How Rachel Reeves prioritised growth over Britain's pension savers
Members of the Pension Protection Fund (PPF) and the Financial Assistance Scheme (FAS) had spent years fighting for their full pension entitlement. Months earlier, the Tories had indicated they might finally be restored.
The PPF and the FAS step in to pay people's pensions when their defined benefit schemes can no longer afford to, often because a firm has gone bust and cannot afford to keep it running. The increasing costs of such schemes, partly due to increased life expectancy, have also put them under pressure.
Over the past 20 years, more than 2,000 schemes have been bailed out. However, the payments members receive are rarely the same as the entitlements they had built up – for some, it isn't even close.
Strict rules mean that when a scheme goes bust, anyone who is not already drawing their pension will only be entitled to 90pc of it when they retire. Crucially, payments for any years built up before 1997 also won't rise with inflation, while any after that are capped at just 2.5pc.
As a result, some members' pensions never increase, while others fall as low as 50pc of what they should have been.
Savers were hoping a Tory intervention would rescue them from retirement poverty while others could have seen six-figure losses reversed as they finally received the full pensions they'd worked decades for.
In July 2024, the power to change lives fell into the hands of the Labour party, bringing fresh hope that a battle stretching across two decades could finally be won.
Yet 12 months on, Chancellor Rachel Reeves continues to ignore their plight, instead choosing to hand a major financial boost to pension providers in her relentless pursuit of growth. A fortnight ago, she announced plans to tweak rules that would mean they no longer have to pay a multi-million pound levy to sustain the scheme, which has raised £10bn over two decades.
Those whose pensions rely on the PPF and FAS called the decision 'shameful', 'morally corrupt' and 'pandering to the industry' as they continue fighting for their full payments.
After years of lobbying, campaign groups are animatedly pointing to the £13.7bn in reserves that the PPF now holds. It would cost just £10.1bn to restore the pensions of its 293,000 members, including awarding inflationary increases of up to 5pc and repaying arrears.
However, the fund is powerless without a change in legislation.
After the election, with hopes growing that Labour would make that change, eyes were keenly trained on the Pension Schemes Bill. When it was published earlier this month, it did contain a major legislative change – but for pension schemes, not members.
The Bill gives the PPF greater powers, but only to reduce the levy that pension schemes pay to sustain it. First collected in 2006-07, it has already fallen significantly since its record level of £720m in 2010-11. It now sits at just £45m, and the PPF will soon be able to reduce it to zero. The levy can be reintroduced again if needed.
The move will give schemes extra cash at a time when they are being pushed into increasing their UK investment by the Chancellor's recent Mansion House reforms.
Saving wealthy pension schemes money when individuals are struggling doesn't sit well with Maurice Alphandary, 70, from Abingdon, near Oxfordshire. He worked as a chemical engineer for AEA Technology, the commercial arm of the UK Atomic Energy Authority, which was privatised before going bust.
He now runs the AEA Technology Pensions Campaign, which has spent 13 years fighting to restore pensions. The current PPF rules will cost him around £100,000.
He said: 'It just shows how toothless the PPF is in protecting the interests of its members against the Government. The Government can just ride roughshod over them.
'On the one hand, the Government says, 'We really care about our pensioners', but they don't. They're just pandering to the industry and it's a way of just running down the surplus instead of giving to the people who have suffered. There's enough money to compensate us.'
His former colleague, 73-year-old Andrew Turner from Abingdon, receives just £18,000 per year from a pension that should pay £29,000.
He said: 'For a Labour government who are supposedly focused on those who are less well off, this seems to be exactly the opposite of what they should be doing.
'The question is why should pension companies be rewarded when we're being penalised. If the Government or the PPF had any moral responsibility, it's those who are in greatest need should have first call on this surplus.'
The Bill contained no news for the 140,000 FAS members either. With no levy, any changes would be funded by the public purse.
David Page, 73, lives in Chelmsford and worked for Bradstock Group, a commercial insurer that went bust in 2003. He only receives around half of the pension he paid for, and is not confident of any progress.
He said: 'It still hurts. It's typical of governments. They don't want to spend money. This one will be the world's worst. It's morally corrupt, but morals don't count do they?'
