Pension Schemes Bill

Viscount Thurso Excerpts

Monday 23rd February 2026 Grand Committee

I am sorry that this is so muddled and complicated, because it is, but the good news is that there are fewer than 1,000 of these pensioners left. Now is the time for action to honour these aspirations, before they all die—or is that what we wish? It is wrong, and I think we should correct it and ensure better treatment for the pensioners via the Bill under consideration. I beg to move.

[Viscount Thurso (LD)]

My Lords, I rise to support my noble friend, particularly in respect of Amendment 218, to which I have added my name. I do so because I have something of an interest: for most of its existence and until quite recently, the superannuation fund of the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority was based in Thurso. A number of my former constituents were beneficiaries of that fund and a small number of them ended up becoming beneficiaries of the AEAT plc fund, when that came into existence. It has always struck me that something remarkably close to mis-selling went on at the beginning and that we really have a moral duty to try to correct it.

I, too, looked at the comments that the Minister made in her speech on 5 February. As my noble friend pointed out, she said that the case around AEAT pensions had “been fully considered”. What sprang to my mind when I read those words was the scene in “Independence Day”, when the President is telling everybody that there is no such thing as Area 51 and Defense Secretary Nimziki says that that is not, strictly speaking, true.

Looking at the Minister’s comments that came afterwards that there were three ombudsmen involved, as my noble friend said, the ombudsmen were all asked and all declined, because of vires, to give an answer. Looking at the parliamentary scrutiny, that was two Westminster Hall debates, one by Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown and one by Sir Oliver Letwin, I think. As anybody who has done a Westminster Hall debate knows, that is not proper parliamentary scrutiny. Of much more importance were the NAO and PAC reports, which came to the conclusion that there was a case to answer. Indeed, the last Pensions Minister in the previous Government, Paul Maynard, accepted that something should be done and suggested that something would be done, but the election has intervened.

The core issue is that the Government Actuary’s Department, in its publications, gave the distinct impression that the quality of the pension for those who transferred would have an equivalent security to the quality of the pension that had the Crown guarantee with UKAEA. That is clearly not the case, which is the core issue around all this.

As an aside, and in parenthesis, there have been occasions when a Crown guarantee has in these circumstances been transferred across. I was in fact responsible for one when I was chairing VisitScotland and we took the Scottish staff out of the BTA scheme and obtained a Crown guarantee to let that happen, so it is perfectly possible.

This amendment gives an elegant redress that the Government can use to look at, as my noble friend says, a very small number of remaining pensioners suffering under this. I commend it to the Government. In summary, this seems to me to be something that, were it in the private sector and sold by a bank on the high street, would be called PPI, frankly. That is the level of it, in my humble judgment. Therefore, first, there is a duty to do something about a clear mis-selling. Secondly, it has not been properly scrutinised up until the NAO and PAC reports. Consequent on those reports, a previous Government Minister indicated that they would look at doing something about it. For all those reasons, we should now take this opportunity to right a manifest wrong.

[Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)]

These two amendments are grouped together. There are clear common themes between them, the most obvious one being dissatisfied scheme members: dissatisfied pensioners concerned that they have ended up worse off than they might reasonably have expected. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Palmer of Childs Hill, for his excellent description of both problems, and in broad terms I support the spirit behind these amendments. Of course, both of them call for a review, but in truth we do not really need a review; we know that wrong was done here and we are really asking for the Government to accept some responsibility for providing an element of redress.

Amendment 216 is actually about a thing called integration in pension schemes. This was a technique used widely in the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s, where the occupational pension had a target taking account of the state pension, integrating the state pension into the benefit model. Where the retirement age of the scheme was, for example, 60—we had schemes with a retirement age of 60 in those days—it was integrated by paying more money between 60 and 65. We are talking about a man here. That was when the state pension would come into payment. At that point, the scheme pension would be reduced to allow for the fact that they are now getting this pension from the state.

That is an issue of scheme design, and my view is that the rules of the scheme should be set through collective bargaining. The problem is that that sort of arrangement is much more obvious to someone like me with a lot of experience. I sometimes would claim that my superpower is understanding scheme rules. It is absolutely clear to me, but I can well understand that an ordinary member of the scheme would not immediately have that understanding. Of course, it is quite possible that they see their pension being cut when they get to state pension age. In some schemes, it is actually cut before they get to state pension age now, because the rules still refer to a reduction at 65 and the state pension is not payable until 66, so there are big problems.

Of course, it is possible to look at it the other way around: the member is actually getting a bigger pension after state pension age, and that is to their advantage. This goes to the central point, which is a lack of understanding among scheme members. Were they misled into giving more credit to the scheme? Clearly, for the particular campaigning groups we have heard from—under Amendment 216, there are a number of different groups—their case rests on the argument that the way the rules worked was not adequately explained to them, and they need compensation for how they were misled.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)]

My Lords, I begin by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, for bringing forward these two amendments. I hope noble Lords will forgive me if I am relatively brief. At this stage, I am not sure that there is a great deal to add beyond listening carefully to the Minister’s reply and reflecting on it.

Turning to Amendment 216, the intention behind the proposed new clause is plainly serious and honourable. It goes to the heart of many of the issues that the noble Lord explored in speaking to the more specific provisions in Amendment 218. It seeks to ensure that, where members of occupational pension schemes have suffered detriment as a result of the actions or omissions of employers, sponsors or administrators, those injustices are properly examined. That instinct is entirely understandable.

