Roger Sainsbury and Terry Monk gave evidence.

We will now hear oral evidence from Roger Sainsbury, founder member and pensions partner of the Deprived Pensioners Association, and Terry Monk, a member of the Pensions Action Group. We have until 5.15 pm for this panel. Will the witnesses kindly briefly introduce themselves for the record?

Roger Sainsbury:

As the Chair said, I am a founding member and the lead organiser of the Deprived Pensioners Association, which was set up for the purpose of fighting for what we loosely know as pre-1997 indexation for Pension Protection Fund members.

Terry Monk:

My name is Terry Monk. I have worn various hats over my almost 70 years in the industry. I am probably—with respect to Roger—one of the oldest people in the room. I have been a financial adviser, and I ran a financial services company that was part of Lloyd’s broking group. That group did the first compromise deal to try to save the group and therefore left a lot of its employees, including myself, with hardly any pension. My pension went down from 100% expectation when I was 59 or 60 to just 10% afterwards. Through the restructuring of Bradstock, I joined Independent Trustee Services, part of the Jardine Lloyd Thompson Group—the company that probably saved my life in many ways, and gave me a future. Through that, I became involved with companies that became insolvent.

I then began to work very closely with my colleague Alan Marnes—who is sitting behind me—in the Pensions Action Group, trying to fight for some kind of protection to reverse the disasters that ourselves and our families were facing. That included demonstrations. People ask about the history of the financial assistance scheme and how long FAS has been there. Well, I have brought a picture of my granddaughter when she was young—she is now 22—at one of our demonstrations in Whitehall. FAS started the thing. Alan, John Benson, Phil Jones and the like started the campaign—in Downing Street, on College green and at party conferences—to bring about the compensation that was needed to stop this happening to anybody else.

My take from today is that you guys are all doing what you are doing to make the future work. I am concerned for the people I work with and represent, and I want to make sure that their past is not forgotten, that their pension becomes secure—not one of the future, but one of the past—and that they can rely upon the past. I am afraid I will get emotional at this point— I apologise that I am not doing my introduction; I am doing a speech—because 5,343 FAS members have died since Richard Nicholl and myself gave a presentation to the Work and Pensions Committee. I said to someone just now that my tie is loose because I do not wear ties these days, but I have worn a tie twice in two months at the funerals of founder members of the Pensions Action Group. It just has to stop. I am sorry—I will keep quiet now.

Thank you very much indeed. I will go immediately to the Shadow Minister, Mark Garnier.

Q Thank you very much for the work you are doing on behalf of pensioners—it is important. Mr Sainsbury, the PPF has some £14 billion in reserves. Could you share with us the main arguments for and against using that to benefit PPF and FAS scheme members?

Roger Sainsbury:

In the light of Terry’s extended life history, I will just add that I am a fellow of the Royal Academy of Engineering and a former president of the Institution of Civil Engineers.

Before I come to your important question, I would like to feel sure that everybody in this room really understands the huge seriousness of the issue we are considering. This business of removing indexation from people who had pensionable service prior to 1997 has been going on for 20 years. Many of the people involved have seen the value of their payments eroded by maybe even more than 50% in that time. It is really very serious.

The second thing I would like to mention is that the scale of the problem is actually greater than the Post Office managers scandal. Of course, I am not suggesting for a moment that any of our claimants is suffering in the appalling way the postmasters did, but the numbers of our people are so huge compared with the postmasters that the actual amount of money at stake is greater. We have 140,000 PPF members who are affected by this bizarre Clause of limiting the indexation, 60,000 of whom are 80 and have zero indexation, so it is a truly serious thing.

I would also like to mention one other dimension, which is timing. In our written submission to the Committee, we did not even bother to press the basic argument for why indexation should be awarded; we just focused on timing, because time is absolutely not on our side at all. Our claimants are dying, on average, at the rate of 15 a week—it is probably three while we have been holding this meeting this afternoon—or 5,500 a year. We have been told by the Department that the necessary Amendment to the Pensions Act 2004 cannot be made by statutory instrument. There would have to be a new Bill and a new Act, and goodness knows how many years that might take or how many more thousands of people would have died. That is why we are pressing to get an amendment to this Bill to give a more timely answer.

Now I come to your question: what are the main arguments for and against using the reserves to benefit the members? Well, the first argument is simple, but really rather powerful: it is the only purpose that, legally, the PPF is allowed to spend its money on. The Act is very clear: unless some legal judgment was made against them, which is not on the horizon at all at the moment, the only way they are allowed to spend money is either on their own overheads or on giving benefits to members, such as the indexation that we are now talking about.