Terry Monk, 81, from Camberley in Surrey, also worked for Bradstock. He said the Government's decision to pursue growth with members' money was 'shameful'.
He said: 'What they're forgetting, or choosing to ignore, is how that surplus has arisen in the first place and it was a combination of schemes' assets and members' contributions.
'They're trying to get money that they don't own to fund projects. I'm suspicious of the people we have in power at the moment.'
For its part, the Government is expected to address retirement poverty in part two of its pensions review. It has already given £1.5bn back to retired miners and is considering handing over £2.3bn more.
Ministers have also met with PPF and FAS members to hear their concerns, and accepted it was an 'important issue'.
A Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) spokesman said: 'The Government is continuing to consider what we have heard from the PPF and FAS members on this issue.'
A PPF spokesman said it welcomed the fresh consideration that the DWP was giving to compensation levels.
They added: 'Given our financial strength, we think it's the right time to reduce costs for levy paying schemes and their employers and to consider the levels of indexation we pay our members.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
15 minutes ago
- The Independent
Met Police chief says football clubs should pay for their own policing
Football clubs should contribute more of their own money to the £70 million cost of policing their matches, Met Police chief Sir Mark Rowley has said. A 'polluter pays approach' should be adopted for policing football games, Sir Mark said, as he questioned why organisers of events which require policing do not pay for it. It comes after Sir Mark expressed disappointment in a Sunday Times article at Chancellor Rachel Reeves' decision to increase police funding by 2.3 per cent above inflation each year in the recent spending review. Appearing on the BBC's Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg, Sir Mark was pushed on how the Met plans on cutting costs. He cited heavy job losses in the Met police force, but also pointed at other opportunities to cut expenditure. 'It also falls elsewhere. Policing of football matches across the country, mainly Premier League, cost policing £70 million it doesn't get back from football clubs. In London, it's more than a third of that,' he told the BBC. There should be a 'polluter pays approach', he said, adding: 'If you're running a profit making event that because of the nature of it, requires security, requires policing to support your security because of the criminality that is going to be experienced, why isn't the organiser paying for that, rather than local communities who lose their resources to go to football matches?' Sir Mark has also called for an uphaul of the UK's current 43-force policing system to help streamline costs. The creation of 12 to 15 bigger police forces would allow authorities to better utilise modern technology and would reduce 'expensive' governance and support functions. 'The 43-force model was designed in the 1960s and hasn't been fit for purpose for at least two decades,' Sir Mark wrote in The Sunday Times. 'It hinders the effective confrontation of today's threats and stops us fully reaping the benefits of technology. 'We need to reduce the number of forces by two-thirds, with the new bigger and fully capable regional forces supported by the best of modern technology and making better use of the limited funding available.' Asked about the cuts he plans to make to policing, Sir Mark said: 'So we've cut 1,600 over the last couple of years… 1,700 officers and staff this year, that 3,300 out of an organisation just over 40,000 is a big hit.' The Met has not got all of the details on the spending settlement but Sir Mark is 'nervous about whether we'll be able to make ends meet with that', he said, which is why he is calling for police reform. Put to him that he had warned he would have to de-prioritise some crimes, and asked what the force will not investigate, Sir Mark said: 'So I don't want policing activity to fall off the list, and I know that the mayor and the Home Secretary have pushed hard for the most police funding that we can get. 'We are determined to improve day in and day out experiences of Londoners on the streets. We can only do that if we focus ruthlessly on police work. 'When new recruits join they expect they're going to spend most of their time protecting the public, enforcing the law, catching criminals. Within a couple of years 80% of them are saying 'I spend most of my time safeguarding the vulnerable, that's critical work, but that's not the core work of policing'. 'So we need help to cut away some of these areas where other pressed public services have effectively pushed work to the police. There are 80,000 missing children from children's home a year in the country. That is really problematic.' Sir Mark said the police reforms are 'essential', adding: 'If we look at the spending on policing and public safety from the 80s through to the noughties, it was a much higher level than it is today. Over the last decade or more, the proportion that governments are prepared to put to policing is much lower. I don't see that changing dramatically. 'So we've got to make the best use of every pound that governments can give to us.'
