Oral Answers to Questions

Neil Duncan-Jordan Excerpts

Monday 8th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Pat McFadden]

We have a very different approach to the issue of NEETs from the Conservative party. We are not going to sit and look at the graph rise year by year without offering young people hope and aspiration for the future. That is why we brought forward a package, with £800 million of backing, to offer training or work to the young unemployed, and ensure that they have options in life rather than a life on benefits.

[Neil Duncan-Jordan (Poole) (Lab)]

I welcome the child poverty strategy published on Friday. Will the Secretary of State outline what more needs to be done to end child poverty for good?

[Pat McFadden]

It is estimated that the child poverty strategy we published on Friday will lift more than 500,000 children out of poverty by the end of this Parliament. Critically, most of the children in poverty are living in households where someone works, so setting up the working against the non-working is completely contrary to the facts on child poverty.

Pension Schemes Bill

Neil Duncan-Jordan Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 3rd December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Steve Darling]

I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend. I am sure that the Pensions Minister is listening. Politics is all about calling out injustice, and my hon. Friend does a good job of that for his constituents.

[Neil Duncan-Jordan (Poole) (Lab)]

I will speak to a number of amendments tabled in my name. I thank the Pensions Minister for discussing them with me yesterday. I look forward to his comments later in the debate.

I spent a number of years as a regional trade union official with responsibility for the local government pension scheme, and I think it is important that we see pensions as a force for social good. My amendments aim therefore to make our occupational pensions more progressive. We should remember that such funds represent the deferred wages of millions of workers, and directing pension funds toward socially beneficial projects is one way in which the Government can rewire our economic model, so that it delivers for ordinary people.

In my view, workers’ money should be invested in sectors such as green technology and social housing—stable, reliable sectors that build a better future for the very people whose contributions fund them. Whether this is done through an expanded National Wealth Fund, which could direct investment into socially useful projects, or some other mechanism, it would clearly boost much-needed growth and GDP. What could be more progressive than using workers’ pension funds to build the council houses we so desperately need? That would be a tremendous step forward which not only ensured a solid investment for the funds, but provided decent homes at affordable rents. I designed new clause 5 to address this issue, and I hope the Minister will do more to encourage schemes to redirect their investments in that way.

Likewise, amendment 3 recognises that the voluntary approach to disinvestment in fossil fuels has not worked. The LGPS currently invests over £16 billion in fossil fuels, while 85% of all pension schemes lack a credible climate action plan. The environmental crisis is the great challenge facing us all. Workers’ wages should not be fuelling the climate catastrophe. Fundamentally, there is no retirement without our environment, and I hope the Government will emphasise that position to trustees more forcefully. We need a commitment from all LGPS schemes and pools to having a five-year plan to end their relationship with these harmful investments.

The overwhelming majority of the public would also be horrified to learn that their savings were invested in illegal wars abroad, such as the genocide in Gaza. We know that over £12 billion of LGPS funds are invested in companies that support the illegal settlements in some way, or produce arms or fuel for fighter jets used in the war. We must ensure that pension funds are not complicit in war crimes and human rights violation, whether in Gaza or elsewhere in the world.

The Minister will have noticed the strong cross-party support for my amendment 2, and I urge him to give a statement in the strongest possible terms that the LGPS should not be involved in funding breaches of international law in any form. I understand that many of the pools have money in tracker funds that are connected to arms companies, but that needs to be challenged. If that means disinvesting from arms manufacturers implicated in these breaches, so be it.

That brings me to the important matter of worker representation. Having a seat at the table is one way in which we can influence how money is invested. That is why it is important that we ensure trade unions have a voice on all future pension boards and committees, as outlined in my amendment 1. There is currently no requirement for worker representation on the boards of LGPS pools; the Government reducing the number of pools to six gives us an ideal opportunity in law to guarantee proper worker representation. Fundamentally, it is vital that the workers who pay into the funds have a fair voice in decisions on how their money is invested. I hope the Minister will begin talks with local government trade unions to see how we can bring that about.

Last week’s budget announcement on the pre-1997 pension indexation was welcome, and many have already quoted that this afternoon, but only those whose schemes were eligible for indexation and are members of the Pension Protection Fund and financial assistance scheme will see the benefit. Hundreds of thousands of retired workers whose pension funds were taken over by other companies, such as Hewlett Packard in the case of some of my constituents, and are still in operation will not be protected as was intended in the Budget for that other group; and the money they put into their company pensions before 1997 will continue to be frozen. I know the Minister recognises that over this period their pensions have become virtually worthless. That is why the Government must put pressure on trustees of all schemes to pay some of their surplus funds and ensure that their former staff get the pensions they deserve.

The Pension Schemes Bill offers a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to help the environment and society more generally by the way we invest. The £3 trillion in UK pension funds could be used to address the historical transfer of wealth away from ordinary working people toward the wealthiest individuals and corporations in our society. Given that pensions account for 40% of wealth in this country, change must include consideration of how this vast pool can be used to improve the lives of those whose payslips created it. The call to use our money and make pensions more progressive is therefore overwhelming. I look forward to hearing the Minister set out in the strongest possible terms the commitments the Government are making to bring that about.

--- Later in debate ---

Amendments 2 and 3 and new clause 4 relate to what the LGPS should or should not invest in. As hon. Members will all be aware, the Government’s general position is that investment strategies are set locally by each pension fund. Importantly, that includes decisions on how environmental, social and governance issues are to be taken into account. I encourage LGPS authorities to take such matters incredibly seriously, as my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Jayne Kirkham) did from her own experience.

[Neil Duncan-Jordan]

I want to press the Minister slightly more on the need for UK pension funds not to invest in companies that could be guilty of war crimes and breaking international law. Would he like to reflect on that?

[Torsten Bell]

Specifically on the question of having regard to international law, I emphasise that compliance extends far beyond the LGPS, and it obviously reaches right across Government. That said, the LGPS, as a public sector scheme, has particularly high expectations on responsible investment, and I have heard the points my hon. Friend has made.

The hon. Members for Torbay (Steve Darling), for Horsham (John Milne) and for Stratford-on-Avon (Manuela Perteghella) broadened this debate beyond the LGPS, not least on questions of climate change and the wider social impact of investments. The Department for Work and Pensions is currently conducting a review of the task force on climate-related financial disclosures requirements, and we have also asked the Pensions Regulator to assess the practicalities of transition plans for pension schemes. As I mentioned in my opening remarks, we will also bring forward legislation to clarify that trustees can take systemic factors into account when making their investment decisions. I hope this provides hon. Members with significant reassurance on those points.

The hon. Members for North West Norfolk and for Torbay returned to the issue, which we discussed extensively in Committee and on Second Reading, on the limited reserve or backstop asset allocation power. As I have repeatedly made it clear to this House, we do not currently anticipate it will need to be used. That is precisely because of the industry’s commitment to the Mansion House accord and wider support from the pension industry for greater investment in private assets.

I welcome the recognition of the importance of the pipeline of projects by the hon. Member for Horsham, and I encourage him to make sure that no Liberal Democrat anywhere opposes construction projects—I have seen the leaflets—be they for energy, roads, housing or anything else.

A crucial point was raised in Committee about the importance of monitoring these commitments, and I can confirm that since then the ABI and Pensions UK have committed that they will work together to track progress. I hope that helps answer some of the questions raised in Committee.

The proposals to add to the matters on which the Government must report are, I believe, unnecessary, as any exercise of the power would be subject to a wide range of safeguards—not only the production of a report about the impacts on savers and growth, but a savers’ interest test.

The hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon spoke powerfully to her new clause 3, as did the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Vikki Slade). I believe the PPF works hard to make sure that it can deal quickly with payments for people with terminal illness, and the Bill contains other measures that mean it can do that at an earlier point in someone’s prognosis. The SR1 form would already be sufficient for the PPF to provide the certainty that the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon is looking for. I have checked with the PPF to ensure that currently within the PPF and the FAS we do not currently have any outstanding requests for such payments where they have been unable to make them, for example for the reasons of not having sufficient evidence. That said, she has spoken powerfully on that point and I will speak to the PPF at my next meeting with the chief executive and the chair to see what more can be done. I thank her for raising those issues.

I also thank the hon. Member for Horsham for bringing us back to the question of advice and guidance. Most of us do need help in preparing for retirement. However, I take a slightly more positive view of the current provision of free guidance through the Money and Pensions Service. I also agree a bit more with the hon. Member for Mid Dunbartonshire (Susan Murray) that the task of Government is to reduce the complexity in our pensions system, rather than just hoping that ever more advice will help savers to navigate it. That is exactly why the parts of the Bill on guided retirement and small pots are so important as we move forward.

I would just like to cover some of the commitments I made in Committee. [Interruption.] I know this is going to be electric for all Members. That is the kind of enthusiasm I hope to see from more Members across the House. I will make a quick update on pensions dashboards, which at least one Member will appreciate. User testing on pensions dashboards has begun. I know that will thrill everybody in this House. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] That is the attitude we need! [Laughter.] It will ramp up over the course of the next year, with greater volumes and more focus on consumer behaviour. We will be conducting a full evaluation of pensions dashboards over the coming years as the service goes live. That will include the impact of dashboards on engagement with pensions. I commit to update the House on that work in due course.

Following on from other issues raised in Committee, I am pleased to report that following the findings of the curriculum and assessment review, the Government will make financial education compulsory in primary schools in England.

One issue raised in Committee was the Department’s monitoring and evaluation plans for the policy programme set out in the Bill, not least the guided retirement measures. Those comments have been taken on board; an updated impact assessment this week lays out how we intend to approach monitoring impact.

I have endeavoured to do justice to the very wide range of different issues raised during the debate today. I hope hon. Members will support Government amendments that build on policies that will make a real difference to all our constituents in the decades to come.

Question put and agreed to.

New clause 30 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 31

Indexation of periodic compensation for pre-1997 service: Great Britain

“(1) Schedule 7 to the Pensions Act 2004 (pension compensation provisions) is amended in accordance with subsections (2) and (3).

(2) In paragraph 28—

(a) for sub-paragraph (2) substitute—

“(2) Where a person is entitled to periodic compensation under any of those paragraphs, the person is entitled, on the indexation date, to an increase under this paragraph of—

(a) where sub-paragraph (2A) applies, the aggregate of the amount mentioned in sub-paragraph (2C) and the amount mentioned in sub-paragraph (2E);

(b) where sub-paragraph (2B) applies, the aggregate of the amount mentioned in sub-paragraph (2D) and the amount mentioned in sub-paragraph (2E);

(c) in any other case, the amount mentioned in sub-paragraph (2E).

(2A) This sub-paragraph applies where, immediately before the assessment date—

(a) the admissible rules of the scheme included a requirement for all or any part of so much of the annual rate of a pension in payment under the scheme as is attributable to a person’s pre-1997 service to be increased annually,

(b) that requirement did not apply only in relation to a guaranteed minimum pension provided by the scheme, and

(c) that requirement applied in relation to pre-1997 service in respect of which the compensation is payable.

(2B) This sub-paragraph applies where—

(a) the scheme provided a guaranteed minimum pension that accrued during the GMP indexation period,

(b) that accrual was in relation to GMP indexed service in respect of which the compensation is payable, and

(c) immediately before the assessment date the admissible rules of the scheme—

(i) did not include a requirement of the kind mentioned in sub-paragraph (2A)(a), or

(ii) included such a requirement only in relation to a guaranteed minimum pension provided by the scheme.

(2C) The amount mentioned in this sub-paragraph is—

(a) the appropriate percentage of the amount of the pre-1997 underlying rate immediately before the indexation date, or

(b) where the person first became entitled to the periodic compensation during the period of 12 months ending immediately before that date, 1/12th of that amount for each full month for which the person was so entitled.

(2D) The amount mentioned in this sub-paragraph is—

(a) the appropriate percentage of the amount of the notional pre-1997 underlying rate immediately before the indexation date, or

(b) where the person first became entitled to the periodic compensation during the period of 12 months ending immediately before that date, 1/12th of that amount for each full month for which the person was so entitled.

(2E) The amount mentioned in this sub-paragraph is—

(a) the appropriate percentage of the amount of the post-1997 underlying rate immediately before the indexation date, or

(b) where the person first became entitled to the periodic compensation during the period of 12 months ending immediately before that date, 1/12th of that amount for each full month for which the person was so entitled.

(2F) In any case where it is unclear to the Board whether, immediately before the assessment date, the admissible rules of the scheme included a requirement of the kind mentioned in sub-paragraph (2A)(a), this paragraph has effect as if the scheme included such a requirement.

(2G) In any case where it is unclear to the Board whether, immediately before the assessment date, a requirement of the scheme of a kind mentioned in sub-paragraph (2A)(a) (including such a requirement included by virtue of sub-paragraph (2F)) applied in relation to particular pre-1997 service, this paragraph has effect as if the requirement applied in relation to such service.