That is reason No. 1; reason No. 2, in my mind, is that expectations have not been met and promises have not been fulfilled. I go back to the Secretary of State who introduced the Second Reading debate on the 2004 Bill. He pledged that pension promises made, by the original schemes that people were in, must be met—that is, met by the PPF, which is the reason why the PPF was to be, by that Act, created. Yet that has not happened because, somehow, into schedule 7 to the Act came these dreadful words that have had the effect of not permitting the PPF to pay any indexation at all to people for time worked prior to 1997.

The third reason—ultimately, this is the important reason—is that the 140,000 people need this money. They desperately do, some of them. I mean, obviously not everybody’s condition is the same, but a lot of people will be suffering real misery and hardship. They need this money. I ask myself: “Were this Government elected on promises of governing with humanity and compassion? Are this Government going to meet that need? Or are they going to walk by on the other side?” I do not myself believe that they are; I believe that they will come up to the mark and find a way through the perceived difficulties that they have.

I think those are probably sufficient reasons to be going on with; as to the reasons against granting this, frankly, I cannot see any.

Q Well, there is one, which I would like to test both your opinions on. The Government point out that the reserves are on the public sector balance sheet, and therefore are treated as an asset of the Government, which is obviously offset against Government debt. Do you think that is a justifiable reason not to—

Roger Sainsbury:

Well, if—

Terry Monk:

Can I have a go? Alan, who is sitting behind me, and all of us say that we did the right thing at the right time to secure our futures. There was no risk—we were guaranteed there was no risk. The minimum funding requirement was seriously flawed post-Maxwell. That changed it. We were told our pensions were safe. They were no longer safe—I found out to my cost, and many others did, that our pensions were not safe.

If I try to use the argument to our members that are still alive, “We can’t give you these increases because of the national accounts,” they will say, “Hang on, I did the right thing. I was told my pension was safe. I did the right thing all the way along in my life, and I saved for my future—for my comfortable retirement. I did not want to depend upon the state. I wanted to do it for myself. That is what I was proud to do.” To use the argument that the national accounts do not allow these people to get their benefits? I could not use that argument, whatever the reasons might be behind it.

Roger Sainsbury:

May I try to answer your question more specifically? I think that indexation would have an impact upon Government finances. The impact would be that cash would flow into the Treasury, because if indexation is permitted and starts to be paid, there will be income tax paid on that money. The money will be going out from the private funds of the PPF, but the income tax and subsequently the VAT on expenditures will be coming into the Treasury coffers. I have yet to meet anybody, other than people in government, who can comprehend how it can be that when the PPF, from its private funds, meets an obligation, which has the incidental effect of bringing cash into the Government coffers, that can at the same time lead to a failure to meet the fiscal rules.

The fiscal rules, incidentally, are set up for a period of four years, when the unravelling of the indexation obligation will take many decades. We have been told in ministerial letters that it has been set up this way with a view to improving transparency. Well, I am sure you have all heard of the fog of war, but I think we are now up against the fog of transparency. I do not think it is real money that the Government are talking about. Even in their own letters, they say it is a statistical way of handling the figures.

The recent Government line on this is that it is the fault—I do not want to put blame on anybody—or the responsibility of the Office for National Statistics, because it was the Office for National Statistics that decreed that the assets and liabilities of the Pension Protection Fund should be counted as part of the public sector national financial liabilities, rather than as part of the public sector net debt, but that decision was made in 2019. We are therefore more inclined to hold responsible the present Chancellor, who, in her Budget of last October, made the decision that, for the Government financial rules, the metric should no longer be the public sector net debt, but the public sector net financial liabilities. It was that that brought the PPF, as it were, on to this part of the playing field.

That is very helpful, thank you. I am very conscious that other Members will almost certainly have questions, but I must say that I entirely agree with you that a sum of money set aside for compensation should not be brought into the Government’s balance sheet.

Q Have you done any reviews of the impact of enhancing payments to those in receipt of the financial assistance scheme? You alluded to some suggestions around VAT payments and tax payments if payments were enhanced. Have you engaged with any studies on that, and what that input may be?

Terry Monk:

We have looked at all sorts of scenarios. I do not know whether Michelle is still here, but the problem is that, although the PPF has done all sorts of “what if” calculations about all sorts of “what ifs”—we have had copies, and the Work and Pensions Committee has had copies—we do know what the “what if” is. We know what our members have lost, but we will not know, until such time as we hear from the Government, what they are proposing. We have offered time and again to meet not just the current Pensions Minister, but previous Pensions Ministers—I have to say that a few of them would not even meet us. This Minister has met us, and he knows the issues, but we do not know what is in the mind of the DWP or the Treasury in dealing with this issue. Once we know that, we will know whether we are fighting or we are working together, and what the answer will be. To answer your question, there is a net effect benefit of paying that amount, but we are in the dark—we do not know how long the bit of string is.

