Category Archives: Pensions News

These posts appear on the Pensions In The News page

Pension Schemes Act 2026 – Update from Steve Ladle

Posted on by

As you may well be aware the Pension Schemes Bill 2025 has now been passed in Parliament and as such it is now the Pensions Schemes Act 2026.

Our attempts to get something into it regarding regular annual increases for pre-1997 service were dismissed by the Government despite support from a lot of MPs. When it went to the House of Lords there was similar support for our cause but our proposed changes were dismissed by the Government when it came back to the Commons.

There was also some concern about the area of the Bill that has introduced an extended ability for Employers with Defined Benefit schemes such as our own to request that where a scheme was in surplus, this surplus could be returned to the Employer.

We have been very vocal about this and significant concerns remain about the distribution of fund surpluses and equitable treatment of all fund stakeholders’.

“A huge thank you to all of you who wrote letters. We ended up with the support of around 130 MPs and a number of very senior figures in the Lords.”      

Through the Pension Alliance, we have made numerous objections and have met with the Pensions Minister (Torsten Bell). He claimed to understand our concerns but has stated that “ …if trustees wish to insist on discretionary pre-1997 indexation as a condition for surplus release, they will be entitled to do so ( TB 3 December 2025) .”

We would now like to hold him to this and propose to comment on secondary legislation that will shortly be drawn up to give full guidance on how the Surplus request process will work,  following a Department for Work and Pension (DWP) consultation that is to be issued shortly.

The Pre-97 HPPA & Alliance Pension Justice (of which we are a member) intends to produce its own secondary legislation that will propose a number of steps that need to be considered before any surplus can be released and to attempt to put into practice what the Minister has publicly (including in the House of Commons) said. It is also  going to be lobbying the DWP and the Pensions Regulator (TPR) both of whom will be responsible for administering how the surplus process will work in the real world.

So we may yet be asking you to write further letters to your MPs  👍

Many thanks,

Steve Ladle

Justice for Pre-1997 Pensions

Posted on by

Luke Akehurst MP for North Durham, takes up the cudgel on pre-1997 pensions.

Pressure is mounting on the Government to put right the wrongs of the 1995 Pension Act.

Here is an extract from his article which can be found here

“Alongside colleagues, I have written to Ministers calling for them to support NC22, or similar legislation to address this injustice. The Bill is now with the House of Lords, where I hope similar amendments will be tabled. I understand that the Bill is completing its final stages, meaning the Government must act swiftly if it wishes to remedy this problem with this law.

Time is running out to correct this injustice. Most pension schemes are bought out with an insurer in the long-term, meaning trustee discretion is removed entirely. Without legislative reform, thousands of pensioners will lose even the faint hope of an increase to their pension to keep up with inflation.

Securing increases to Defined Benefit Scheme pensions wouldn’t just benefit the over one million pensioners affected. It would also mean greater tax receipts for the state, boosting public services and allowing for more investment in communities like the ones I represent. The only losers here would be the companies who are underpaying retired workers who dedicated their careers to hard work.”

In addition the whole argument that the surplus funds will be invested into British Industry is a complete fallacy, in particular for the oil industry which is banned from investing in offshore developments! Instead they will be funneled abroad or into dividends and executive bonuses. If the government wants these funds spent in the British economy give them to the pensioners!

We still have to import thousands of barrels of oil putting an immense burden on our balance of payments when we could provide it from our own resources with no net increase in global consumption.

If you feel inclined to write to your MP once more please do. We are not providing a prewritten letter this time as we believe now is the time for something more personal. The article and information above provides ample ammunition. Even write direct to The Chancellor, as well.

CUKPA Fighting for your pension

Pensions Bill 2025 – Update February 26

Posted on by

It’s been a while since my last update in November but CUKPA has continued to be very active.

4 different letters have now been sent by a large number of you. I have been copied in on around 200 responses but hopefully there were a lot more sent on which I wasn’t copied on. 

Many of your MP responses have indicated positive support whilst a number (generally from Labour members) got a response setting out the Government line.

Just under 50 individual MPs have been contacted with some receiving letters from a number of members.  Lib Dems, Greens and SNP have been consistently supportive.

CUKPA has also written to the Pensions Minister (Torsten Bell) and his boss Pat McFadden and we have submitted a response to a Department of Work and Pensions consultation The Alliance has written to the Prime Minister and has also been very busy lobbying their MPs together with a face-to-face meeting with the Pensions Minister. 

The Bill is currently in the Lords before it comes back to the Commons for the final stage. Lord Davies and a few colleagues have been particularly vocal about the faults with the Bill and that it is being rushed through when it is not legally fit for purpose.

Unfortunately, however, to date no significant amendments of the type we are after have been accepted.

But we haven’t given up yet. I hope to shortly send out another letter for you all to send to your MP, to line up with when the Bill comes back to the Commons.  This will focus on our concerns about the proposals to allow scheme surpluses to be handed back to Employers which we feel has not been properly thought through at all and poses huge risks to Defined Benefit schemes like ours.