(2H) In any case where it is unclear to the Board whether the scheme provided a guaranteed minimum pension that accrued during the GMP indexation period, this paragraph has effect as if the scheme so provided.

(2I) In any case where it is unclear to the Board whether the accrual of a guaranteed minimum pension provided by the scheme (including by virtue of sub-paragraph (2H)) was in relation to particular GMP indexed service, this paragraph has effect as if the accrual was in relation to such service.”

(b) in sub-paragraph (3)—

(i) in the opening words for “sub-paragraph (2)” substitute “sub-paragraphs (2) to (2E)”;

(ii) for both definitions of “underlying rate” substitute—

““notional pre-1997 underlying rate” means, in the case of periodic compensation under paragraph 3 or 22, the aggregate of—

(a) a prescribed percentage of so much of the amount mentioned in sub-paragraph (3)(a) of the paragraph in question as is attributable to pre-1997 service, and

(b) so much of the amount within sub-paragraph (3)(b) of that paragraph as is referable to the amount within paragraph (a) of this definition immediately before the indexation date;

“notional pre-1997 underlying rate” means, in the case of periodic compensation under paragraph 5, 8, 11 or 15, the aggregate of—

(a) a prescribed percentage of so much of the amount mentioned in sub-paragraph (3)(a) of the paragraph in question as is attributable to pre-1997 service,

(b) a prescribed percentage of so much of the amount mentioned in sub-paragraph (3)(aa) of the paragraph in question as is attributable to pre-1997 service, and

(c) so much of the amount within sub-paragraph (3)(b) of that paragraph as is referable to the amounts within paragraphs (a) and (b) of this definition immediately before the indexation date;

“post-1997 underlying rate” means, in the case of periodic compensation under paragraph 3 or 22, the aggregate of—

(a) so much of the amount mentioned in sub-paragraph (3)(a) of the paragraph in question as is attributable to post-1997 service, and

(b) so much of the amount within sub-paragraph (3)(b) of that paragraph as is referable to the amount within paragraph (a) of this definition immediately before the indexation date;

“post-1997 underlying rate” means, in the case of periodic compensation under paragraph 5, 8, 11 or 15, the aggregate of—

(a) so much of the amount mentioned in sub-paragraph (3)(a) of the paragraph in question as is attributable to post-1997 service,

(b) so much of the amount mentioned in sub-paragraph (3)(aa) of the paragraph in question as is attributable to post-1997 service, and

(c) so much of the amount within sub-paragraph (3)(b) of that paragraph as is referable to the amounts within paragraphs (a) and (b) of this definition immediately before the indexation date;

“pre-1997 underlying rate” means, in the case of periodic compensation under paragraph 3 or 22, the aggregate of—

(a) so much of the amount mentioned in sub-paragraph (3)(a) of the paragraph in question as is attributable to pre-1997 service, and

(b) so much of the amount within sub-paragraph (3)(b) of that paragraph as is referable to the amount within paragraph (a) of this definition immediately before the indexation date;

“pre-1997 underlying rate” means, in the case of periodic compensation under paragraph 5, 8, 11 or 15, the aggregate of—

(a) so much of the amount mentioned in sub-paragraph (3)(a) of the paragraph in question as is attributable to pre-1997 service,

(b) so much of the amount mentioned in sub-paragraph (3)(aa) of the paragraph in question as is attributable to pre-1997 service, and

(c) so much of the amount within sub-paragraph (3)(b) of that paragraph as is referable to the amounts within paragraphs (a) and (b) of this definition immediately before the indexation date.”;

(c) in sub-paragraph (5)—

(i) in paragraph (a), for “sub-paragraph (2), each definition of “underlying rate”” substitute “sub-paragraphs (2C) to (2E), each definition of “notional pre-1997 underlying rate”, “post-1997 underlying rate” and “pre-1997 underlying rate””;

(ii) in paragraph (c), for “sub-paragraph (2), the definition of “underlying rate”” substitute “sub-paragraphs (2C) to (2E), the definition of “notional pre-1997 underlying rate”, the definition of “post-1997 underlying rate” and the definition of “pre-1997 underlying rate””;

(d) in sub-paragraph (6), before the definition of “post-1997 service” insert—

““GMP indexation period” means the period beginning with 6 April 1988 and ending with 5 April 1997;

“GMP indexed service” means—

(a) pensionable service which is within paragraph 36(4)(a) and occurs during the GMP indexation period, or

(b) pensionable service which is within paragraph 36(4)(b) and meets such requirements as may be prescribed;

“guaranteed minimum pension” has the same meaning as in the Pension Schemes Act 1993 (see section 8(2) of that Act);”;

(e) in sub-paragraph (7), for “and “pre-1997 service”” substitute “, “pre-1997 service” and “GMP indexed service””.

(3) In paragraph 29, for sub-paragraph (2) substitute—

“(2) The Board may also determine the percentage that is to be—

(a) the appropriate percentage for the purposes of sub-paragraphs (2C) and (2D) of paragraph 28;

(b) the appropriate percentage for the purposes of sub-paragraph (2E) of that paragraph,

(and where it does so, the definition of “appropriate percentage” in paragraph 28(3) does not apply in relation to the sub-paragraph in question).”

(4) Schedule 5 to the Pensions Act 2008 (pension compensation payable on discharge of pension compensation credit) is amended in accordance with subsections (5) and (6).

(5) In paragraph 17—

(a) for sub-paragraph (2) substitute—

“(2) Subject to sub-paragraph (3), the transferee is entitled, on each indexation date, to an increase of—

(a) where sub-paragraph (2A) applies, the amount mentioned in sub-paragraph (2E);

(b) where sub-paragraph (2B) applies, the amount mentioned in sub-paragraph (2F);

(c) where sub-paragraph (2C) applies, the amount mentioned in sub-paragraph (2G);

(d) where sub-paragraph (2D) applies, the amount mentioned in sub-paragraph (2H).

(2A) This sub-paragraph applies where—

(a) the transferor's PPF compensation is payable in accordance with paragraph 3, 5, 8, 11, 15 or 22 of Schedule 7 to the Pensions Act 2004 (“the relevant Schedule 7 provisions”), and

(b) immediately before the assessment date—

(i) the admissible rules of the scheme in respect of which that compensation is payable included a requirement for all or any part of so much of the annual rate of a pension in payment under the scheme as is attributable to a person’s pre-1997 service to be increased annually,

(ii) that requirement did not apply only in relation to a guaranteed minimum pension provided by the scheme, and

(iii) that requirement applied in relation to pre-1997 service in respect of which that compensation is payable.

(2B) This sub-paragraph applies where—

(a) the transferor's PPF compensation is payable in accordance with the relevant Schedule 7 provisions,

(b) the scheme in respect of which that compensation is payable provided a guaranteed minimum pension that accrued during the GMP indexation period,

(c) that accrual was in relation to GMP indexed service in respect of which that compensation is payable, and

(d) immediately before the assessment date the admissible rules of that scheme—

(i) did not include a requirement of the kind mentioned in sub-paragraph (2A)(b)(i), or

(ii) included such a requirement only in relation to a guaranteed minimum pension provided by the scheme.

(2C) This sub-paragraph applies where—

(a) the transferor's PPF compensation is payable in accordance with the relevant Schedule 7 provisions, and

(b) neither sub-paragraph (2A) nor sub-paragraph (2B) applies.

(2D) This sub-paragraph applies where the transferor's PPF compensation is payable otherwise than in accordance with the relevant Schedule 7 provisions.

(2E) The amount mentioned in this sub-paragraph is the aggregate of the appropriate percentage of the pre-1997 underlying rate and the appropriate percentage of the post-1997 underlying rate.

(2F) The amount mentioned in this sub-paragraph is the aggregate of the appropriate percentage of the notional pre-1997 underlying rate and the appropriate percentage of the post-1997 underlying rate.

(2G) The amount mentioned in this sub-paragraph is the appropriate percentage of the post-1997 underlying rate.

(2H) The amount mentioned in this sub-paragraph is the appropriate percentage of the general underlying rate.”

(b) in sub-paragraph (3), for “(2)” substitute “(2E), (2F), (2G) or (2H) (as the case may be)”;

(c) after sub-paragraph (3) insert—

“(3A) For the purposes of sub-paragraphs (2A) to (2C)—

(a) in any case where it is unclear to the Board whether, immediately before the assessment date, the admissible rules of the scheme included a requirement of the kind mentioned in sub-paragraph (2A)(b)(i), those sub-paragraphs have effect as if the scheme included such a requirement;

(b) in any case where it is unclear to the Board whether, immediately before the assessment date, a requirement of the scheme of a kind mentioned in sub-paragraph (2A)(b)(i) (including such a requirement included by virtue of paragraph (a)) applied in relation to particular pre-1997 service, those sub-paragraphs have effect as if the requirement applied in relation to such service;

(c) in any case where it is unclear to the Board whether the scheme provided a guaranteed minimum pension that accrued during the GMP indexation period, those sub-paragraphs have effect as if the scheme so provided;

(d) in any case where it is unclear to the Board whether the accrual of a guaranteed minimum pension provided by the scheme (including by virtue of paragraph (c)) was in relation to particular GMP indexed service, those sub-paragraphs have effect as if the accrual was in relation to such service.”

(d) in sub-paragraph (4)—

(i) in the opening words, for “sub-paragraph (2)” substitute “sub-paragraphs (2) to (2H)”;

(ii) for the definition of “the underlying rate” substitute—

““the general underlying rate” , as at an indexation date, is the aggregate of—

(a) the general indexed proportion of the aggregate of the initial annual rate of compensation and (in the case of compensation payable under paragraph 6), the revaluation amount,

(b) so much of any actuarial increase under paragraph 16A as relates to the amount in paragraph (a), and

(c) so much of any annual increase to which the transferee is entitled under this paragraph in respect of earlier indexation dates as relates to the amounts in paragraphs (a) and (b);

“the notional pre-1997 underlying rate” , as at an indexation date, is the aggregate of—

(a) the notional pre-1997 indexed proportion of the aggregate of the initial annual rate of compensation and (in the case of compensation payable under paragraph 6), the revaluation amount,

(b) so much of any actuarial increase under paragraph 16A as relates to the amount in paragraph (a), and

(c) so much of any annual increase to which the transferee is entitled under this paragraph in respect of earlier indexation dates as relates to the amounts in paragraphs (a) and (b);

“the post-1997 underlying rate” , as at an indexation date, is the aggregate of—

(a) the post-1997 indexed proportion of the aggregate of the initial annual rate of compensation and (in the case of compensation payable under paragraph 6), the revaluation amount,

(b) so much of any actuarial increase under paragraph 16A as relates to the amount in paragraph (a), and

(c) so much of any annual increase to which the transferee is entitled under this paragraph in respect of earlier indexation dates as relates to the amounts in paragraphs (a) and (b);

“the pre-1997 underlying rate” , as at an indexation date, is the aggregate of—

(a) the pre-1997 indexed proportion of the aggregate of the initial annual rate of compensation and (in the case of compensation payable under paragraph 6), the revaluation amount,

(b) so much of any actuarial increase under paragraph 16A as relates to the amount in paragraph (a), and

(c) so much of any annual increase to which the transferee is entitled under this paragraph in respect of earlier indexation dates as relates to the amounts in paragraphs (a) and (b).”;

(e) omit sub-paragraphs (5) and (6);

(f) before sub-paragraph (7) insert—

“(6A) For the purposes of paragraph (a) of the definition of “the general underlying rate”, “the general indexed proportion” is such proportion as is determined in accordance with regulations made by the Secretary of State.

(6B) For the purposes of paragraph (a) of the definition of “the notional pre-1997 underlying rate”, “the notional pre-1997 indexed proportion” is such proportion of the amount mentioned in sub-paragraph (3)(a) of the paragraph of Schedule 7 to the Pensions Act 2004 under which the transferor’s PPF compensation is payable that is attributable to pre-1997 service as may be prescribed.

(6C) For the purposes of paragraph (a) of the definition of “the post-1997 underlying rate”, “the post-1997 indexed proportion” is the proportion of the amount mentioned in sub-paragraph (3)(a) of the paragraph of that Schedule under which the transferor’s PPF compensation is payable that is attributable to post-1997 service.

