself.”

This may be a loophole that the Minister needs to address. If the trustees cannot award the surplus as benefits and the company says no, that is not going to benefit my constituents.

[Torsten Bell]

I thank the right hon. Member for raising that specific case. I will look at it in more detail for him as he has kindly raised it here, but he has raised a point that will have more general application, which is that lots of different schemes, particularly DB schemes, will have a wide range of scheme rules. He has raised one of those, which is about discretionary increases. One thing that is consistent across all the schemes, with the legislation we are bringing in today, is that trustees must agree for any surplus to be released. It may be the case that the employer, in the details of those scheme rules, is required to agree to a discretionary increase, but the trustees are perfectly within their rights to request that that is part of an agreement that leads to a surplus release.

[Sir Julian Lewis]

What if it is the other way round?

[Torsten Bell]

In any circumstances, the trustees would need to agree to a surplus release, so they are welcome to say to their employer: we are only going to agree to it on the basis of a change to something that the employer holds the cards over. I am happy to discuss that with the right hon. Member further, and there may be other schemes that are in a similar situation.

Women’s State Pension Age: Financial Redress

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Thursday 3rd July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

It is often said in times of financial crisis that some institutions are too big to fail. Unfortunately, in this case it is a question of some campaigns being seen as being too big to succeed. I am quite sure that the real reason why the Department for Work and Pensions is so resistant to this cause is not that it does not recognise the justice of the WASPI women’s cause, so eloquently set out by the hon. Member for Salford (Rebecca Long Bailey), who has given excellent leadership on this cause through the all-party parliamentary group. Rather, behind the scenes— I do not know this, but I am sure that I am right—it is putting forward arguments along these lines: “There are so many of them; the bill will simply be too great. What’s more, they’re only going to get between £1,000 and £3,000 each, which won’t be anything like full financial compensation, so what’s the point in giving in to this demand?” I am quite sure that if the numbers were fewer and the overall bill was not so significant, we would not see this resistance to an obviously valid and viable cause.

[Tom Gordon]

Does the right hon. Member agree that we cannot put a price on justice?

[Sir Julian Lewis]

I do indeed. Of course, in any event, the women realise that they will not get anything like full compensation, but they want the symbolic acceptance and acknowledgement of the injustice that they have received. As we have heard from those on both sides of the House, this resistance puts at stake the credibility of the ombudsman system itself. Undermining that will have a knock-on effect: in many future cases, the bill for implementing an ombudsman’s recommendations and findings will not be anything like as large, but people and institutions will be emboldened to defy the ombudsman.

One of the best short summaries of the case was put forward in a previous Labour manifesto, which said:

“a generation of women born in the 1950s have had their pension age changed without fair notification. This betrayal left millions of women with no time to make alternative plans—with sometimes devastating personal consequences.

Labour recognises this injustice, and will work with these women to design a system of recompense for the losses and insecurity they have suffered.”

Admittedly, that was the 2019 manifesto, and Labour at that time was led by the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), but that does not mean that the manifesto was wrong in what it said. It was absolutely right in its summary and its recognition that something must be done.

Indeed, when the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions was in opposition in the last Parliament, she was cautious in what she said about the ombudsman’s report, but she did acknowledge the following:

“we will take time to give the report proper consideration too, and continue to listen respectfully to those involved, as we have done from the start.”

She added:

“we won’t be able to right every wrong overnight.”

That would have been the basis for at least an attempt to give the symbolic redress and acknowledgement that I think most fair-minded people agree is due.

If the Government had come back and said, “We can’t implement the ombudsman’s recommendations in full at the moment, but we shall try and do it in stages, or over a period, or will at least go some way towards a symbolic acceptance of the wrong that has been done,” I think most reasonable people would have understood the situation and have been willing to at least consider some sort of compromise.

[Brian Mathew (Melksham and Devizes) (LD)]

Does the right hon. Member agree that this is an issue of not just policy, but dignity? These women’s voices must be heard, and the Government have a responsibility to honour commitments made, to give fair treatment, and to ensure that something is done.

[Sir Julian Lewis]

Yes. In a way, the Government have fallen between two stools. The report, as we have heard, anticipated that the Government would be reluctant to the right the wrong done to so many people at once, but nevertheless the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman felt that justice required compensation to be paid. It knew that there would be this Government resistance, so it must have meant a lot to the ombudsman to still go down this highly unusual route of trying to present its report directly to Parliament, because it felt it would not get far by dealing with the Government directly.