When failures occur, whether through poor governance, inadequate communication or regulatory weakness, the consequences can be profound. Members may discover losses only years later, often at or near retirement, when there is little opportunity to recover. For some, that can mean genuine hardship. It is therefore right that this House remains vigilant and does not dismiss concerns about injustice lightly. The proposed new clause is also right to emphasise information failures, governance weakness and access to redress. Transparency, fiduciary duty and effective routes to remedy are fundamental to maintaining trust in the pension system.

However, while the intention is sound, we must consider carefully whether this is the right practical solution. First, there are already several mechanisms in place to investigate and adjust injustice. The Pensions Regulator exercises oversight and enforcement powers, the Pension Ombudsman provides an independent route for complaints and can issue binding determinations and parliamentary committees have repeatedly examined systemic issues in pension governance. Before establishing a further independent review, we should ask whether there is a clearly defined gap in the existing framework.

Secondly, the proposed new clause is framed in very broad terms. It calls for a

“review into injustices experienced by members … as a result of the actions or omissions”

across the occupational pension landscape. That could encompass decades of case history, multiple regulatory regimes and a wide variety of scheme structures. There is a risk that the scope becomes so expansive that it proves difficult to deliver focused and actionable conclusions within the proposed timescale.

We must also be mindful of expectations. A statutory independent review, particularly one examining injustice and potential options for compensation, may raise hopes of large-scale financial redress. If the eventual conclusions are more limited, or if remedies carry significant financial implications, it may lead to further disappointment among those affected.

If there are clearly identifiable categories of members who have fallen through gaps in the system, or areas where regulatory architecture has demonstrably failed, those issues should indeed be examined with care and precision. In short, the intention behind the proposed new clause is principled and compassionate. It recognises that pensions are about security and dignity in later life, and that injustice in this sphere can have lasting consequences. The question for us is whether a broad, independent review, commissioned within three months and covering the full occupational landscape, is the most effective and proportionate way to achieve that objective. I look forward to the Minister’s reply.

[Viscount Thurso (LD)]

The noble Baroness has answered the broad point in my noble friend’s first amendment, but there is the narrow point in AEA Technology, which seems to meet exactly what she said: namely, that there is a specific gap that members have fallen through, where Ministers in this place and the other place are both giving cast-iron assurances and documentation and still there is a problem. Does she accept that this needs particular attention?

[Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)]

I made it very clear we have to look at where things have fallen through a system and where people have been severely impacted, and we have to look at it compassionately. My question was whether this is the right method and vehicle to do this, not whether we should look at it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Viscount Thurso (LD)]

My Lords, I was not going to take part in this short debate, but I am drawn into it by some of the comments that the noble Lord made. In respect of future funding, it is an absolutely valid point that we should have regard to the liability we are accruing, and we should work out how we want to fund it. That is open for debate, and I do not take issue with it in any way, shape or form. But the central point is that we employ public service workers on a contract which is in part what we pay them now and in part what they will get in the future. There is an obvious trade-off between the fact that they will be earning less during their working lifetime but probably for a better pension.

Indeed, I look to my sons, if I may. One is a police constable in Scotland. Before he became a police constable, he ran a hotel and got a degree in hotel management. He is now being paid about two-thirds of what he would have earned as a hotel manager, where he would have been funding his own pension on auto-enrolment. He is doing what he loves doing and has chosen it because he looks at what he will get in retirement as part of the package for the service he gives now. My other son is a primary school teacher in south London, who also has a degree in hospitality and ran a hotel. As somebody in the hospitality industry, I am doing my best to talk the industry down, but I do not mean to do that. The point I mean to make is that they both decided they had vocations and both have given up a considerable amount of current earnings to do something in public service that they like.

So, although I agree entirely that we should look at funding, I disagree that defined benefit schemes are inherently wrong. I am a trustee of the Parliamentary Contributory Pension Fund. MPs put in roughly 11%; the Treasury puts in 10%; it is fully funded and all the liabilities are covered. The noble Lord said—I wrote it down—that 20% of the privileged have awarded themselves a pension. I take issue with that. Tell it to the police constable being spat at in the aftermath of Covid on the streets of Aberdeen. Tell it to the primary school teacher who is there for 12 or 14 hours looking after a disabled child and getting them to where they ought to be. Tell it to a nurse who is working a second shift on A&E. If we want public service workers, we either pay them today and tomorrow with a good pension or we up the cost of the public sector by 30% today. It is one or the other.

[Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)]

My Lords, I will say only a couple of things. The first is that this is asking for a review and transparency. It is necessary for us to know the liabilities that are stacked up; there is no getting away from that. My experience in this came in the financial crisis, when I was in Europe and chair of the Economic and Monetary Affairs Committee. We were doing battle with the IMF and the troika and all the cuts that were happening to pensions—for instance in Greece, where they halved all the defined benefit pensions. Over time, the courts have reinserted a lot of them, so they have come back again. That reflects the point about bargains and promises being made—although we have heard today about promises being made and then not happening for some of the erstwhile public sector that unfortunately went through a privatisation.

I see nothing wrong with a review and nothing wrong with the cost of these things being more public knowledge, and I am also for a considered look at whether they have to phase out in the future, whether we have to pay more for these jobs and whether we have to have something that is more together. Although different people might be on different sides of the argument, the fact is that if the crunch time comes—if we have to have the IMF in—I know where the finger will be pointing first, because “been there, done that”. So, let us have a review.