(6D) For the purposes of paragraph (a) of the definition of “the pre-1997 underlying rate”, “the pre-1997 indexed proportion” is the proportion of the amount mentioned in sub-paragraph (3)(a) of the paragraph of that Schedule under which the transferor’s PPF compensation is payable that is attributable to pre-1997 service.”;

(g) in sub-paragraph (7), for ““the underlying rate”” substitute ““the general underlying rate”, the definition of “the notional pre-1997 underlying rate”, the definition of “the post-1997 underlying rate” and the definition of “the pre-1997 underlying rate””;

(h) in paragraph (9)—

(i) before the definition of “post-1997 service” insert—

““GMP indexation period” means the period beginning with 6 April 1988 and ending with 5 April 1997;

“guaranteed minimum pension” has the same meaning as in the Pension Schemes Act 1993 (see section 8(2) of that Act);”;

(ii) in the definition of “post-1997 service” for “has” substitute “, “pre-1997 service” and “GMP indexed service” have”;

(iii) after that definition insert—

““the assessment date” , in relation to a pension scheme, has the same meaning as in that Schedule (see paragraph 2 of that Schedule);”.

(6) In paragraph 20, in sub-paragraph (1)(b), for “for the purposes of paragraph 17(2)” substitute “—

(i) of the pre-1997 underlying rate and of the notional pre-1997 underlying rate for the purposes of sub-paragraphs (2E) and (2F) of paragraph 17;

(ii) of the post-1997 underlying rate for the purposes of sub-paragraphs (2E), (2F) and (2G) of that paragraph;

(iii) of the general underlying rate for the purposes of sub-paragraph (2H) of that paragraph.””—(Torsten Bell.)

This new clause makes provision for certain compensation paid by the Pension Protection Fund in respect of a person’s pre-1997 pensionable service under legislation extending to England and Wales and Scotland to be increased annually.

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 32

Indexation of periodic compensation for pre-1997 service: Northern Ireland

“(1) Schedule 6 to the Pensions (Northern Ireland) Order 2005 (S.I. 2005/255 (N.I. 1)) (pension compensation provisions) is amended in accordance with subsections (2) and (3).

(2) In paragraph 28—

(a) for sub-paragraph (2) substitute—

“(2) Where a person is entitled to periodic compensation under any of those paragraphs, the person is entitled, on the indexation date, to an increase under this paragraph of—

(a) where sub-paragraph (2A) applies, the aggregate of the amount mentioned in sub-paragraph (2C) and the amount mentioned in sub-paragraph (2E);

(b) where sub-paragraph (2B) applies, the aggregate of the amount mentioned in sub-paragraph (2D) and the amount mentioned in sub-paragraph (2E);

(c) in any other case, the amount mentioned in sub-paragraph (2E).

(2A) This sub-paragraph applies where, immediately before the assessment date—

(a) the admissible rules of the scheme included a requirement for all or any part of so much of the annual rate of a pension in payment under the scheme as is attributable to a person’s pre-1997 service to be increased annually,

(b) that requirement did not apply only in relation to a guaranteed minimum pension provided by the scheme, and

(c) that requirement applied in relation to pre-1997 service in respect of which the compensation is payable.

(2B) This sub-paragraph applies where—

(a) the scheme provided a guaranteed minimum pension that accrued during the GMP indexation period,

(b) that accrual was in relation to GMP indexed service in respect of which the compensation is payable, and

(c) immediately before the assessment date the admissible rules of the scheme—

(i) did not include a requirement of the kind mentioned in sub-paragraph (2A)(a), or

(ii) included such a requirement only in relation to a guaranteed minimum pension provided by the scheme.

(2C) The amount mentioned in this sub-paragraph is—

(a) the appropriate percentage of the amount of the pre-1997 underlying rate immediately before the indexation date, or

(b) where the person first became entitled to the periodic compensation during the period of 12 months ending immediately before that date, 1/12th of that amount for each full month for which the person was so entitled.

(2D) The amount mentioned in this sub-paragraph is—

(a) the appropriate percentage of the amount of the notional pre-1997 underlying rate immediately before the indexation date, or

(b) where the person first became entitled to the periodic compensation during the period of 12 months ending immediately before that date, 1/12th of that amount for each full month for which the person was so entitled.

(2E) The amount mentioned in this sub-paragraph is—

(a) the appropriate percentage of the amount of the post-1997 underlying rate immediately before the indexation date, or

(b) where the person first became entitled to the periodic compensation during the period of 12 months ending immediately before that date, 1/12th of that amount for each full month for which the person was so entitled.

(2F) In any case where it is unclear to the Board whether, immediately before the assessment date, the admissible rules of the scheme included a requirement of the kind mentioned in sub-paragraph (2A)(a), this paragraph has effect as if the scheme included such a requirement.

(2G) In any case where it is unclear to the Board whether, immediately before the assessment date, a requirement of the scheme of a kind mentioned in sub-paragraph (2A)(a) (including such a requirement included by virtue of sub-paragraph (2F)) applied in relation to particular pre-1997 service, this paragraph has effect as if the requirement applied in relation to such service.

(2H) In any case where it is unclear to the Board whether the scheme provided a guaranteed minimum pension that accrued during the GMP indexation period, this paragraph has effect as if the scheme so provided.

(2I) In any case where it is unclear to the Board whether the accrual of a guaranteed minimum pension provided by the scheme (including by virtue of sub-paragraph (2H)) was in relation to particular GMP indexed service, this paragraph has effect as if the accrual was in relation to such service.”

(b) in sub-paragraph (3)—

(i) in the opening words for “sub-paragraph (2)” substitute “sub-paragraphs (2) to (2E)”;

(ii) for both definitions of “underlying rate” substitute—

““notional pre-1997 underlying rate” means, in the case of periodic compensation under paragraph 3 or 22, the aggregate of—

(a) a prescribed percentage of so much of the amount mentioned in sub-paragraph (3)(a) of the paragraph in question as is attributable to pre-1997 service, and

(b) so much of the amount within sub-paragraph (3)(b) of that paragraph as is referable to the amount within paragraph (a) of this definition immediately before the indexation date;

“notional pre-1997 underlying rate” means, in the case of periodic compensation under paragraph 5, 8, 11 or 15, the aggregate of—

(a) a prescribed percentage of so much of the amount mentioned in sub-paragraph (3)(a) of the paragraph in question as is attributable to pre-1997 service,

(b) a prescribed percentage of so much of the amount mentioned in sub-paragraph (3)(aa) of the paragraph in question as is attributable to pre-1997 service, and

(c) so much of the amount within sub-paragraph (3)(b) of that paragraph as is referable to the amounts within paragraphs (a) and (b) of this definition immediately before the indexation date;

“post-1997 underlying rate” means, in the case of periodic compensation under paragraph 3 or 22, the aggregate of—

(a) so much of the amount mentioned in sub-paragraph (3)(a) of the paragraph in question as is attributable to post-1997 service, and

(b) so much of the amount within sub-paragraph (3)(b) of that paragraph as is referable to the amount within paragraph (a) of this definition immediately before the indexation date;

“post-1997 underlying rate” means, in the case of periodic compensation under paragraph 5, 8, 11 or 15, the aggregate of—

(a) so much of the amount mentioned in sub-paragraph (3)(a) of the paragraph in question as is attributable to post-1997 service,

(b) so much of the amount mentioned in sub-paragraph (3)(aa) of the paragraph in question as is attributable to post-1997 service, and

(c) so much of the amount within sub-paragraph (3)(b) of that paragraph as is referable to the amounts within paragraphs (a) and (b) of this definition immediately before the indexation date;

“pre-1997 underlying rate” means, in the case of periodic compensation under paragraph 3 or 22, the aggregate of—

(a) so much of the amount mentioned in sub-paragraph (3)(a) of the paragraph in question as is attributable to pre-1997 service, and

(b) so much of the amount within sub-paragraph (3)(b) of that paragraph as is referable to the amount within paragraph (a) of this definition immediately before the indexation date;

“pre-1997 underlying rate” means, in the case of periodic compensation under paragraph 5, 8, 11 or 15, the aggregate of—

(a) so much of the amount mentioned in sub-paragraph (3)(a) of the paragraph in question as is attributable to pre-1997 service,

(b) so much of the amount mentioned in sub-paragraph (3)(aa) of the paragraph in question as is attributable to pre-1997 service, and

(c) so much of the amount within sub-paragraph (3)(b) of that paragraph as is referable to the amounts within paragraphs (a) and (b) of this definition immediately before the indexation date.”;

(c) in sub-paragraph (5)—

(i) in paragraph (a), for “sub-paragraph (2), each definition of “underlying rate”” substitute “sub-paragraphs (2C) to (2E), each definition of “notional pre-1997 underlying rate”, “post-1997 underlying rate” and “pre-1997 underlying rate””;

(ii) in paragraph (c), for “sub-paragraph (2), the definition of “underlying rate”” substitute “sub-paragraphs (2C) to (2E), the definition of “notional pre-1997 underlying rate”, the definition of “post-1997 underlying rate” and the definition of “pre-1997 underlying rate””;

(d) in sub-paragraph (6), before the definition of “post-1997 service” insert—

““GMP indexation period” means the period beginning with 6 April 1988 and ending with 5 April 1997;

“GMP indexed service” means—

(a) pensionable service which is within paragraph 36(4)(a) and occurs during the GMP indexation period, or

(b) pensionable service which is within paragraph 36(4)(b) and meets such requirements as may be prescribed;

“guaranteed minimum pension” has the same meaning as in the Pension Schemes Act (see section 4(2) of that Act);”;

(e) in sub-paragraph (7), for “and “pre-1997 service”” substitute “, “pre-1997 service” and “GMP indexed service””.

(3) In paragraph 29, for sub-paragraph (2) substitute—

“(2) The Board may also determine the percentage that is to be—

(a) the appropriate percentage for the purposes of sub-paragraphs (2C) and (2D) of paragraph 28;

(b) the appropriate percentage for the purposes of sub-paragraph (2E) of that paragraph,

(and where it does so, the definition of “appropriate percentage” in paragraph 28(3) does not apply in relation to the sub-paragraph in question).”

(4) Schedule 4 to the Pensions (No.2) Act (Northern Ireland) 2008 (pension compensation payable on discharge of pension compensation credit) is amended in accordance with subsections (5) and (6).

(5) In paragraph 17—

(a) for sub-paragraph (2) substitute—

“(2) Subject to sub-paragraph (3), the transferee is entitled, on each indexation date, to an increase of—

(a) where sub-paragraph (2A) applies, the amount mentioned in sub-paragraph (2E);

(b) where sub-paragraph (2B) applies, the amount mentioned in sub-paragraph (2F);

(c) where sub-paragraph (2C) applies, the amount mentioned in sub-paragraph (2G);

(d) where sub-paragraph (2D) applies, the amount mentioned in sub-paragraph (2H).

(2A) This sub-paragraph applies where—

(a) the transferor's PPF compensation is payable in accordance with paragraph 3, 5, 8, 11, 15 or 22 of Schedule 6 to the 2005 Order (“the relevant Schedule 6 provisions”), and

(b) immediately before the assessment date —

(i) the admissible rules of the scheme in respect of which that compensation is payable included a requirement for all or any part of so much of the annual rate of a pension in payment under the scheme as is attributable to a person’s pre-1997 service to be increased annually,

(ii) that requirement did not apply only in relation to a guaranteed minimum pension provided by the scheme, and

(iii) that requirement applied in relation to pre-1997 service in respect of which that compensation is payable.

(2B) This sub-paragraph applies where—

(a) the transferor's PPF compensation is payable in accordance with the relevant Schedule 6 provisions,

(b) the scheme in respect of which that compensation is payable provided a guaranteed minimum pension that accrued during the GMP indexation period,

(c) that accrual was in relation to GMP indexed service in respect of which that compensation is payable, and

(d) immediately before the assessment date the admissible rules of that scheme—

(i) did not include a requirement of the kind mentioned in sub-paragraph (2A)(b)(i), or

(ii) included such a requirement only in relation to a guaranteed minimum pension provided by the scheme.

(2C) This sub-paragraph applies where—

(a) the transferor's PPF compensation is payable in accordance with the relevant Schedule 6 provisions, and

(b) neither sub-paragraph (2A) nor sub-paragraph (2B) applies.

(2D) This sub-paragraph applies where the transferor's PPF compensation is payable otherwise than in accordance with the relevant Schedule 6 provisions.

(2E) The amount mentioned in this sub-paragraph is the aggregate of the appropriate percentage of the pre-1997 underlying rate and the appropriate percentage of the post-1997 underlying rate.

(2F) The amount mentioned in this sub-paragraph is the aggregate of the appropriate percentage of the notional pre-1997 underlying rate and the appropriate percentage of the post-1997 underlying rate.

(2G) The amount mentioned in this sub-paragraph is the appropriate percentage of the post-1997 underlying rate.

(2H) The amount mentioned in this sub-paragraph is the appropriate percentage of the general underlying rate.”