The Independent
21 minutes ago
- The Independent
Conservatives will look to amend Government welfare Bill
The Conservatives will try to change the Government's welfare Bill to tighten up access to personal independence payments (Pip) and universal credit. Kemi Badenoch will pledge that the Tories are 'now the only party committed to serious welfare reform' after Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer shelved plans to restrict eligibility for Pip in the face of a backbench revolt this week. Ministers have warned there will be costs to their backtracking on the plans, as Downing Street and the Treasury will be looking to cover the spending shortfall left by the decision. The Tories will look to lay amendments to the legislation – set to be renamed the Universal Credit Bill – and party leader Mrs Badenoch is due to deliver a speech on welfare on Thursday. Among the amendments the Conservatives will propose is a requirement for eligibility for Pip to be determined by a face-to-face meeting, rather than virtually. As part of the Government's reforms, the Department for Work and Pensions has proposed a new 'severe conditions criteria' for universal credit. Claimants in this category will be entitled to a higher rate of the benefit, and will not be routinely reassessed to receive money. Another of the Conservatives' amendments would prevent somebody from being classed as having a severe condition for the purpose of universal credit only by having anxiety, mild depression, or ADHD. The third amendment would block the increase in universal credit and restrict Pip for some people who are not British citizens. In her welfare speech, Mrs Badenoch is expected to say that the Conservatives are 'the only party that is prepared to take the tough decisions to get spending under control'. 'I have no doubt that, emboldened by their success in forcing Starmer to U-turn last week, Labour's backbench MPs will now be eyeing up more concessions,' she will say. The original welfare proposals had been part of a package that ministers expected would save up to £5 billion a year, and economists are now warning that tax rises are likely to plug the gap left by the concessions to rebels. On Friday, Chancellor Rachel Reeves admitted that the fallout over the Government's welfare Bill had been 'damaging' and did not rule out tax rises in the autumn budget. It came after images of the Chancellor crying during Prime Minister's Questions on Wednesday spooked the financial markets and led to questions about her future, although a spokesman said she was upset by a personal matter. In an interview with The Guardian, Ms Reeves said it would be 'irresponsible' to rule out the idea of tax rises and warned 'there are costs to what happened' with the welfare Bill. The Sunday Times reported that the two-child benefit cap could be unlikely to be scrapped – as many Labour backbenchers want – as ministers look to balance the finances.
Telegraph
21 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Starmer has revealed himself to be the most politically hopeless PM of my lifetime
We are told that it was 'personal' reasons which caused Rachel Reeves to weep at Prime Minister's Questions (PMQs) on Wednesday. No doubt that is true. But when a prominent person weeps on a public occasion, the tears are prompted by a confluence of the personal and the political. Whatever upset Ms Reeves felt was surely compounded by her desperate and isolated political situation following the collapse of the Government's welfare reform Bill. The first Rachel wept, as is recorded in the Old Testament Book of Jeremiah. She was weeping for her children, but hers were public tears too: she was revered as the wife of the patriarch Jacob and mother of Joseph. God told her: 'Refrain thy voice from weeping and thine ears from tears: for thy work shall be rewarded.' It has to be said that Sir Keir Starmer was rather less generous to his Rachel than was the Almighty to the Mother of Israel. When, across the floor of the House, Kemi Badenoch pointed out to him that his Chancellor 'looks absolutely miserable', he did not turn round to comfort or even to check. Nor did he take up the Leader of the Opposition's invitation to confirm Ms Reeves in her post. Before the session ended, the Prime Minister did say something about being 'grateful' to her, but by then it was too late. Afterwards, No 10 declared that Ms Reeves was 'going nowhere', a phrase which, in the circumstances, was either tin-eared or barbed. In an interview, Sir Keir insisted she would continue as Chancellor for the next election and for years beyond. He is in no position to make such a promise. People often complain about the 'bearpit' of PMQs. This week's half hour was certainly uncomfortable to watch, but it did show why such occasions can make a difference. In a few minutes of parliamentary theatre, we got to the heart of the matter. In passing, it is worth pointing out that Mrs Badenoch did well. With wit and concision, she identified Labour's key embarrassments – the second U-turn at the very last moment, the fact that a cost-cutting Bill will now save nothing at all and Sir