One might have expected the Government to offer a scheme that fell some way short of the ombudsman’s recommendation, but their outright rejection of any restitution at all is rather insulting to the women whose complaint was upheld by the ombudsman. As we have heard, despite the DWP claiming to accept the findings, and even apologising for its maladministration, it is not offering a penny in restitution, and is relying in its response on a deeply unconvincing polling exercise that supposedly found that nine out of 10 of the affected women knew in advance that their state pension age was going to change. If that was the case, why did so many of them carry on as if nothing was going to change at all? A few moments ago, the hon. Member for Falkirk (Euan Stainbank) asked about the nature of the sampling that was done; only some 200 women born in the 1950s were included in the sample of nearly 2,000 people surveyed, which led to that misleading result.

I know the Minister has a great deal of expertise and a strong track record on issues of this sort from his former career, before he came to this House. I therefore appeal to him to at least reach out the hand of negotiation and discussion; to accept the offer that reasonable people are making to the Government; and to sit down and talk to them, and not to let the whole thing go through the courts, which would lead to an adversarial deepening of hostility and, inevitably, a less desirable outcome for everyone concerned.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

With an immediate four-minute time limit, I call Brian Leishman.

--- Later in debate ---

[Torsten Bell]

The hon. Gentleman is welcome to choose his tone; I will continue to the end of my comments. My job is to come and explain the Government’s decision, and to be held accountable for it. That is what I am doing today, and what I will continue to do over the course of my remarks. It is right that the Government are then asked questions about their decision; that is the nature of this democracy, as the hon. Member for East Wiltshire said.

An important consideration in the Government making this decision was that evidence showed that sending people unsolicited letters is unlikely to affect what they know. That is why letters are sent only as part of wider communication campaigns. This evidence was not properly considered by the ombudsman. Another consideration was that the great majority of 1950s-born women were aware of the state pension age changing, if not of a change in their specific state pension age, as several hon. Members have pointed out. My hon. Friend the Member for Salford mentioned the statistic of 43%, referring to the 2024 rather than 2023 survey. However, as she will know, that refers to all women, including some women as young as 16; if we look at the cohort of women born in the 1950s, the figure is far, far higher. On those and other grounds, we rejected the ombudsman’s approach to injustice and remedy.

Members will be aware that litigation is live, so I will not go into lots more detail on the research evidence, which is the core of that litigation. I will just say two things: first, our decision was based on published research reports, which were robust and met professional standards; secondly, the same awareness research, which the right hon. Member for New Forest East disparaged, was used by the ombudsman.

[Sir Julian Lewis]

Will the Minister explain to the House why not one single speech in this debate until his has taken the line that he is taking? Everyone who has spoken in this debate believes that some compensation, at least symbolically, should be paid.

[Torsten Bell]

I thank the right hon. Member for his intervention. I am a liberal man. People will come to different views on the evidence. There are many Members in the House who have campaigned powerfully on this issue over many years, and I respect the work they have done on that. I am setting out a different view from the one that the right hon. Member has taken. That is the nature of policy choice, the nature of accountability, and the nature of this debate.

The ombudsman is clear that redress and compensation should normally reflect individual impact, as it did in the case of the Equitable Life compensation scheme that an hon. Member mentioned. And they spell out the challenges of assessing the individual circumstances of 3.5 million women, not least given that it took the ombudsman nearly six years to look at just six cases. The reality is that assessing them would take thousands of staff very many years. We gave detailed thought to whether we could design a fair and feasible compensation scheme. However, most of the schemes that were suggested would not focus on women who lost opportunities as a result of the delay in sending letters. Rule-based schemes, such as that suggested by the Work and Pensions Committee, would make payments on the basis of the likes of age rather than injustice. Simply playing a flat rate to all 3.5 million women born in the 1950s, irrespective of any injustice, is also hard to justify.

Fundamentally, though, our decision was not only driven by cost—to answer directly the question of the hon. Member for Falkirk (Euan Stainbank)—but by the fact that we do not agree with the ombudsman’s approach to injustice or remedy for the reasons that I have set out. Indeed, our commitment to pensioners can be seen in the significant fiscal investments that we are making in our priorities for pensioners, including raising the state pension and rescuing the NHS.