(b) in sub-paragraph (3), for “(2)” substitute “(2E), (2F), (2G) or (2H) (as the case may be)”;

(c) after sub-paragraph (3) insert—

“(3A) For the purposes of sub-paragraphs (2A) to (2C)—

(a) in any case where it is unclear to the Board whether, immediately before the assessment date, the admissible rules of the scheme included a requirement of the kind mentioned in sub- paragraph (2A)(b)(i), those sub-paragraphs have effect as if the scheme included such a requirement;

(b) in any case where it is unclear to the Board whether, immediately before the assessment date, a requirement of the scheme of a kind mentioned in sub-paragraph (2A)(b)(i) (including such a requirement included by virtue of paragraph (a)) applied in relation to particular pre-1997 service, those sub-paragraphs have effect as if the requirement applied in relation to such service;

(c) in any case where it is unclear to the Board whether the scheme provided a guaranteed minimum pension that accrued during the GMP indexation period, those sub-paragraphs have effect as if the scheme so provided;

(d) in any case where it is unclear to the Board whether the accrual of a guaranteed minimum pension provided by the scheme (including by virtue of paragraph (c)) was in relation to particular GMP indexed service, those sub-paragraphs have effect as if the accrual was in relation to such service.”

(d) in sub-paragraph (4)—

(i) in the opening words, for “sub-paragraph (2)” substitute “sub-paragraphs (2) to (2H)”;

(ii) for the definition of “the underlying rate” substitute—

““the general underlying rate” , as at an indexation date, is the aggregate of—

(a) the general indexed proportion of the aggregate of the initial annual rate of compensation and (in the case of compensation payable under paragraph 6), the revaluation amount,

(b) so much of any actuarial increase under paragraph 16A as relates to the amount in paragraph (a), and

(c) so much of any annual increase to which the transferee is entitled under this paragraph in respect of earlier indexation dates as relates to the amounts in paragraphs (a) and (b);

“the notional pre-1997 underlying rate” , as at an indexation date, is the aggregate of—

(a) the notional pre-1997 indexed proportion of the aggregate of the initial annual rate of compensation and (in the case of compensation payable under paragraph 6), the revaluation amount,

(b) so much of any actuarial increase under paragraph 16A as relates to the amount in paragraph (a), and

(c) so much of any annual increase to which the transferee is entitled under this paragraph in respect of earlier indexation dates as relates to the amounts in paragraphs (a) and (b);

“the post-1997 underlying rate” , as at an indexation date, is the aggregate of—

(a) the post-1997 indexed proportion of the aggregate of the initial annual rate of compensation and (in the case of compensation payable under paragraph 6), the revaluation amount,

(b) so much of any actuarial increase under paragraph 16A as relates to the amount in paragraph (a), and

(c) so much of any annual increase to which the transferee is entitled under this paragraph in respect of earlier indexation dates as relates to the amounts in paragraphs (a) and (b);

“the pre-1997 underlying rate” , as at an indexation date, is the aggregate of—

(a) the pre-1997 indexed proportion of the aggregate of the initial annual rate of compensation and (in the case of compensation payable under paragraph 6), the revaluation amount,

(b) so much of any actuarial increase under paragraph 16A as relates to the amount in paragraph (a), and

(c) so much of any annual increase to which the transferee is entitled under this paragraph in respect of earlier indexation dates as relates to the amounts in paragraphs (a) and (b).”;

(e) omit sub-paragraphs (5) and (6);

(f) before sub-paragraph (7) insert—

“(6A) For the purposes of paragraph (a) of the definition of “the general underlying rate”, “the general indexed proportion” is such proportion as is determined in accordance with regulations made by the Department.

(6B) For the purposes of paragraph (a) of the definition of “the notional pre-1997 underlying rate”, “the notional pre-1997 indexed proportion” is such proportion of the amount mentioned in sub-paragraph (3)(a) of the paragraph of Schedule 6 to the 2005 Order under which the transferor’s PPF compensation is payable that is attributable to pre-1997 service as may be prescribed.

(6C) For the purposes of paragraph (a) of the definition of “the post-1997 underlying rate”, “the post-1997 indexed proportion” is the proportion of the amount mentioned in sub-paragraph (3)(a) of the paragraph of that Schedule under which the transferor’s PPF compensation is payable that is attributable to post-1997 service.

(6D) For the purposes of paragraph (a) of the definition of “the pre-1997 underlying rate”, “the pre-1997 indexed proportion” is the proportion of the amount mentioned in sub-paragraph (3)(a) of the paragraph of that Schedule under which the transferor’s PPF compensation is payable that is attributable to pre-1997 service.”;

(g) in sub-paragraph (7), for ““the underlying rate”” substitute ““the general underlying rate”, the definition of “the notional pre-1997 underlying rate”, the definition of “the post-1997 underlying rate” and the definition of “the pre-1997 underlying rate””;

(h) for sub-paragraph 9 substitute—

“(9) In this paragraph—

“GMP indexation period” means the period beginning with 6 April 1988 and ending with 5 April 1997;

“guaranteed minimum pension” has the same meaning as in the Pension Schemes Act (see section 4(2) of that Act);

“post-1997 service” , “pre-1997 service” and “GMP indexed service” have the same meaning as in paragraph 28 of Schedule 6 to the 2005 Order (annual increase in periodic compensation);

“the assessment date” , in relation to a pension scheme, has the same meaning as in that Schedule (see paragraph 2 of that Schedule).”

(6) In paragraph 20, in sub-paragraph (1)(b), for “for the purposes of paragraph 17(2)” substitute “—

(i) of the pre-1997 underlying rate and of the notional pre-1997 underlying rate for the purposes of sub-paragraphs (2E) and (2F) of paragraph 17;

(ii) of the post-1997 underlying rate for the purposes of sub-paragraphs (2E), (2F) and (2G) of that paragraph;

(iii) of the general underlying rate for the purposes of sub-paragraph (2H) of that paragraph.””—(Torsten Bell.)

This new clause makes provision for certain compensation paid by the Pension Protection Fund in respect of a person’s pre-1997 pensionable service under legislation extending to Northern Ireland to be increased annually.

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 33

Financial Assistance Scheme: indexation of payments for pre-1997 service

“(1) The Financial Assistance Scheme Regulations 2005 (S.I. 2005/1986) are amended as follows.

(2) In paragraph 7(1)(b) of Schedule 2 (determination of annual and initial payments), after “(b)(i)” insert “, (ia) and (ib)”.

(3) Paragraph 9 of that Schedule is amended in accordance with subsections (4) to (6).

(4) In sub-paragraph (2)—

(a) in paragraph (a) of the definition of “underlying rate”, after sub-paragraph (i) insert—

“(ia) where sub-paragraph (2A) applies, the product of X multiplied by so much of the expected pension as is attributable to pre-1997 service;

(ib) where sub-paragraph (2B) applies, the product of X multiplied by the relevant percentage of so much of the expected pension as is attributable to pre-1997 service;”;

(b) in paragraph (b) of the definition of “underlying rate”—

(i) omit the “and” at the end of sub-paragraph (i);

(ii) after that sub-paragraph insert—

“(ia) where sub-paragraph (2A) applies, so much of the expected pension as is, proportionally, attributable to pre-1997 service;

(ib) where sub-paragraph (2B) applies, the relevant percentage of so much of the expected pension as is, proportionally, attributable to pre-1997 service; and”;

(c) after the definition of “post-1997 service” insert—

““pre-1997 service” means—

(a) pensionable service (whether actual or notional) which occurs before 6th April 1997; or

(b) where the annual payment is payable to, or in respect of, a qualifying member who is, or was, a pension credit member of the scheme, pension credit rights deriving from rights attributable to service (whether actual or notional) which occurred before 6th April 1997;

“relevant percentage” means such percentage as may be determined by the Secretary of State;”.

(5) After sub-paragraph (2) insert—

“(2A) This sub-paragraph applies where, immediately before the qualifying pension scheme began to wind up—

(a) the scheme rules included a requirement for all or any part of so much of the annual rate of a pension in payment under the scheme as is attributable to a person’s pre-1997 service to be increased annually,

(b) that requirement did not apply only in relation to a guaranteed minimum pension provided by the scheme, and

(c) that requirement applied in relation to pre-1997 service in respect of which the annual payment is payable.

(2B) This sub-paragraph applies where—

(a) the qualifying pension scheme provided a guaranteed minimum pension that accrued during the GMP indexation period,

(b) that accrual was in relation to GMP indexed service in respect of which the annual payment is payable, and

(c) immediately before the scheme began to wind up the scheme rules—

(i) did not include a requirement of the kind mentioned in sub-paragraph (2A)(a), or

(ii) included such a requirement only in relation to a guaranteed minimum pension provided by the scheme.

(2C) For the purposes of sub-paragraphs (2A) and (2B)—

(a) in any case where it is unclear to the scheme manager whether, immediately before the scheme began to wind up, the scheme rules included a requirement of the kind mentioned in sub-paragraph (2A)(a), those sub-paragraphs have effect as if the scheme included such a requirement;

(b) in any case where it is unclear to the scheme manager whether, immediately before the scheme began to wind up, a requirement of the scheme of a kind mentioned in sub-paragraph (2A)(a) (including such a requirement included by virtue of paragraph (a)) applied in relation to particular pre-1997 service, those sub-paragraphs have effect as if the requirement applied in relation to such service;

(c) in any case where it is unclear to the scheme manager whether the scheme provided a guaranteed minimum pension that accrued during the GMP indexation period, those sub-paragraphs have effect as if the scheme so provided;

(d) in any case where it is unclear to the scheme manager whether the accrual of a guaranteed minimum pension provided by the scheme (including by virtue of paragraph (c)) was in relation to particular GMP indexed service, those sub-paragraphs have effect as if the accrual was in relation to such service.

(2D) In sub-paragraphs (2B) and (2C)—

“GMP indexation period” means the period beginning with 6 April 1988 and ending with 5 April 1997;

“GMP indexed service” means—

(a) pensionable service (whether actual or notional) which occurs during the GMP indexation period; or

(b) where the annual payment is payable to, or in respect of, a qualifying member who is, or was, a pension credit member of the scheme, pension credit rights deriving from rights attributable to service (whether actual or notional) which occurred during the GMP indexation period.”

(6) In sub-paragraph (3)—

(a) after “attributable to” insert “pre-1997 service or”;

(b) for “that amount” substitute “the amount in question”.

(7) In paragraph 7(1)(b) of Schedule 2A (determination of ill health and interim ill health payments), after “(b)(i)” insert “, (ia) and (ib)”.

(8) Paragraph 9 of that Schedule is amended in accordance with subsections (9) to (11).

(9) In sub-paragraph (2)—

(a) after the definition of “E” insert—

““EA” means so much of the expected pension as is attributable to pre-1997 service;

“EB” means the relevant percentage of so much of the expected pension as is attributable to pre-1997 service;”;

(b) after the definition of “post-1997 service” insert—

““pre-1997 service” means—

(a) pensionable service (whether actual or notional) which occurs before 6th April 1997; or

(b) where the ill health payment is payable to, or in respect of, a qualifying member who is, or was, a pension credit member of the scheme, pension credit rights deriving from rights attributable to service (whether actual or notional) which occurred before 6th April 1997;

“relevant percentage” means such percentage as may be determined by the Secretary of State;”;

(c) in paragraph (a) of the definition of “underlying rate”, after sub-paragraph (i) insert—

“(ia) where sub-paragraph (2A) applies, the product of X multiplied by (C x EA);

(ib) where sub-paragraph (2B) applies, the product of X multiplied by (C x EB);”;

(d) in paragraph (b) of the definition of “underlying rate”—

(i) omit the “and” at the end of sub-paragraph (i);

(ii) after that sub-paragraph insert—

“(ia) where sub-paragraph (2A) applies, so much of the amount “A” for the purposes of paragraph 2 as is, proportionately, attributable to pre-1997 service;

(ib) where sub-paragraph (2B) applies, the relevant percentage of so much of the amount “A” for the purposes of paragraph 2 as is, proportionately, attributable to pre-1997 service; and”;

(10) After sub-paragraph (2) insert—

“(2A) This sub-paragraph applies where immediately before the qualifying pension scheme began to wind up—

(a) the scheme rules included a requirement for all or any part of so much of the annual rate of a pension in payment under the scheme as is attributable to a person’s pre-1997 service to be increased annually,

(b) that requirement did not apply only in relation to a guaranteed minimum pension provided by the scheme, and

(c) that requirement applied in relation to pre-1997 service in respect of which the ill health payment is payable.