Thanks for all your help so far. Please continue to support us.

Steve Ladle, CUKPA Campaign Manager

Alliance Facebook page link – https://www.facebook.com/groups/757211736207518/

Link to the progress of the Scheme Billhttps://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3982

State pensions are going up by £550 – here’s why the triple lock has nothing to do with it

Posted on by

The state pension has to go up with average earnings by law – unless the Government were to change this.

“Pensioners will get more money next year thanks to our commitment to the triple lock.”

This is the post that Chancellor Rachel Reeves made on social media platform X this morning (Mon 24th Nov 25).

She is referring to the pre-Budget announcement that the Government will increase the full new state pension by an above-inflation figure of £550 per year from next April.

But it has nothing to do with the Triple Lock (The iPaper)

Pension Campaign Letter No 4 – Urgent

Posted on by

In the Autumn Budget the Government extended increases for inflation to those in the Pension Protection Fund (PPF – funds from defunct companies taken over by the Government). This is very welcome.

However, those of us in Defined Benefit schemes are still not guaranteed increases on our pre-1997 contributions.

The Pensions Schemes Bill 2025 has now reached an extremely crucial stage in the House of Commons.

We need to try and get as many MP’s on board as we possibly can, to tip the balance in the favour of amendment NC22, before any major decisions are taken.

As we understand it, this bill is to be debated further in the House of Commons on 3 December – this Wednesday – and so urgency is definitely the name of the game! I 

If you are able to send this draft letter below to your MP by email, then please do so today, as tomorrow may already be too late! Tuesday at the absolute latest!

Please do try – best efforts to the fore – and maybe we can indeed make a difference to the outcome of the NC22 amendment.

Please copy and paste and send/deliver to your MP asap and before 3 Dec; Copy (CUKPA Campaign Manager) steveladle66@gmail.com

It is important that you state your name and address to confirm you are their constituent.

You can find your MP’s official email address here

Title: Good news, bad news, best news – URGENT

Dear (insert the name of your MP)

I am your constituent (insert your name) living at (insert your address).

I am writing to you as the issues regarding the non-payment of annual increases for the pre-97 pensionable service for many pensioners like me are due to be discussed in the House when the Pensions Schemes Bill 2025 returns in its Report Stage. Probably this week.

Pre-97 pensioners are pleased by the “good news” for those in the Pension Protection Fund (PPF) who will be helped by the recent decision announced by the Chancellor in the Budget. They have been denied indexation that was promised by their scheme rules while in the PPF.

The Pensions Schemes Bill moves into the Report Stage Wednesday 3 Dec. The recent announcement could turn out to be “bad news” for me and for the half a million or more “true” Pre-97 pensioners in private Defined Benefit schemes.

The Chancellor’s decision could be used as a new justification by companies to continue to refuse to pay indexation or discretionary awards. These companies could say – neither the law nor the recent government announcement/actions require anything to be paid for Pre-97 service unless specifically required by the scheme’s rules.

I am asking you to create the “best news” for us all by signing and supporting amendment NC22 so that it becomes part of the Pensions Schemes Bill and requires indexation going forward for all Pre-97 pensioners.

Yours thankfully,
(Your name)

Government to rethink rejection of Waspi compensation

Posted on by
  • 11 November 2025

Updated 12 November 2025

A decision to reject compensation for women hit by changes to the state pension age will be reconsidered by the government.

Campaigners say 3.6 million women born in the 1950s were not properly informed of the rise in state pension age to bring them into line with men. Last year, the government apologised for a 28-month delay in sending letters, but rejected any kind of financial payouts.

A document was not shown to Liz Kendall, who was Work and Pensions Secretary at the time of the decision, but had since come to light and needed to be considered, the government has now said.

However, A Lancashire campaigner has described the government’s decision to reconsider its policy of not compensating women affected by a change in the state pension age as a “delaying” tactic.

Pension Surplus Campaign – Letter No 3

Posted on by

Dear (add the name of your MP)

Subject: Concern about Pension Schemes Bill and amendment NC22 Indexation of Pre-1997 pensions

This is my {first, second, third} letter to you about my concerns over the proposed changes to be introduced by the Pension Schemes Bill 2025.

I am a member of the Chevron UK Pensioners Association which is also working with the HPPA & Pre-97 Alliance to improve the position of pensioners like myself.

The purpose of this letter is to ask you to support an amendment that has been raised to the Pension Schemes Bill 2025. The amendment is NC22 –  Indexation of pre-1997 pensions.

As you may be aware pensioners like myself who are in Defined Benefit pensions schemes and have service before 1997 are not treated fairly by many of the UK’s pension schemes that they get their pension from. This has been clearly recognised  by the Pensions Regulator and the Department for Work and Pensions with the prime source giving rise to the failure being the Pensions Act 1995. This introduced a change to allow employers to be able to use their discretion when applying annual increases to the element of their pensioners pension that had accrued from pre-1997 service. Whilst my employer, Chevron, has not acted as badly as some (a number of schemes haven’t paid increases for over 20 years) there have still been many years when they decided not to pay an annual increase and consequently, my pension is a lot lower than I had every right to expect when I retired and unfortunately the use of this discretion is legal.

