Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Steve Webb)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff North (Jonathan Evans) on securing the debate and welcome the fact that a number of hon. Members have come to the Chamber to register their support for their constituents who have been affected in the way that he describes. He is right to pay tribute to those who have campaigned on the issue for a long time; I recall many such debates in previous Parliaments. The hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan) was certainly one of the principal campaigners on the issue, on behalf of his constituents. Indeed, Derek Wyatt, predecessor of my hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Gordon Henderson), campaigned on the issue during his time as a Member of the House, particularly with respect to the link with ASW Sheerness.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff North rightly said, my involvement goes back a long way. I recall going with Mr Andrew Parr, from ASW Sheerness, and Dr Ros Altmann, to whom my hon. Friend was absolutely right to pay tribute for her role in all this, to see the parliamentary ombudsman way back when. We sat down with the ombudsman and went through all the literature that people were provided with at the time, as well as the concerns about the way successive Governments had said, “No questions asked, company pensions are a good deal.” Essentially, they had said, “Go for it.” As my hon. Friend rightly says, some people lost out very badly. That is, in a sense, how the financial assistance scheme came about.
It is worth reflecting on the sequence of events and the creation of the Pension Protection Fund, and how the financial assistance scheme fits into that universe. The existence of the PPF is germane to my response to my hon. Friend. Rightly, people sometimes ask about what previous pensions Ministers got wrong. One thing that previous pensions Ministers got right was the creation of the PPF. Going forward, people in defined benefit pensions can know that the scheme is paying a levy, that there is a sort of collective insurance and that, essentially, those who see their company become insolvent can expect to receive 100% as pensioners, and 90% as active or deferred members of the scheme.
We can all take some reassurance from the fact that for the sort of scandals my hon. Friend describes—where Governments have encouraged people to save through workplace pensions and then they find that there is an insolvency event and they have lost not only their job, but their pension—there is now pretty good protection in place, although it is not total protection. Insurance schemes tend not to be total, but they are very significant.
One criterion for what we may or may not do with the financial assistance scheme is that I believe it would be wrong to take its principles beyond what the PPF provides. The PPF is a levy-based insurance scheme. It would seem to me to be wrong to say to people whose employers are paying an insurance premium that they will get less insurance cover than those who did not. It is not their fault that they did not, but it would seem to me that that is a logical and coherent position. If we create an insurance scheme and people pay for it, that is what we think is fair provision. Therefore, the financial assistance scheme should not be more generous than the PPF. That, therefore, is part of my initial response to my hon. Friend’s first point about the 2.5% inflation cap. I take his point that we live in times of high inflation, with the consumer prices index at 5.2%, or 5% as the most recent figure. However, if we were to lift the cap on the financial assistance scheme indexation, by corollary we would have to do so on the PPF indexation. If we did not, that would be odd, and we would probably be in court by the end of the day, I suspect. The PPF indexation is funded by the levy payers, so there could be a significant additional cost from removing that cap, which would have to be met by the firms in British industry today that are continuing to run quality pension schemes, or that continue to have liabilities under them. A challenge that we face is the balance between wanting good-quality pension protection and good-quality pension provision. Every time we put a new burden on those who provide final-salary and salary-related pensions, the danger is that another will say, “Forget this, that is just another cost and we will close it.” That is one of the trade-offs.
My hon. Friend mentioned the indexation provisions specific to the ASW scheme, which were relatively generous compared with some, but, to give a feel for the scale of what we might be talking about, if we were to provide indexation along the lines of the schemes that people were in previously, rather than at a general level, it is estimated that we would add about 30% to the cost. Just one of the things on his list would add significantly to the cost.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
I did not intend to intervene, but as the Minister rightly says, in the past he and I were allies at times in working on the issue. We all accept that the deal that eventually happened was not what we would have liked to see, nor was it as adequate as we would have liked—he accepted that at the time—but does he not feel some responsibility at least not to make matters worse, which is what he is doing?
Steve Webb
Let me come on to the CPI point, which is what I assume the hon. Gentleman is referring to. Clearly, the Government took a view in summer 2010 as to the measure of inflation that they would use to uprate benefits and tax credits. There is no perfect measure of inflation; clearly, each has its strengths and weaknesses. However, as a new Pensions Minister in 2010, I received angry letters from people asking why their state earnings-related pension scheme had been frozen. Obviously, “It wasn’t me, guv”, as it were, but their SERPS pension had been frozen because “inflation” in the year to September 2009, as measured by the retail prices index, was negative.
We had a bizarre situation. I have yet to meet a pensioner who felt that inflation was negative in the year to September 2009, but, because mortgage rates were falling dramatically, headline RPI inflation was negative and, therefore, people’s pensions were frozen in 2010. CPI would have given them an increase then.
The further paradox was that, at a time of falling interest rates when savings returns were falling—low interest rates are, on the whole, bad news for pensioners, who tend to be savers rather than borrowers—we were using a negative or a low measure of inflation. That did not seem a good fit to us, particularly for pensioners, so the Government took the view that they would measure inflation using the CPI for benefits, tax credits, state earnings-related pensions, the underpin for occupational pensions and, thereby, via SERPS, public-sector pensions, and the PPF. Having decided that that was what inflation was across whole swathes of the what the Government do, it would be odd to have an island where we measured inflation differently.