Welfare Reform

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Monday 30th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Liz Kendall]

My hon. Friend is a huge champion of these issues, and I have long championed what unpaid family carers do. As she says, many do not even think they are a carer; they are just a husband, wife, son, daughter, mum or dad looking after the person they love. I want to reassure her, as I said in my statement, that existing PIP claimants and all those who get passported benefits, like carers, will be protected as a result of the changes we have made. Indeed, I know my right hon. Friend the Health Secretary wants to do far more to support family carers in future because without them, our NHS would collapse.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

Does the Secretary of State agree that, while necessary at the time of covid, the removal of the requirement for face-to-face assessments was an opening of the door to potential abuse? If so, will she commit in principle to the reinstatement of face-to-face assessments?

[Liz Kendall]

That is exactly what we committed to in our Green Paper.

Oral Answers to Questions

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Monday 23rd June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sir Stephen Timms]

I am looking forward to answering questions about these matters in front of the Committee on Wednesday morning. We are working very closely with the Department of Health and Social Care to ensure that the health and care needs of people who lose benefits as a result of this process are met.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

Do Ministers agree with the Trussell Trust’s recent estimate that the weekly cost of basic essentials is £120 for a single person and £205 for a couple?

[Alison McGovern]

Through the child poverty taskforce, we have been looking at the issue of incomes versus expenditures. We are taking steps urgently where we are able, but we will have more to say about that issue shortly.

Mansion House Accord

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Tuesday 13th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Torsten Bell]

My hon. Friend is a powerful advocate for Leeds and for Britain every single week in this Chamber, and everything she said is completely right. The job of the National Wealth Fund and the British Business Bank is to work with our nations and regions to ensure that projects can be de-risked and supported and that a wide range of private investors can come in behind that and make sure change actually happens, so that this becomes a country that invests in its future once again.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

At a time when we have been commemorating a significant anniversary of VE Day, does the Minister share my concern that certain large pension firms are refusing to invest in profitable defence industries on spurious ethical grounds? Is that something that his pensions investment review might care to investigate?

[Torsten Bell]

I hear the point the right hon. Gentleman raises, and we have had those debates in this Chamber in recent months. The UK Government are doing what they need to do to invest in our security and defence and to support our defence industry more generally. We have made it very clear that private investment in those sectors is the right thing to do for our national security and our national economic growth. So far today, there have been calls for mandation and calls to oppose any mandation. There are choices available within pension funds for savers. The vast majority of funds—I think it is 99% within the National Employment Savings Trust, for example—invest in the broad defaults and do invest in the likes of defence companies.

Oral Answers to Questions

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Monday 12th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Western]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising her constituents’ concerns and say to them that, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said at the beginning of this session, we have this week announced a broader review of the PIP assessment process that I hope in due course, and by working with stakeholders, will be able to give my hon. Friend’s constituents and stakeholder organisations considerable reassurance.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

Can the Minister explain why it appears that telephone assessments for PIP have a significantly higher success rate in applications than face-to-face applications?

[Andrew Western]

I am not able to explain the reason for that difference, but I am able to reassure the right hon. Gentleman that we are looking to move away from telephone appointments and return as quickly as possible to assessments made face to face wherever we are able to do so.

Oral Answers to Questions

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Monday 3rd February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sir Stephen Timms]

My hon. Friend’s important point, which to some extent has already been raised, shows how the health and disability benefits system needs to be reformed. Disabled people should have the same right to work and the same opportunities and chances as everybody else. Many disabled people like Jim want the chance to work, but they face barriers, including in the benefits system, that make it very difficult for them to do so. We are determined to change the system to get over those barriers.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

I am sure that the Minister appreciates the important role of learning disability nurses in maximising the potential of people with learning disabilities. Will he therefore have a word with his Treasury colleagues about the differential effect of the rise in national insurance contributions? Learning disability nurses who work directly for the NHS are exempt; those who work for agencies contracted by the NHS are not exempt. That is an anomaly, and I would be grateful if the Minister considered talking to his colleagues about it.

[Sir Stephen Timms]

I am sure that the right hon. Member will raise that concern with the appropriate colleagues of mine. He is absolutely right to draw attention to the value of the work of learning disability nurses, whoever their employer is. We are determined that they should have better support to enable people with learning disabilities who want to work to do so.