Keir's problem that 'he does not know what he believes'. She seized the chance to get her own party back on the long road to the economic respectability it so badly lost in government. Whereas Labour had just voted for spending more money, she said, the Conservatives know the nation must 'live within its means'. Sir Keir's capitulation vacates the political ground of prudence, giving the Tories the chance to re-occupy it – and at a time when Reform has decided to become a big-spending party. In the end, those who want to give ever more public money to people who do not want to work are fewer than those who do work and will now almost certainly have to pay higher taxes. On this point, Mrs Badenoch spoke with justified confidence. An oddity caused by the slow Conservative leadership election process last year is that Mrs Badenoch has still not addressed her annual party conference as leader, so the troops do not feel they know their general. Now she has a victory under her belt to celebrate with them. She has won on some other subjects recently, such as the grooming gangs inquiry, but this week was her first big breakthrough. More important right now is what all this means for the Government which we might still have for four more years. Again, PMQs gave useful optics. Most of the time, the camera concentrated on just three people on the front bench – the Prime Minster in the middle, inexpressive as usual; to the right, the crumpled Chancellor, in a blue suit, trying and failing to conceal her distress; to the left, in a striking all-red number, the Deputy Prime Minister, Angela Rayner, head erect and smiling in a nothing-to-do-with-me sort of way. You could see the future, and why it won't work. It still seems almost incredible that a government only a year old should have cut off its room for future progress so early. There may be a case that the public finances, though bad and getting worse, are not so disastrous that all is lost, but history does suggest that such a serious failure of economic and political will is very hard to come back from. Wilson's Labour government lost confidence after having to devalue the pound in 1967, and lost the election in 1970. Heath's Tories executed their U-turn on free markets and non-intervention in 1972, and lost (twice) in 1974. Labour went 'cap in hand' to the IMF in 1976, and lost to Mrs Thatcher in 1979. John Major's Tories won a general election in April 1992 but had to take the pound out of the Exchange Rate Mechanism in September. Tony Blair trounced them in 1997. In some of these cases, notably Major's, the economy did recover, but in all of them the government was seen to have failed in its economic stewardship. The voters duly punished it. This time, the Government has undoubtedly failed. Labour's selling-point to the electorate a year ago was that, unlike the Tories, and particularly the horror story of Liz Truss, it would restore growth and control the public finances with enough discipline that the proceeds of that growth would improve public services. It has taken only 12 months, almost to the day, to discredit all those promises. In reaction, some have criticised the rebel Labour MPs who forced Sir Keir's retreat for their economic illiteracy. Downing Street special advisers speak unattributably to lobby journalists with foul-mouthed quotations about the idiocy and self-indulgence of their party's backbenchers. It is true that social media have made MPs more narcissistic and less loyal to their party. It is also true that failure to rein in welfare spending is – along with the NHS – the road to national ruin. But Sir Keir and his political advisers seem to have a very hazy idea of what it is like to be a member of Parliament. With all aspects of social policy, MPs will have numerous constituents who will be directly affected and will complain to them. Most MPs of the governing party will be prepared to justify unpopular government policy if they can do so as part of a big story of foreseeable recovery or of dire necessity. It is incredibly hard to do so, however, when the policy unexpectedly removes existing money from claimants, and when the overall picture of what the government is trying to do is so contradictory and confusing. In the case of personal independence payments (PIPs), there are a great many scandals (some recently documented by the TaxPayers' Alliance) about how easily people can get the money for inadequate or trumped-up reasons. A government set on persuasion could have dramatised such freeloading to win over voters. It did not. Instead, it suddenly threatened millions of claimants, thwarting reasonable expectations. You don't have to be a Zarah Sultana-style Corbynista to worry. Any decent MP would want to voice those discontents at Westminster. In my lifetime, and therefore in the lifetime of the great majority, no Labour government has ever been able to cope with bad economic conditions. They have been boom-time phenomena, triumphantly so in the case of Tony Blair's first two terms. Sir Keir's administration has quickly reverted to this depressing type, adding a political incompetence that would make anyone weep.