(2B) This sub-paragraph applies where—

(a) the qualifying pension scheme provided a guaranteed minimum pension that accrued during the GMP indexation period,

(b) that accrual was in relation to GMP indexed service in respect of which the ill health payment is payable, and

(c) immediately before the scheme began to wind up the scheme rules—

(i) did not include a requirement of the kind mentioned in sub-paragraph (2A)(a), or

(ii) included such a requirement only in relation to a guaranteed minimum pension provided by the scheme

(2C) For the purposes of sub-paragraphs (2A) and (2B)—

(a) in any case where it is unclear to the scheme manager whether, immediately before the scheme began to wind up, the scheme rules included a requirement of the kind mentioned in sub-paragraph (2A)(a), those sub-paragraphs have effect as if the scheme included such a requirement;

(b) in any case where it is unclear to the scheme manager whether, immediately before the scheme began to wind up, a requirement of the scheme of a kind mentioned in sub-paragraph (2A)(a) (including such a requirement included by virtue of paragraph (a)) applied in relation to particular pre-1997 service, those sub-paragraphs have effect as if the requirement applied in relation to such service;

(c) in any case where it is unclear to the scheme manager whether the scheme provided a guaranteed minimum pension that accrued during the GMP indexation period, those sub-paragraphs have effect as if the scheme so provided;

(d) in any case where it is unclear to the scheme manager whether the accrual of a guaranteed minimum pension provided by the scheme (including by virtue of paragraph (c)) was in relation to particular GMP indexed service, those sub-paragraphs have effect as if the accrual was in relation to such service.

(2D) In sub-paragraphs (2A) to (2C)—

“GMP indexation period” means the period beginning with 6 April 1988 and ending with 5 April 1997;

“GMP indexed service” means—

(a) pensionable service (whether actual or notional) which occurs during the GMP indexation period; or

(b) where the ill health payment is payable to, or in respect of, a qualifying member who is, or was, a pension credit member of the scheme, pension credit rights deriving from rights attributable to service (whether actual or notional) which occurred during the GMP indexation period;

“guaranteed minimum pension” has the meaning given in section 8(2) of the 1993 Act.”

(11) In sub-paragraph (3)—

(a) after “attributable to” insert “pre-1997 service or”;

(b) for “that amount” substitute “the amount in question”.

(12) In paragraph 6 of Schedule 3 (determination of certain annual payments)—

(a) in sub-paragraph (2)—

(i) in the definition of “underlying rate”, after paragraph (a) insert—

“(aa) where sub-paragraph (2A) applies, the product of X multiplied by—

(i) where the beneficiary is a qualifying member or a survivor or surviving dependant of a qualifying member who died on or after the calculation date—

(aa) where the qualifying member is not a qualifying member to whom regulation 17D applied, so much of the revalued notional pension as is attributable to pre-1997 service; or

(bb) where the qualifying member is a qualifying member to whom regulation 17D applied, so much of the sum of R-A as is attributable to pre-1997 service; and

(ii) where the beneficiary is a survivor or surviving dependant in respect of whom a survivor notional pension has been determined, so much of the survivor notional pension as is attributable to the qualifying member’s pre-1997 service;

(ab) where sub-paragraph (2B) applies, the product of X multiplied by—

(i) where the beneficiary is a qualifying member or a survivor or surviving dependant of a qualifying member who died on or after the calculation date—

(aa) where the qualifying member is not a qualifying member to whom regulation 17D applied, the relevant percentage of so much of the revalued notional pension as is attributable to pre-1997 service; or

(bb) where the qualifying member is a qualifying member to whom regulation 17D applied, the relevant percentage of so much of the sum of R-A as is attributable to pre-1997 service; and

(ii) where the beneficiary is a survivor or surviving dependant in respect of whom a survivor notional pension has been determined, the relevant percentage of so much of the survivor notional pension as is attributable to the qualifying member’s pre-1997 service;”;

(iii) after the definition of “post-1997 service” insert—

““pre-1997 service” means—

(a) pensionable service (either actual or notional) which occurred before 6th April 1997; or

(b) where the pension was payable to, or in respect of, a qualifying member who is, or was, a pension credit member of the scheme, pension credit rights deriving from rights attributable to service (whether actual or notional) which occurred before 6th April 1997;

“relevant percentage” means such percentage as may be determined by the Secretary of State;”;

(b) after sub-paragraph (2) insert—

“(2A) This sub-paragraph applies where immediately before the qualifying pension scheme began to wind up—

(a) the scheme rules included a requirement for all or any part of so much of the annual rate of a pension in payment under the scheme as is attributable to a person’s pre-1997 service to be increased annually,

(b) that requirement did not apply only in relation to a guaranteed minimum pension provided by the scheme, and

(c) that requirement applied in relation to pre-1997 service in respect of which the annual payment is payable.

(2B) This sub-paragraph applies where—

(a) the qualifying pension scheme provided a guaranteed minimum pension that accrued during the GMP indexation period,

(b) that accrual was in relation to GMP indexed service in respect of which the annual payment is payable, and

(c) immediately before the scheme began to wind up the scheme rules—

(i) did not include a requirement of the kind mentioned in sub-paragraph (2A)(a), or

(ii) included such a requirement only in relation to a guaranteed minimum pension provided by the scheme.

(2C) For the purposes of sub-paragraphs (2A) and (2B)—

(a) in any case where it is unclear to the scheme manager whether, immediately before the scheme began to wind up, the scheme rules included a requirement of the kind mentioned in sub-paragraph (2A)(a), those sub-paragraphs have effect as if the scheme included such a requirement;

(b) in any case where it is unclear to the scheme manager whether, immediately before the scheme began to wind up, a requirement of the scheme of a kind mentioned in sub-paragraph (2A)(a) (including such a requirement included by virtue of paragraph (a)) applied in relation to particular pre-1997 service, those sub-paragraphs have effect as if the requirement applied in relation to such service;

(c) in any case where it is unclear to the scheme manager whether the scheme provided a guaranteed minimum pension that accrued during the GMP indexation period those sub-paragraphs have effect as if the scheme so provided;

(d) in any case where it is unclear to the scheme manager whether the accrual of a guaranteed minimum pension provided by the scheme (including by virtue of paragraph (c)) was in relation to particular GMP indexed service, those sub-paragraphs have effect as if the accrual was in relation to such service.

(2D) In sub-paragraphs (2A) to (2C)—

“GMP indexation period” means the period beginning with 6 April 1988 and ending with 5 April 1997;

“GMP indexed service” means—

(a) pensionable service (whether actual or notional) which occurs during the GMP indexation period; or

(b) where the pension was payable to, or in respect of, a qualifying member who is, or was, a pension credit member of the scheme, pension credit rights deriving from rights attributable to service (whether actual or notional) which occurred during the GMP indexation period;

“guaranteed minimum pension” has the meaning given in section 8(2) of the 1993 Act.”;

(c) in sub-paragraph (3), after “attributable to” insert “pre-1997 service and”.

(13) In paragraph 6 of Schedule 5 (determination of certain ill health payments)—

(a) in sub-paragraph (2)—

(i) in the definition of “underlying rate”, after paragraph (a) insert—

“(aa) where sub-paragraph (2A) applies, the product of X multiplied by (C x VA);

(ab) where sub-paragraph (2B) applies, the product of X multiplied by (C x VB);”;

(ii) after the definition of “post-1997 service” insert—

““pre-1997 service” means—

(a) pensionable service (either actual or notional) which occurred before 6th April 1997; or

(b) where the pension was payable to, or in respect of, a qualifying member who is, or was, a pension credit member of the scheme, pension credit rights deriving from rights attributable to service (whether actual or notional) which occurred before 6th April 1997;

“relevant percentage” means such percentage as may be determined by the Secretary of State;”;

(iii) after the definition of “V” insert—

““VA” means—

(a) where the beneficiary is a qualifying member or a survivor or surviving dependant of a qualifying member who died on or after the calculation date—

(i) where the qualifying member is not a qualifying member to whom regulation 17D applied, so much of the revalued notional pension as is attributable to pre-1997 service; or

(ii) where the qualifying member is a qualifying member to whom regulation 17D applied, so much of the sum of R-A as is attributable to pre-1997 service; and

(b) where the beneficiary is a survivor or surviving dependant in respect of whom a survivor notional pension has been determined, so much of the survivor notional pension as is attributable to the qualifying member’s pre-1997 service;

“VB” means—

(a) where the beneficiary is a qualifying member or a survivor or surviving dependant of a qualifying member who died on or after the calculation date—

(i) where the qualifying member is not a qualifying member to whom regulation 17D applied, the relevant percentage of so much of the revalued notional pension as is attributable to pre-1997 service; or

(ii) where the qualifying member is a qualifying member to whom regulation 17D applied, the relevant percentage of so much of the sum of R-A as is attributable to pre-1997 service; and

(b) where the beneficiary is a survivor or surviving dependant in respect of whom a survivor notional pension has been determined, the relevant percentage of so much of the survivor notional pension as is attributable to the qualifying member’s pre-1997 service;”;

(b) after sub-paragraph (2) insert—

“(2A) This sub-paragraph applies where immediately before the qualifying pension scheme began to wind up—

(a) the scheme rules included a requirement for all or any part of so much of the annual rate of a pension in payment under the scheme as is attributable to a person’s pre-1997 service to be increased annually,

(b) that requirement did not apply only in relation to a guaranteed minimum pension provided by the scheme, and

(c) that requirement applied in relation to pre-1997 service in respect of which the ill health payment is payable.

(2B) This sub-paragraph applies where—

(a) the qualifying pension scheme provided a guaranteed minimum pension that accrued during the GMP indexation period,

(b) that accrual was in relation to GMP indexed service in respect of which the ill health payment is payable, and

(c) immediately before the scheme began to wind up the scheme rules—

(i) did not include a requirement of the kind mentioned in sub-paragraph (2A)(a), or

(ii) included such a requirement only in relation to a guaranteed minimum pension provided by the scheme.

(2C) For the purposes of sub-paragraphs (2A) and (2B)—

(a) in any case where it is unclear to the scheme manager whether, immediately before the scheme began to wind up, the scheme rules included a requirement of the kind mentioned in sub-paragraph (2A)(a), those sub-paragraphs have effect as if the scheme included such a requirement;

(b) in any case where it is unclear to the scheme manager whether, immediately before the scheme began to wind up, a requirement of the scheme of a kind mentioned in sub-paragraph (2A)(a) (including such a requirement included by virtue of paragraph (a)) applied in relation to particular pre-1997 service, those sub-paragraphs have effect as if the requirement applied in relation to such service;

(c) in any case where it is unclear to the scheme manager whether the scheme provided a guaranteed minimum pension that accrued during the GMP indexation period, those sub-paragraphs have effect as if the scheme so provided;

(d) in any case where it is unclear to the scheme manager whether the accrual of a guaranteed minimum pension provided by the scheme (including by virtue of paragraph (c)) was in relation to particular GMP indexed service, those sub-paragraphs have effect as if the accrual was in relation to such service.

(2D) In sub-paragraphs (2A) to (2C)—

“GMP indexation period” means the period beginning with 6 April 1988 and ending with 5 April 1997;

“GMP indexed service” means—

(a) pensionable service (whether actual or notional) which occurs during the GMP indexation period; or

(b) where the pension was payable to, or in respect of, a qualifying member who is, or was, a pension credit member of the scheme, pension credit rights deriving from rights attributable to service (whether actual or notional) which occurred during the GMP indexation period;

“guaranteed minimum pension” has the meaning given in section 8(2) of the 1993 Act.”;

(c) in sub-paragraph (3), after “attributable to” insert “pre-1997 service and”.”—(Torsten Bell.)

This new clause makes provision for certain assistance paid under the Financial Assistance Scheme Regulations 2005 in respect of a person’s pre-1997 pensionable service to be increased annually.

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 34

Exemption from public procurement rules

“(1) After paragraph 2 of Schedule 2 to the Procurement Act 2023 (general vertical arrangements exemption from public procurement rules) insert—

2A “(1) A contract between a local government pension scheme manager and an asset pool company providing for the company—

(a) to manage the funds and other assets for which the scheme manager is responsible,

(b) to make and manage investments on behalf of the scheme manager, and

(c) if the contract so provides, to carry out other investment management activities for or on behalf of the scheme manager,

if each of the conditions set out in sub-paragraph (2) is met.

(2) The conditions are—

(a) that more than 80% of the activities of the company are investment management activities carried out for or on behalf of local government pension scheme managers;

(b) that no person exercises a decisive influence on the activities of the company (either directly or indirectly) other than—

(i) the participating scheme managers in the company, acting in their capacity as local government pension scheme managers, and

(ii) where the only shareholder in the company is another company (see section 1(9)(a) of the Pension Schemes Act 2025), that other company;

(c) that the company does not carry out any activities that are contrary to the interests of—

(i) the participating scheme managers in the company, in their capacity as local government pension scheme managers, or

(ii) where the only shareholder in the company is another company, that other company.

(3) The contracts covered by this paragraph include a contract where the local government pension scheme manager concerned is already a participating scheme manager in the company (as well as one where the scheme manager concerned will become a participating scheme manager in the company as a result of entering into it).