I had hoped that the promise of new legislation was going to be helpful to me, as the government has stated. However, I continue to be alarmed by Pension Schemes Bill 2025 which I and many others now believe is very unlikely  to help me and may actually make my situation worse.  

Comments by the Pensions Minister on 27 October again acknowledged the pre-1997 service problem but the Alliance and others believe his proposed solution via Bill 255 is at best unrealistic. The idea that excess scheme funds may be used to help pre-97 pensioners relies entirely on the relationship between the sponsoring company and the scheme trustee where the company has the majority of control and the trustee is compelled to act in the best interest of all pensioners equally. Real world experience over the past 25 years says that pensioners will again lose out.

I believe the Pensions Minister has also tried to suggest that the problem is over stated. However, analysis published last year by the Pensions Regulator found that whilst 83% of  large firms on DB schemes provided discretionary benefits, this relates to a far wider range of discretionary benefits than just pre-1997 pension increases. The report also concluded that only 15% of Large schemes had provided discretionary pension increases for pre-1997 service in the last 3 years and 92% of Large schemes required both Trustee and Employer consent for discretionary benefits.

However, all may not yet be lost. A cross-party amendment has now been raised  by Dame Nia Griffith, Tonia Antoniazzi, Elaine Stewart and Siân Berry which properly addresses the root cause of the problem. This amendment (NC22 raised on the 11th November 2025) introduces a new clause to the Pension Schemes Bill which would remove references to 6 April 1997 from section 51 of the Pensions Act 1995 in order to require that annual increases to pension payments in line with CPI and RPI apply to pensionable service both before and after 6 April 1997.

The amendment when implemented would give pensioners like myself confidence that our pre-1997 service pension would be increased in line with standard price indices and would resolve the uncertainty of the current “discretionary” element that we currently suffer under.

A further upside is that it is likely that part of these increases would be returned to the Government via income tax and spending in the domestic economy. This is unlike the Pensions Scheme surplus proposal where it is likely that for a large number of companies with non-UK ownership, the funds may end up anywhere but the UK.

No doubt the Pensions Minister will argue that a number of schemes would not have the required funds to meet this change but we believe this to be either unlikely or if required, capable of being met by increased employer scheme contributions. After all, as pensioners we contributed into our pension schemes for all the years, we were working including pre-1997 with the very reasonable expectation that we would then receive the pension that the company promised. Further when employers have refused discretionary increases, they will have already benefited by reductions in their scheme contributions and/or contribution holidays.

As such I would ask you to support me by supporting this amendment when it comes up for discussion. If the amendment fails then I believe the current problem will persist for years to come and is going to result in the continuation of falling living standards for many more pensioners who will continue to fail to get the pension they expected to receive in their retirement.

Respectfully,

Name  ______________

Home address: —————————————-

Pensions Bill 2025 – Update from Our Campaign Manager Steve Ladle

Posted on by

The email below has a link to a meeting of the East Ayrshire Council which is sending a letter to Westminster – hopefully to Pat McFadden and Torsten Bell.

It looks there will be at least one amendment, raised by a member of the House of Lords and sponsored by a number of MPs, to get the discretionary element of pre-97 pensions removed from the 1995 Pensions Act.

This will be presented for discussion when the Pensions Schemes Bill comes back to the House of Commons. It will then go to the House of Lords before coming back to the House of Commons for its final reading so there is still time.

We understand there are a possible 3 similar amendments being raised by other MPs but until we see them it is difficult to say whether they relate to Defined Benefit schemes or Payment Protection Fund schemes.

For example there is already one amendment raised as follows:

“Indexation of pre-1997 service

The Secretary of State must by regulations make provision for indexation on compensation in respect of pre-1997 rights for members of the Pension Protection Fund and the Financial Assistance Scheme

Good for members of the Payment Protection Fund but not for ourselves.

We now have around 100 letters that have been sent by members that I have been informed of. Hopefully, there may be a number more that I haven’t been told about.

Alliance Facebook page link – https://www.facebook.com/groups/757211736207518/

Link to the progress of the Scheme Billhttps://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3982

Pensions Bill 2025 – Draft Ammendment re pre 1997 pensions

Posted on by

The draft text for the proposed change to remove the discretionary aspect of pre-97 service increases has reportedly been finalised although I haven’t seen it yet. It is understood that it is going to be effective as of the date of implementation rather than retrospective back to 1997 which is annoying at least one alliance member.

However, the general feeling is that if it were to be fully retrospective it would have no chance at all of being accepted for discussion.

The change is being managed by Dame Nia Griffith- Labour Member of Parliament for Llanelli since 2005 – who has been an active supporter for changes to improve the lot of pre-97 pensioners.