I fully accept that that reduces the value of the financial assistance scheme pensions—I cannot dispute that—but that was not the purpose of the exercise, and the effect was well down the track from the decision on the CPI. It would, however, have been incoherent to have said that inflation was something different for the financial assistance scheme.
I have met Pensions Action Group campaigners on a number of occasions over many years, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff North said, and I have great respect for what he described as their dignity and for their perseverance in campaigning, which has got the financial assistance scheme to where it is. The switch to using the CPI has reduced the cost of the financial assistance scheme in the longer term—it has had no impact in the first couple of years because we are above the cap on either measure of inflation—but other factors have led us to spend more on the financial assistance scheme than we were budgeting for. Rather than looking at a budget line that allows me some slack, I am having to explain why I am overspending relative to the budget that I inherited. The reason for that is that new schemes come into the financial assistance scheme, or we get data for schemes that we knew were coming in but for which we did not know the details, and we tend to find out that we have greater liabilities, in particular in the short term, than we had thought.
Working out what we will spend on the financial assistance scheme is not a precise science, although it is getting more so. However, it would be wrong to think that somehow the budget line has some slack in it and that we can decide what to spend it on. On the contrary, I am having to make the case in Government that we have made promises to the financial assistance scheme that we need to keep. Therefore, we have to find extra money compared with what we budgeted for.
Steve Webb
If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I will not, out of respect for my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff North, who secured the debate, but only because I want to respond to his comments.
To be clear, it is not the case, therefore, that some financial slack is available for the financial assistance scheme.
My hon. Friend also mentioned deemed buy-back, which is complex, so I will not say, “Here is one I prepared earlier.” Essentially, deemed buy-back is treating the scheme as if it had not contracted out of SERPS. On the face of it, we would assume that that is better, but it turns out that the situation is rather more complicated than that. At the moment, people in the financial assistance scheme have a level of certainty: they know what the rules are and they know what 90% is and is not. I entirely accept my own point from a few years ago that we have to be careful when we say, “It’s 90%,” because clearly the matter is much more sophisticated than that and there are limits, as he rightly said. However, those people have the certainty of knowing what the scheme rules are. Under deemed buy-back, they would not have that certainty while some people would get more than 100% of their scheme pension and some people less.
Jonathan Evans
Would there not be a responsibility on the trustees to form a view as to whether they wished to action that? My hon. Friend the Minister is indicating that some circumstances could be advantageous and others not, but that would be a judgment made in each case. Currently, no one can exercise such judgment.
Steve Webb
The answer might be different for each individual rather than for each scheme. How would a trustee judge? If the trustees chose deemed buy-back for the scheme and we agreed with that, might they put some members in a worse position and others in a better? How would a trustee balance the different interests of the different members? This is complex.
The other thing about deemed buy-back is that under the financial assistance scheme there is some flexibility as to when the payments are made. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff North thinks that the ill-health provision is too rigid, but there is no ill-health early access to SERPS, so, again, the current system has a measure of flexibility that deemed buy-back would not have. Deemed buy-back, therefore, is complex and technical, and not a silver bullet. We have looked at it—in fact, we have looked at just about everything imaginable to try to find ways to provide better value to those individuals.
My hon. Friend mentioned annuities. All the way through, Dr Ros Altmann has argued that one reason that we did not get good value in the first place was that many of the schemes were annuitising, and if we had got in there quicker, we could have done better. That is absolutely right and why the so-called FAS 2 schemes, in which the Government have taken over the assets, have enabled us to improve to a baseline of 90% compared with what was previously on offer.
To try to take that further, I had a personal meeting with the chief executive of Legal & General—no reason why I should not mention it—which is far and away the company with the most of those books still going. He was content to transfer the schemes across to us on the basis of the book value in his annual accounts. His comment was, “I don’t want to profit from this, but I can’t show a loss, so it goes across at the book value.” I am not sure we have said this before, but Andy Young, who was involved in the Government Actuary’s Department and has been instrumental in all this, helped us considerably, of his own free will, to analyse all the facts and figures and so on. We have had discussions with the Government Actuary and with the Treasury. The short answer is that the book value of those contracts has already got the profit in it. Therefore, we take across something from which the profit has already been made, and the view of the Treasury, which I understand, is that there simply was not the confidence that we would get extra value—that the Government doing this would provide added value. In fact, there was a risk that we would be net losers.
I was keen to pursue that avenue and I hoped that it would provide a way for us to squeeze some extra money into the financial assistance scheme, but, unfortunately, it has proved fruitless. I am disappointed about that, which I told the Pensions Action Group members when I met them a few weeks ago. I was keen not to string them along. The very least that they are owed is a firm statement of the Government’s position. It was suggested that we might have a review, perhaps when the Government have more money, but I was keen not to create a false hope or an expectation, because those group members have been through so many stages. However, considering the state of the public finances, it would have been dishonest and dishonourable of me to suggest that we might find a little pot of money to address their concern.
As I hope is apparent from all that I have said today and through the months that I have dealt with the group, I have huge sympathy for the situation in which they find themselves, but I do not believe that I can offer any realistic prospect of improvements beyond the current financial assistance scheme.