The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Paul Maynard)
I beg to move,
That the draft Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order 2024, which was laid before this House on 15 January, be approved.
I feel almost like a Netflix series, in that people can now binge-watch two episodes of me in a row. I hope none the less that this matter is worth equal consideration.
The Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order sets out the yearly amount by which a guaranteed minimum pension pot of an individual’s contracted-out occupational pension earned between April 1988 and April 1997 must be increased. Occupational pension schemes are required to increase GMPs that were earned during that period and are in payment by 3% for the 2024-25 financial year.
As this is quite a technical matter, I will provide a little background information on GMPs, and what they are and are not. GMPs were created to help make occupational pension provision more affordable and more secure. As many Members present will be aware, the state pension used to be made up of two parts: the flat-rate basic state pension and the earnings-related additional state pension. The flat-rate state pension was funded through the national insurance scheme, and paid the full rate to those with sufficient qualifying years of NI contributions, or pro rata to those with a partial record. The second part of the state pension, the earnings-related additional state pension, was linked to a person’s earnings. The national insurance contributions paid by both the employee and their employer gave the employee the right to an additional earnings-related state pension. That was designed to ensure that as many workers as possible were able to save for their retirement through a work-based pension.
However, many employers already offered their workers a company pension through their own scheme, so many people were already building up an occupational pension, and an earnings-related additional state pension in effect replicated that provision. That was considered onerous and potentially unaffordable for both employers and employees. It was seen as double provision and over-complicated. In order to simplify the situation, the Government of the day introduced in 1978 the system of contracting out, and the provision of guaranteed minimum pensions, which are the subject of this order.
Between April 1978 and April 1997, employers sponsoring a salary-related occupational pensions scheme could “contract out” their occupational pension schemes from the earnings-related additional state pension. People who were members of a contracted-out scheme were taken out of the additional state pension, so as a result both the employer and the pension scheme member paid lower-rate national insurance contributions. In return, salary-related contracted-out occupational pension schemes were required to take on the responsibility for paying their members a guaranteed minimum pension as a part of their occupational pension from the scheme.
The guaranteed minimum pension that the member built up in the scheme would be broadly equivalent in value to the additional state pension that they would have received had they stayed in the state system. The majority of employees would also have built up an occupational pension over and above the guaranteed minimum pension amount, but the scheme pension could never be lower than that guaranteed minimum. The crux of the idea was that, rather than paying additional national insurance to the state in order to build up an additional state pension, people could build up a similar amount of occupational pension through a workplace pension scheme. The system ran in that way from 1978 to 1997. Having set out the detail, which I accept is complicated, let me turn to the order before us.
The order provides a measure of inflation protection for the guaranteed minimum pension part of an occasional pension built up between April 1988 and April 1997. Legislation stipulates that, when there has been an increase in the annual level of prices as measured the previous September, the order must increase the guaranteed minimum pension part of the occupational pension by that percentage or 3%, whichever is lower. As the September 2023 figure was 6.7%, the increase for the financial year 2024-25 will be 3%. The cap of 3% aims to achieve a balance between providing some measure of protection against inflation for members and, crucially, not increasing schemes’ costs beyond what they can generally afford, in order to avoid undermining the viability of some schemes and seeing them go into the Pension Protection Fund.
An obvious question comes to mind: what happens when inflation is above 3%, as it is currently? Most members who reached the state pension age before 2016 will still get the same inflation protection for their post-1988 guaranteed minimum pensions as if they had never been contracted out. That is achieved through an uplift that they receive in their additional state pension. For those reaching state pension age after April 2016, who are therefore receiving the new state pension, there are transitional arrangements in place, which are particularly beneficial for people who are contracted out. These members will therefore still get the 3% increase from their occupational pension schemes.
I recognise that this is perhaps a very complex and technical area, but I am satisfied that the order ensures that the burden placed upon schemes is an appropriate one, but also one that ensures that recipients get an increase in their pensions that gives them some measure of protection against inflation. I therefore commend it to the House.
Paul Maynard
With the leave of the House, let me thank those who have responded to this debate. There has been a bit of speculation about uprating, but does that start from those on the Government Benches and come from nowhere else? It does not; it starts on the Opposition Benches and it is sheer political opportunism, nothing more. It will happen year after year, just as the sun shines and the rain falls.
The shadow Minister made some interesting points that I want to try to respond to, particularly on pension credit, where I know there is a shared desire to make sure that we always maximise take-up. Through the things we have been trying to do lately, besides the television campaign we have been running involving footballers such as Harry Redknapp and so on, every time we write to people about state pension uprating—we are still legally obliged to do so, to 11 million pensioners—they get a piece of paper about pension credit as well. We are trialling writing to pensioners on housing benefit to ask them to apply, to see whether they also are eligible. We have not seen the outcome of that work yet. I am really interested to see it, because it will be a good indicator of whether we can use other datasets to get more people involved. We are seeing much higher claims levels—80% higher than a year ago—so a lot of what we are doing is generating more interest. That does not always feed through to a successful claim, but it is showing that there is more interest.
David Linden
There is no disagreement on this point about pension credit. I just gently ask the Minister to go back to his officials and re-examine the paper form for pension credit, which runs to some 232 questions. Given the nature of the demographic dealing with pension credit forms, there must be a way of trying to simplify them. Does he agree that it might be possible to slim down 232 questions, so as to get more people their pension credit?
Paul Maynard
I very much take the point. I was sitting down today with people from a range of charities to discuss that very point: how do we get access to those who are least inclined to apply at the moment and what groups in society are we missing? The discussion was very much about how an overreliance on IT can often be a barrier and so this is very much part of our thinking.
The shadow Minister also asked about the 2017 reforms, and the extension of auto-enrolment, investing from the first £1 of income and so on. Those things are a personal priority to me. I would love to give her a date for when she will see that; “in due course” is never a good answer to give at the Dispatch Box, but I am afraid that it is the answer at this stage. However, I am pursuing this within the Department, so she has my personal pledge that I am pushing it is as hard as I can. I am also enthusiastic about CDCs, as I know she is. She will be aware that Royal Mail already has a scheme “ready cooked”, and I am keen to see how it progresses, but I want to make sure that other businesses that are also showing an interest can input into the formulation of the more sustainable regulations.
Finally, I come to the point about BP made by the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain). Unfortunately, commitments given in the Chamber do not always align with ministerial diaries as to when I am due to meet people, so on all the things I promised I would raise, I have yet to have a chance to meet the pensions regulator to have that fuller discussion. This is still a case of “watch this space”, but I stand by everything I said in Westminster Hall and it is still on the agenda. On that note, I commend this order to the House.
Question put and agreed to.