(4) An appropriate authority may by regulations make provision about how a calculation as to the percentage of activities carried out by an asset pool company is to be made for the purposes of sub-paragraph (2)(a).

(5) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2)(b), a person does not exercise a decisive influence on the activities of the asset pool company only by reason of—

(a) being a director, officer or manager of the company, acting in that capacity, or

(b) where the only shareholder in the company is another company, being a director, officer or manager of that other company.

(6) In this paragraph—

“asset pool company” has the meaning given by section 1(7)(a) of the Pension Schemes Act 2025;

“investment management activities” means activities involved in or connected with the management of funds or other assets for which a scheme manager is responsible (including making and managing investments on behalf of the scheme manager);

“local government pension scheme manager” means a person who is, by virtue of section 4(5) of the Public Service Pensions Act 2013, a scheme manager for a pension scheme for local government workers in England and Wales;

“participating scheme manager” , in relation to an asset pool company, means a local government pension scheme manager who participates in the company within the meaning of section 1(9)(b) of the Pension Schemes Act 2025.””—(Torsten Bell.)

This new clause amends the Procurement Act 2023 to create a new category of exempted contract covering certain investment management contracts between a local government scheme manager and the asset pool company. This is intended to replace Clause 4 in the current print of the Bill.

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 35

Funding of the Board of the Pension Protection Fund

“(1) The Pensions Act 2004 is amended in accordance with subsections (2) to (5).

(2) Omit section 116 (power of Secretary of State to pay grants to Board of Pension Protection Fund).

(3) Omit section 117 (power of Secretary of State to impose administration levy on pension schemes).

(4) In section 173 (Pension Protection Fund), in subsection (3), before paragraph (a) insert—

“(za) any sums required to meet expenditure of the Board that is attributable to the operation or administration of the Pension Protection Fund,”

(5) In section 188 (fraud compensation fund), in subsection (3), before paragraph (a) insert—

“(za) any sums required to meet expenditure of the Board that is attributable to the operation or administration of the Fraud Compensation Fund,”

(6) No amount is payable to the Secretary of State by virtue of section 117 of the Pensions Act 2004 (administration levy) in respect of the financial years beginning with 1 April 2023 and 1 April 2024.

(7) In the Pensions Act 2008, in Schedule 10 (interest on late payment of levies), omit paragraph 3 (which makes an amendment about interest for late payment of the administration levy that has not been brought into force).”—(Torsten Bell.)

This new clause (which is intended to be added after clause 112) enables administrative expenses of the Board of the Pension Protection Fund to be paid out of the Pension Protection Fund and the Fraud Compensation Fund, and removes the existing administration levy mechanism; it also clarifies that no administration levy is payable for 2023/24 or 2024/25.

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 3

Terminal illness: means of demonstrating eligibility

“(1) The Secretary of State must by regulations make provision about how a person may demonstrate that they are terminally ill for purposes relating to compensation or assistance from the Pension Protection Fund or Financial Assistance Scheme.

(2) In making regulations under this section, the Secretary of State must seek to minimise the administrative burden placed upon the person with a terminal illness.

(3) Regulations under this section must provide that, where the Department of Work and Pensions (“the Department”) holds a valid SR1 form in respect of a person seeking to demonstrate that they are terminally ill for purposes relating to compensation or assistance from the Pension Protection Fund or Financial Assistance Scheme, the Department must share that form with the Pension Protection Fund or the Financial Assistance Scheme.

(4) Regulations under this section must require the Pension Protection Fund and the Financial Assistance Scheme to make the appropriate payment or payments within a specified time of receipt of a valid application.”—(Manuela Perteghella.)

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to provide, by regulations, for the use of a valid SR1 form to make it easier for a person to demonstrate that they are terminally ill for purposes related to compensation from the PPF or FAS.

Brought up, and read the First time.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill

Neil Duncan-Jordan Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Wednesday 5th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)]

I begin by echoing the thanks expressed to Members in all parts of the House and in the other place who have contributed to the Bill. In particular, I pay tribute to the excellent work of Baroness Finn, Viscount Younger and Lord Vaux, whose detailed and constructive engagement made the Bill stronger, more balanced and more effective.

This Bill is about protecting taxpayers’ money, ensuring fairness for those who play by the rules, and giving our public bodies the powers that they need to tackle fraud and error wherever they occur. Every pound lost to fraud is a pound taken from taxpayers, public services and the people who rely on them. Tackling fraud and error and sending a clear message to fraudsters that they will not succeed is vital, and this Bill took an important step towards doing that, but there was more to be done, and our colleagues in the other place have done a brilliant job of scrutinising the legislation. I acknowledge that the Government have been incredibly constructive in their approach. Thanks to the determination of Conservative and Cross-Bench peers, a number of important concessions have been made, improving the Bill.

I will touch on several of the Lords amendments. Lords amendment 1 concerns the power of the Public Sector Fraud Authority to conduct proactive investigations. When the Bill was introduced, the PSFA could act only when invited in by another authority. That risked preventing it from acting, even when there was credible intelligence that fraud was taking place. Our Conservative colleagues in the Lords rightly identified that gap, and brought forward an amendment that would empower the PSFA to act proactively where there were reasonable grounds to suspect fraud, without waiting for a formal request. That ability to act swiftly and decisively is essential if we are to stop fraud before more money is lost. The Government’s amendment in lieu reflects the principles in Lords amendment 1, ensuring that the PSFA’s new powers operate in a clear and accountable framework. This is an important issue, so we welcome that concession, which strengthens the PSFA’s ability to intervene early and protect taxpayers’ money.

Lords amendments 30 and 31 relate to oversight and accountability, and would ensure that with new powers came clear lines of ministerial responsibility. Conservative peers raised legitimate questions about how serious investigative powers in the Bill would be authorised, particularly those based on the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. The principle is simple: when Government officials are to exercise significant powers, Ministers must remain accountable to Parliament for how those powers are used. Following discussions, the Government have tabled amendments in lieu of Lords amendments 30 and 31, which we have accepted as a compromise, on the basis that the initial guidance is subject to a “take note” debate in Grand Committee. That would allow Parliament to consider and scrutinise the guidance in full. I would be grateful if the Minister could, in his closing remarks, confirm that this remains the Government’s position. I apologise if he said so already and I did not quite catch it.

Let me turn to Lords amendment 84. Modern fraud prevention increasingly relies on technology, including artificial intelligence and data-driven eligibility checks. Used well, those tools can help to identify patterns and protect public funds, but they must be used responsibly and transparently. Lord Vaux, Viscount Younger and Baroness Finn raised fair concerns; they said that the use of AI or automated eligibility indicators should never amount to reasonable grounds for suspicion on their own. Technology might inform decisions, but it must not replace human judgment, so it is welcome that the Government have listened. Their amendment in lieu makes it explicit that before any intrusive action is taken, such as amending a benefit or launching an investigation, the information must be reviewed by a suitably qualified human officer. We believe that ensures that we get the best of both worlds; we harness innovation to protect the taxpayer, while retaining human judgment to safeguard individuals.

Lords amendment 43 concerns the eligibility verification mechanism and its impact on vulnerable people and financial institutions. The amendment would task the independent reviewer of the mechanism with assessing how the system takes into account the additional needs of vulnerable people, whether it risks benefits claimants being prematurely de-banked, and the cost to banks and financial institutions of complying. Throughout the passage of this Bill, Members—including Conservative Members—have emphasised the need to protect those who may be more vulnerable, including people facing financial hardship and those with disabilities.

We are disappointed that the Government are not backing Lords amendment 43, but it is reassuring that they have committed to ensuring that all the points made in both Houses are fed directly into the work of the independent reviewer. We understand that a meeting will be set up between Members and the independent reviewer after Royal Assent so that these issues can be explored in detail. We will continue to push to ensure that Ministers deliver on those promises, but we hope that this engagement will ensure that the review proceeds with a full understanding of Parliament’s concerns about proportionality, cost and fairness.

As the Minister rightly said, Government amendment (a) to Lords amendment 75 is essentially a technical correction. We have no issue with it, because it tidies up the text but does not alter the substance of the Bill.

Finally, I turn to Lords amendment 97, which concerns the issue of reasonable force by Department for Work and Pensions investigators. We do not believe that it was the Government’s intention that DWP investigators should use force against individuals—that power rightly rests with the police, who are trained in its use and accountable for it. However, that was not clear in the legislation as originally drafted. The explanatory note stated that

“This power will be limited to using reasonable force against things not people”,

but that was not specified in the Bill. After we raised this issue in Committee in the Commons, Lords amendment 97 sought to clarify that DWP officers may use reasonable force only against property, not against people. The Government’s amendments in lieu are a compromise, but the Bill does now distinguish between the use of force against people, and the use of force against property for investigators who are not constables, which was the clarification we were looking for.

In summary, thanks to the thorough work of colleagues in both Houses, the Bill today is better than when it was first introduced. It gives the Public Sector Fraud Authority the power to act proactively, embeds ministerial accountability, ensures the responsible use of technology, protects vulnerable people, and provides clarity on how enforcement powers may be used. There remain areas in which we think the Bill could be further strengthened—there is still nothing in it to tackle sickfluencers, nor were amendments requiring the Government to review the whistleblowing procedures in the civil service accepted. It is regrettable that the Minister missed those opportunities, but it is welcome that the Government were at least willing to listen in other areas, and we had some very good debates on the bits that the Government have not accepted.

Although we will not oppose the amendments that the Government have tabled in response to the Lords’ amendments, this Bill must not be the limit of their ambition. It is the latest step in cracking down on fraud and error, but we need to see continued effort, action and enforcement from this Government, because the message must be clear that fraudsters must not, and will not, succeed. Every pound stolen through fraud is a pound lost to the taxpayer, our public services and those who do the right thing. That is why we will keep pressing for vigilance, transparency and fairness as this Bill becomes law.

[Neil Duncan-Jordan (Poole) (Ind)]

The Minister may remember that on Report, I tabled a number of amendments in the hope of safeguarding the public from seeing their bank become an arm of the state. Today, I will speak about Lords amendment 43, which deals with the scope of the eligibility verification measure. The EVM would give the DWP power to give certain financial organisations an eligibility verification notice. That notice would require the receiver to identify relevant accounts that specified benefits are paid into, assess those accounts against eligibility indicators and, where there is indication that incorrect payments have been or may be made, share specified details of those accounts with the Department.

The Bill includes provision for an independent reviewer to conduct an annual review of the Secretary of State’s powers under the EVM. Lords amendment 43 seeks to expand the scope of that review to ensure that the costs to banks are proportionate, and that any unintended adverse consequences to benefit recipients are identified. At the moment, the independent review of the EVM need only consider the extent to which the Secretary of State and the financial institutions in receipt of a notice have complied with the requirements when exercising the measure, and whether the EVM has been effective in assisting in identifying incorrect benefit payments. It does not require the independent reviewer to also consider whether the EVM is being used proportionately, which is the key to Lords amendment 43. It is essential that any consideration of the proportionality of the EVM takes into account the potential harm to individuals.

In Committee, several witnesses warned that the EVM could result in serious harm to benefit recipients. For example, there is the possibility of an algorithmic error when automated systems are used on a population-wide scale. If the algorithms are scanning the bank accounts of 10 million people, an error rate of just 1% will result in 100,000 cases where innocent people are wrongly investigated.

Oral Answers to Questions

Neil Duncan-Jordan Excerpts

Monday 1st September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Liz Kendall]

The Labour party believes that everybody who can work must work. The hon. Gentleman should look at his own party’s record: progress on the disability employment gap and the lone parent employment rate stalled under its watch, and economic inactivity rose. We are the only country in the G7 whose employment rate has not got back to pre-pandemic levels. We are overhauling our employment system to help more people into work, and to get on in work. I am proud of our record; maybe he should look at his own.

[Neil Duncan-Jordan (Poole) (Ind)]

Tackling poverty should be a key priority of any Government who wish to see their people thrive. The Equality Act 2010 includes a socioeconomic duty on all public bodies to address inequalities “when making strategic decisions”. When will that duty be enacted in England?

[Liz Kendall]

My hon. Friend raises a really important point. Throughout its work, the DWP is already looking at how to narrow the gaps between different parts of the country and different groups of people. We have set our jobcentres and employment systems new targets for reducing those gaps, and we are taking cross-Government action to tackle child poverty. We have achieved a lot. There is a lot more to do, but this Government, unlike Opposition Members, have made tackling poverty an absolute priority. Our child poverty strategy is coming out in the autumn, so I ask hon. Members to watch this space.

Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill

Neil Duncan-Jordan Excerpts

Committee of the whole House & 3rd reading
Wednesday 9th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Nadia Whittome (Nottingham East) (Lab)]

I rise to support my new clause 10, as well as a number of other amendments tabled by my right hon. and hon. Friends, including new clause 8, new clause 11 and amendment 38.

I welcome the concessions that the Government have made to the Bill, which I will be supporting. I pay tribute to the disabled and chronically ill people whose tireless campaigning led to those concessions—I have been proud to stand with them. However, the changes do not alleviate all my concerns about the Bill. One in three disabled people are already in poverty. The Bill, even after the Government’s amendments, would take around £3,000 a year from the disabled people of the future, at a time when the extra cost of being disabled is set to rise by 12% in the next five years.

The Government’s analysis states that the measures in the Bill will lift 50,000 people out of poverty. However, analysis from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation and the New Economics Foundation shows that they would actually push 50,000 disabled people into poverty. We know that benefit cuts and loss of payments help to trap women experiencing domestic abuse, make children grow up in poverty and even cost lives, like that of my constituent Philippa Day, who died from a deliberate overdose after her benefits were wrongly cut.

This is particularly pertinent to those with fluctuating conditions, who risk losing LCWRA status during periods of temporary improvement. That is why amendment 38 is so vital, as it would ensure that they are protected. Even with the Government’s concessions, not a single disabled people’s organisation supports this Bill. It is at the request of the disabled people’s organisations forum in England that I have tabled new clause 10, which would require the Government to publish a human rights memorandum before the Bill can be enacted.

No analysis of the impact of the Bill on the human rights of disabled people has been published so far. Last year, the UN found that there had been further regression in the “grave and systemic violations” of disabled people’s rights in the UK, which it reported on in 2016. Last night, the UN wrote to the Government to say that it had “received credible information” indicating that the Bill will “deepen” that regression. We should not proceed with the Bill as it stands.

Disabled people’s organisations remain sceptical about the Timms review into PIP. I am hopeful that the Government will support the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Dr Tidball), which would make provision for commitments around co-production and oversight. They must also support new clause 8, which would ensure that changes from the Timms review are introduced as primary legislation. That is essential in ensuring democratic scrutiny—otherwise, MPs will not be able to amend or vote on the legislation. It would also prevent a reduction in eligibility for PIP, which we know would be disastrous and which motivated so many of us on the Government Benches to call on the Government to think again.

I joined the Labour party because of what I experienced and witnessed growing up as a child and a teenager under the Conservatives. As a disabled MP, I have first-hand experience of the disability benefits system. We have all met constituents who are already not getting the support they need. The question today is this: do we let their number grow? If the answer is no, I urge Members to support the amendments that would strengthen protections for disabled people and, ultimately, to vote down this Bill.

[Neil Duncan-Jordan (Poole) (Lab)]

I rise to call for the removal of clauses 2 and 3 from the Bill, because I think they get to the heart of the unfairness contained within it.

There can be no doubt for those of us who were here last week that trust was eroded between the Government and disabled people’s organisations—that trust will need to be slowly rebuilt over the coming months. We should therefore recognise that a positive step in that direction is the Government’s decision to pause on the issue of PIP reform and to place those decisions in the hands of the Timms review. However, that is not enough, because the Bill still contains a proposal to cut £2 billion from the universal credit health element for more than 750,000 future claimants.

From next April, we will have created a two-tier benefits system based not on health needs, but on the date when a claim was made. In fact, there are already nearly 4.8 million disabled people living in poverty today across the country. That is a damning indictment of our welfare system and should be a wake-up call to bring that number down, not to make it go even higher.

The numbers are stark. Taking £3,000 a year, or £250 a month, from disabled people’s income will force families to a crisis point and into further reliance on food banks. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation claims that if the cuts are not removed, an additional 50,000 people will be forced into poverty. Even before this cut, three quarters of all universal credit health element recipients are already experiencing material deprivation and are unable to afford the essentials on which to live. If we are serious about genuinely reforming the benefits system and putting disabled people and their organisations at the heart of any changes, I cannot see why the health element of universal credit would not also be part of the Timms review.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Lavery]

Is my hon. Friend aware that 25% of those claiming the health element of universal credit used a food bank last year, or that a third of those who claim it could not afford to heat their homes last year?

[Neil Duncan-Jordan]

That intervention is further evidence that our welfare system is not working. I understand that some Members may consider voting for this Bill tonight because of the proposed uplift to the standard rate of universal credit. Disabled groups that I have met are clear that that is not worth having if it is to be done at the expense of other disabled people further down the line. Members will have seen the letter yesterday from the UN committee on the rights of persons with disabilities, which has raised serious concerns that the Bill will deepen the signs of regression in disabled people’s human rights. The answer therefore remains that clauses 2 and 3 of the Bill need to be removed. We should allow the Timms review to look at all aspects of the benefits system and report back next year. That is what disabled people and their organisations want, and that is what I will vote for.

[Lizzi Collinge (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Lab)]

Last week, I voted against the Government because I was not happy with the proposals on the table. When the Bill was initially put forward, I was particularly concerned about the proposed changes to PIP eligibility criteria, which in my view were arbitrary and risked taking support from those who need it most. I am glad to say that the Government have listened and acted.

As a result of Government amendment 4, which will remove changes to PIP eligibility, alongside making other positive changes, I can now—carefully and with reservations—support the Bill as amended. The removal of changes to PIP eligibility criteria from this Bill protects carers and prevents the consequential loss of carer’s allowance. As a former carer, that is important to me.

I have put a lot of thought into this issue over the preceding weeks. I have listened to my constituents, and I have been thinking about what is important to them. Not only have the amendments removed the changes to PIP that I was worried about, but the Bill will now include vital increases to the basic level of universal credit. I do not feel able to vote against that today.

We inherited a heck of a mess from the last Conservative Government, and I do not think anyone disagrees that there is a need for change. We need a system that is well designed, that works, and that is fair to both claimants and other taxpayers, so I welcome the ministerial review of the PIP assessment. Co-production with disabled people and the organisations that represent them is particularly welcome. Conducting a thorough review in genuine co-production, leading to well-thought-out proposals for reform, is the right thing to do.

Pension Schemes Bill

Neil Duncan-Jordan Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 7th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Neil Duncan-Jordan (Poole) (Lab)]

The Bill represents a timely attempt to create a system whereby fewer and bigger pension funds can provide better value for members and do more to support the UK economy. Key to this, though, will be ensuring that pensioners get a decent income in retirement, alongside creating the conditions that allow pension funds to invest in ways that benefit the UK, support good jobs and finance a just transition to a low-carbon economy.

The Bill needs to acknowledge, in the direction it takes, the scale of the task that we face. One in six pensioners today lives in poverty. Only 62% of pensioners receive an occupational pension of any kind, and those who do get an average of just £210 a week. Half of defined-contribution savers—around 14 million people—are not on track for the income they expect, and the 2017 auto-enrolment review recommendations have still not been implemented. Those challenges need to be addressed, along with the unfairness of the current rules around tax relief, which benefit higher earners and need reform.

As has been mentioned this evening, the Bill does not consider the specific issue of adequacy, and how the state pension interacts with defined-benefit and defined-contribution schemes. Given that the aim of a pension is to provide an income in retirement, it is vital that we look at pensions in the round, not just those associated with occupational or private schemes. A statutory review into retirement incomes every five years would give this and future Governments the oversight needed to regularly assess the adequacy of our pension system, including the opportunity to look at contribution rates for employers and employees. I am aware that the second stage of the pensions review will consider those points, but I would be grateful if the Minister gave a little more clarity on when that is likely to begin.

The Bill needs to be strengthened on the issue of climate change and the destruction of nature. UK pension schemes continue to hold around £88 billion in fossil fuel companies, including those involved in new coal, oil and gas exploration, and have investments in companies linked to deforestation around the globe. Over 85% of leading schemes lack a credible climate action plan. Consolidating smaller pension pots into larger megafunds provides the ability to invest in long-term infrastructure projects, but that must not be at the expense of the environment.

[Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)]

Does the hon. Member agree that there is an opportunity here to do something transformational for our local communities by enabling funds, particularly local government pension funds, to invest in much-needed infrastructure like care homes, special schools or even our high streets, which would provide a secure long-term return and could be transformational for local communities that need investment?

[Neil Duncan-Jordan]

I think that what the hon. Member raises is the creativity that we need on this issue, so that we look beyond the obvious investments towards some that perhaps have more social worth. I hope that the Bill will allow for that.

For pension savers to have a secure future, we will need to phase out investments in fossil fuels. As the Chancellor has recognised, all financial sector regulation and legislation should integrate climate and nature. I would be grateful if the Minister could therefore address whether there will be legislative action, not just voluntary commitments, to phase out the destructive environmental investments that pension funds currently make, and to introduce an element of the Bill that acknowledges the connection between green investments, environmental protection and decent pensions.

Turning to the local government pension scheme, governance structures vary widely across the existing pools, and reporting has been inconsistent. Pooling arrangements have not always provided the power to influence investments, which is why the TUC, for example, is calling for a thorough review of the performance of existing pools to identify best practice in the relationship between funds and pools, as well as in governance arrangements, and for the introduction of clear and consistent reporting requirements before any acceleration and further consolidation takes place.

It is also important to point to the democratic deficit that exists within the scheme as a whole. While the role of member representatives within the LGPS is a great strength, they are largely absent from pool governance structures at present, and this legislation does not specify a role for those people. Given that pension funds are the deferred wages of the workforce, we must ensure that there is greater member engagement and democratic oversight by those involved in the scheme. Not only should this stretch to having guaranteed places on boards with full voting rights, but it must ensure that scheme members can have their say as to where their money is invested. There will undoubtedly be occasions when members are concerned about investments in particular industries, or, I would add, in particular countries, and they should have a mechanism by which those views can be expressed.

[Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is good that, in the local government pension scheme, representatives of both employers and employees can sit on the pension committees, and that we often have trade union representatives on the committees as well?

[Neil Duncan-Jordan]

My hon. Friend is quite right. Trade unions do sit on many of the LGPS committees. I was making the point that it is on the pools where there is less representation for those member voices to be heard, and that is extremely important.

Finally, I want to talk about the pre-1997 pensioners. We know that those who have seen the biggest drop in income are those who built up pensions before 1997. They have not received an annual inflation-linked increase to their pension and, over time, particularly when inflation is high, the value of their pension is eroded. Some 80,000 Pension Protection Fund members, mostly older people and disproportionately women, including some of my constituents, find themselves in this position. I hope the Government will therefore consider legislating to provide inflation protection on pre-1997 benefits, and to give the PPF greater flexibility to use its surplus to give discretionary improvements to members.

In conclusion, the idea that workers’ pension funds can be used to build much-needed social housing and invest in green technology and jobs is something that a progressive Labour Government should be proud of, and I hope we can ensure that the Bill delivers a win for pensioners, a win for our environment and a win for society as a whole.

Welfare Reform

Neil Duncan-Jordan Excerpts

Monday 30th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Neil Duncan-Jordan (Poole) (Lab)]

I thank the Secretary of State for her statement. I wonder if she will reflect on whether the Bill before us tomorrow is the best way of making welfare policy. Would it not be better to withdraw the Bill and wait for the Timms review to complete its important work?

[Liz Kendall]

Welfare touches on the lives of millions of people in this country every single day. Making changes to it is never easy—perhaps particularly for a Labour Government, because tackling poverty and inequality is in our DNA. However, I believe that we must begin to make these changes to ensure that those who can work get the support they need, to protect those who cannot and to begin to slow the rate of increase in the number of extra people going on to sickness and disability benefits. I believe that the route to equality and social justice can never come from extra benefit spending alone; it has to come from putting in place good jobs, a decent health service, skills and transport infrastructure—the good world of work that we know is key to bringing about a better life.

Disabled People in Poverty

Neil Duncan-Jordan Excerpts

Tuesday 17th June 2025 Westminster Hall

[Neil Duncan-Jordan (Poole) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered Government support for disabled people in poverty.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. Most hon. Members present will be aware that this debate takes place in the shadow of the publication of the welfare Bill, probably tomorrow, which could usher in some of the deepest and most severe cuts to disability benefits since 2010.

We already know that the current benefits system is not working. Some 700,000 families with a disability are already living in poverty, and 75% of people who turn to food banks are disabled or live in a disabled household. Figures from the Department for Work and Pensions in March this year revealed that 4.7 million people in disabled households are facing hunger, and unsurprisingly, women make up the majority of those disabled people and carers.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I withdrew my name so that other Members would have time to speak, but I will make a small intervention. In Northern Ireland, over a fifth of the population aged 16 to 64 are disabled. Among the UK regions, Northern Ireland has the lowest disability employment rate and the largest unemployment gap between disabled and non-disabled persons. The fact is, if someone is disabled and in poverty in Northern Ireland, they are really in trouble. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is up to this Government, and this Minister, to give us the changes that we need to help those disabled people in poverty in Northern Ireland and elsewhere?

[Neil Duncan-Jordan]

Yes, I agree, and later I will talk about disabled people and how employment may be a route out of poverty.

Any losses through changes to benefits will overwhelmingly fall on those who are already the poorest in our society. The Government are right that the social security system is in need of reform, but benefits are far from generous, and they often fail to cover the essentials of living. The process of claiming support can also be extremely complicated and confusing, and that often leads to individuals incorrectly filling in the forms or finding the process too difficult to even start. The assessment process, which is outsourced to five private companies, can be slow and is often open to appeal.

[Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)]

My constituent in Langport, Samantha, is a recipient of personal independence payment. She had treatment for endometritis and is struggling with cancer. Her PIP review was submitted in 2024. It comprised 100 pages of evidence—an onerous process that took six weeks to complete—and she is still awaiting a decision. Does the hon. Gentleman recognise my concern that the Government’s intention to make what is already a burdensome process more challenging will discriminate against the most vulnerable in our society?

[Neil Duncan-Jordan]

I absolutely agree with the hon. Member.

All the things I described need to be addressed, but the fear among disabled people is that the changes outlined in the “Pathways to Work” Green Paper, which may or may not find their way into the Bill, amount to piling more cuts on to an already broken system.

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)]

In my constituency, 23,000 people receive universal credit and 11,000 receive PIP. I have asked what impact the changes will have on people going into poverty or being helped into work, and I have had very few answers. Estimates from Health Equity North show that the changes will amount to about £22 million a year being taken out of the local economy. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is utterly unconscionable for us to decide to produce that outcome without any evidence to demonstrate the benefits? We are effectively voting blind, and that is simply not acceptable.

[Neil Duncan-Jordan]

I thank my hon. Friend for his contribution. I will later talk about the evidence that we need to see before we come to a vote.

[Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making a strong case. Further to the previous intervention, 44,000 disabled people in my constituency risk losing PIP. They are absolutely horrified, because they will not only lose their dignity but be pushed into serious poverty. This is not the right way to do things, and it is certainly not the Labour way to do things. Does he agree that the right choice would be to tax the super-rich, so they pay their fair share?

[Neil Duncan-Jordan]

We absolutely have to look at our taxation system and ensure that those with the broadest shoulders carry the biggest burden, rather than saving money on the back of disabled people.

Even the Government’s own assessment shows that the changes are likely to have a significant financial impact on claimants. For example, tightening the eligibility criteria for personal independence payment so that individuals will be required to score four points in at least one category will mean that 800,000 people lose the daily living element of PIP, with an average loss of £4,500 a year. The points system is already deeply flawed, especially for those with dynamic disabilities such as multiple sclerosis or myalgic encephalomyelitis. The domino effect of tightening PIP eligibility will be severe, because it acts as a passport to other support—150,000 people are set to lose their carer’s allowance if someone they care for no longer qualifies. That could mean a loss to a household of £10,000 a year.

We know that having a disability is expensive: on average, households that have someone with a disability need over £1,000 a month more to have the same standard of living as non-disabled households. The proposed changes to the health element of universal credit will freeze the benefits of over 2 million people, and an estimated 730,000 new claimants will get a lower rate of £50 a week.

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

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the sensitivities involved in considering, discussing and voting on such a serious matter require, at the very minimum, an equality impact assessment? It is only through such assessments that we can understand the impact on residents up and down the country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Neil Duncan-Jordan]

I agree. I will come on to that later in my speech.

Those individuals I mentioned—the 730,000 new claimants who will get the lower rate of universal credit—will see an average loss of £3,000 a year. The health element of universal credit will also be cut for those aged under 22, removing vital support that helps young people into work, education and training. The Government cannot claim to want to help young people into work while taking away their safety net. People in all those groups are already struggling to make ends meet so, in reality, the figures are likely to be an underestimate of the scale of the pain being proposed.

A recent freedom of information request revealed that 1.3 million people who currently get the standard daily living award will no longer qualify, which is significantly higher than the Office for Budget Responsibility’s estimated 800,000 people. As a result, 350,000 people will be pushed below the poverty line. In total, over 3 million households will lose out, with as many as 100,000 children being pushed into poverty.

I have heard Ministers repeat the claim that only one in 10 PIP recipients will be affected by the proposals, but that is based on the false assumption that people will get better at filling in the claim forms and that more people will be successful in scoring four points. There is absolutely no evidence to show that that will be the case. The one in 10 figure also does not take into account the potential new claimants who will lose out.

[Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)]

On the suggestion that there is no evidence, does the evidence not come from when the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee looked at previous assessment changes?

[Neil Duncan-Jordan]

I have not seen that evidence, but what I have seen points me in a different direction.

We already know that PIP is an underclaimed benefit, as I think my hon. Friend would acknowledge, and that fewer than half of the disabled people who are eligible to make a claim do so. I would therefore argue that the recent increase in the number of claims is largely the result of declining public health in this country combined with the increased financial hardship that disabled people are facing.

The Government have suggested there has been an unsustainable rise in the benefits bill, but as a percentage of GDP, we are spending the same amount on working-age benefits as we were in 2015. Cuts to social security are not an economic necessity; they are a political choice. It has been suggested in the media recently that the transitional arrangements for someone who loses their PIP will be extended from four to 13 weeks, but that only delays the fact that the Government will be making people permanently poorer.

It is right for Ministers to say that work can be a route out of poverty, and that disabled people should be supported to find a job, but the proposed £1 billion of support comes in only at the end of the Parliament—three years after the cuts have been introduced. The Learning and Work Institute estimates that only 45,000 to 90,000 people might find work through that proposed employment support, which cannot possibly offset the 3.2 million people who are having their benefits cut. It is a completely false equivalence.

As hon. Members know, PIP is not an out-of-work benefit, so cutting it is likely to undermine efforts to get people into employment, rather than supporting them into gainful work. Too often, the attitude of employers is the real barrier to disabled people finding a job. Reluctance to offer flexible working patterns, harsh sickness absence policies and disability discrimination are the blockers that many disabled people face. Tackling those would be an important place to start.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Neil Duncan-Jordan]

I will give way to somebody who has not already spoken.

[Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)]

The hon. Member is talking about barriers to disabled people, particularly those in poverty. I am running a campaign calling on the Government to make sure that people with disabled bus passes can use them at any time of the day, rather than just after 9.30 am. Does he agree that that would be a great way to alleviate the poverty of disabled people?

[Neil Duncan-Jordan]

The hon. Member makes an excellent point, and it is certainly a campaign that I would put my weight behind.

[Neil Coyle]

On the hugely important issue of discrimination that my hon. Friend touched on, does he agree that it is completely unacceptable that the Government inherited a position where the Department for Work and Pensions was being investigated for unlawful discrimination against disabled people? That is another of the issues that the ministerial team and the Government are having to fix—issues that they inherited from the chaotic and incompetent Governments of the previous 14 years, five of which were in coalition with the Lib Dems.

[Neil Duncan-Jordan]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. We make a mistake if we say that we can do only one thing and not the other. We can tackle discrimination in the way that he rightly argues, but we do not have to make people poorer in the process. A false argument is being put forward.

There is also a misguided view that cutting expenditure and tightening belts brings savings. We know that that approach shrinks the economy and leaves everybody worse off.

[Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)]

Does the hon. Member agree that these proposed or suspected cuts to PIP and other benefits are a sword of Damocles hanging over disabled people in this country? Although the savings are expected to be about £4.5 billion across Britain by 2029-30, that does not factor in any of the broader systemic costs, especially those borne by the NHS and local authorities, which could well negate or even exceed that sum.

[Neil Duncan-Jordan]

The hon. Member has foreseen what I was about to say.

According to the New Economics Foundation, the Government’s projected savings could be entirely wiped out due to depressed economic demand in local communities. Cutting disability benefits will also inevitably lead to increased costs elsewhere through rising pressure on the NHS and local authority social care.

Most of all, people who are already under financial pressure will be even worse off. That is why virtually all major disability organisations are critical of the Government’s proposals. I am sure that I am not the only one who believes that the Government are rushing these proposals through, with MPs being asked to vote in a couple of weeks’ time, before the OBR’s estimates of the employment impact, the review of the PIP assessment, and the Keep Britain Working review into tackling health-related inactivity have been published.

Recognising that the benefits system needs to change, we should halt any proposals for cuts, redesign the system with disabled people and their organisations, and provide up-front investment to support those who can get into meaningful work.

[Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)]

My constituency is the home of the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst and the Army Training Centre Pirbright, and is just next door to Aldershot, so veterans, many of whom have career-acquired disabilities, are an integral part of our community. According to recent statistics, 16% of disabled veterans are unable to heat their own homes, and the Trussell Trust says that more than half are considered to be food insecure. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is vital that we offer disabled veterans bespoke support to compensate them for their careers and the lives they have given in the service of our country?

[Neil Duncan-Jordan]

Veterans, like every disabled individual, should get the support they deserve.

Labour created the modern welfare state, underpinned by universalist principles, to provide dignity and fairness to people when they need a helping hand. That, in my view, is what we should be doing now.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

Winter Fuel Payment

Neil Duncan-Jordan Excerpts

Monday 9th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Torsten Bell]

I agree that we should welcome all Labour Back Benchers, because they are the people going through the Lobbies every day to keep in place a Labour Government who are saving public services, taking tough but fair decisions on tax—decisions that are opposed by all the Opposition parties—rescuing our public services and driving down poverty. That is what a Labour Government is about, and that is what everyone on the Labour Benches agrees on.

[Neil Duncan-Jordan (Poole) (Lab)]

I welcome today’s statement. As one of the MPs who spoke against the decision to means-test the winter fuel payment last year, I pay tribute to all the campaigners who have lobbied hard for a change in policy. Does the Minister agree that means-testing has once again failed and that effectively what we are seeing today is the return of Labour’s commitment to universalism and to using the taxation system to get money back from those who are better-off?

Pensions: Expatriates

Neil Duncan-Jordan Excerpts

Tuesday 20th May 2025 Westminster Hall

[Neil Duncan-Jordan (Poole) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd. I congratulate the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford) on securing this important debate on an issue that is often overlooked, as I think we would all agree. It is fair to say that successive Governments have ignored this issue for decades and, understandably, many UK citizens are unaware of what would happen to their state pension if they were to relocate to one of the countries affected by this regressive arrangement.

It seems completely arbitrary that someone could emigrate to America and continue to receive an annual uprating in their state pension, but not if they went to Canada. We have heard that the blight of frozen pensions affects nearly half a million British citizens living overseas, despite the fact that they paid national insurance contributions for much of their working lives.

The impact of this arrangement is absolutely shocking. We have already heard that four in 10 frozen pensioners report that they struggle to afford items such as food and fuel. In my view, our state pension system is already insufficient to meet the needs of millions of existing and future pensioners, but let us imagine how inadequate it would be if the pension failed to rise at least in line with inflation or earnings for more than 20 years of someone’s retirement.

Most pensioners in this position were never informed that their state pension would be frozen in this way. The scandal therefore has a number of parallels with those behind other campaigns, such as that affecting women born in the 1950s, who argue that they saw their state pension age increase without due notice.

Such measures only end up hurting the most vulnerable in our society. Taken alongside recent decisions to means-test the winter fuel allowance, which was mentioned earlier; the refusal to pay compensation to the WASPI women; and the proposed cuts to disability benefits, it could appear that the Government are trying to balance the country’s books on the back of some of the poorest members of our society.

Although there will always be a cost to Government decisions, I ask the Minister to consider that beginning to uprate the frozen pensions at a future date would cost only around £55 million a year. Most commentators would understand that that is not beyond the realms of possibility. It would be a significant step not only in showing that the Government are on the side of older people who have made a contribution to our country, but in unravelling a long-standing anomaly that the public simply cannot understand.

Finally, the Government should also consider that with changes to the overseas voting rules, as was mentioned earlier, many of the UK pensioners affected by the frozen pension scandal are now in fact registered voters in the UK.

[Douglas McAllister (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab)]

My West Dunbartonshire constituent, Fraser, has now retired and lives in Australia. He is one of the half a million British citizens and voters now affected by this 70-year outdated and harsh practice. He is from my home town of Clydebank. He worked in the ordnance factory in Bishopton for decades, and then in the Govan shipyards. He paid his national insurance contributions for many years, but his pension is frozen. He tells me that every year it is getting harder and harder for him to make ends meet.

Does my hon. Friend agree that that is a scandalous injustice? We are not seeking a full backdating, but for the Government to introduce some form of yearly indexing to answer that injustice.

--- Later in debate ---

[Neil Duncan-Jordan]

Yes, I wholeheartedly agree that now is the time to grasp an issue that successive Governments of all shades have failed to grasp. This is the Government’s chance to do something positive for older people by ending the injustice once and for all, and I urge them to do so.