Roger Sainsbury:

Incidentally, one of the benefits of the cash coming in, supposing we do get indexation, is that it would at least make a contribution if the Government had decided they were also going to pay money to the FAS members. It would be a contribution to help offset the Treasury payments that would have to be made for the FAS.

Terry has referred to the situation, but I think the key thing is that in 2023 the Select Committee asked the PPF to provide financial estimates for what it would cost to do indexation. The PPF then produced some really excellent tables that showed a number of different hypothetical systems for delivering indexation. It was a bit like a restaurant menu. There was a possibility to have a scheme that would not be hugely beneficial, but that would not cost all that much money to administer, right through the range to a Rolls-Royce scheme, which would obviously cost a lot more money.

We have been asking for RIPA. Just to be absolutely clear, we are not asking for the grim reaper; we have had enough of him already, with people dying. This the bountiful RIPA—retrospective indexation plus arrears. We are pressing for that, but we did not invent it. It was not invented by the DPA. It was part of the menu that the PPF produced, and we merely picked it from the menu. RIPA is reasonably high up the menu, but it is not at the very top. There are other things that we are not asking for that we might have asked for, so we are not being greedy.

With respect to Terry, we are not bothering too much about what is in the PPF’s mind or in the Government’s mind. We are much more concerned with what we are trying to put into their mind. When we decided to go for pushing for RIPA, it was because RIPA is the minimum scheme of indexation that would have the effect of doing away with what is presently a two-tier membership within the PPF. There are two classes of membership: those with indexation and those without. There is nothing in the Bill making any provision for that. It is grossly unfair and it needs to be done away with, and it just happens that the RIPA option is the minimum way of getting rid of that deplorable two-tier membership. I think that gives you perhaps a fuller answer about the situation.

Terry Monk:

Are we virtually out of time?

We are not quite out of time, but I am going to call other Members to ask questions of the panel. I call Kirsty Blackman.

Q Thank you very much for all your hard work on this, for your passion and for how articulate you are, particularly for those people that cannot be there and cannot make the case themselves. I really appreciate it. I absolutely agree with what you are saying on indexation; I think it is incredibly important. You were talking about the people that would benefit from these changes. Are they overwhelmingly well-off people, or are they people that are really struggling because of the lack of indexation, and who would therefore be more likely to spend the money and to grow the economy by spending their money, if the Government are worried about balance sheets?

Roger Sainsbury:

I have to say that there is a great range.

Terry Monk:

I cannot remember what it is, but the average FAS member’s pension is something in the order of £4,000 or £5,000 a year, and if you look at the steelworkers, because they are our example, it is those sorts of guys. I worked in the City. I had a different job, but the Majority of the people in the scheme had good benefits and good salaries but their pensions were important and they reflected the role they had in their life. I am not sure off the top of my head, but I think the average of the FAS pension is £4,500—some more, some less, obviously.

I want to make a point that I think Roger mentioned: at one stage, we were not at the table to talk as part of the pensions Bill. We lobbied hard. I know some of you have definitely put forward amendments to the pensions Bill to ensure that pre-1997 becomes part of the pensions Bill, which is why we are here today, but we had to work hard just to get that.

Q I am interested in exactly what you were saying around the two-tier element, partly around the challenge of the fact that there are people who have got the full recompense or equivalent, and you have not. Do you feel that this is an opportunity to change that dial and set the record straight? Obviously, an Amendment has been tabled. I recognise that; I just wanted to get a bit more from you on the fact that there are people who are in a completely different situation, and I just wanted you to build on that point that there are two sides to this. Some have not lost and some have.

Terry Monk:

FAS stopped when PPF opened its doors in 2005, so most of the people in FAS did not have much opportunity to accrue any increasing benefits post 1997. The Majority of them are old—the average age of the FAS member is now 73, which is much younger than I am. It is that age group of people who would really benefit, and their widows and their spouses—let us not forget them—and they would therefore spend money that they currently do not have to spend. They can afford their council tax. They can afford their heating. It would change their lives, in terms of feeling that they have achieved this success on their behalf and on behalf of the members.

Roger Sainsbury:

I would like to talk a bit about the concept of an Amendment. We have observed that one amendment has already been offered: new Clause 18 suggested by Ann Davies MP. Our team and I have had a bit of a look at that in the last couple of days. While we very much appreciate her good intention in putting the amendment forward, it actually does not do the job in a number of respects. I do not know how many of you have ever grappled with the obscure and complex language of schedule 7 to the Act, but it is mighty complicated. Some time ago, I and my team spent several days trying to work out what an amendment should be to deliver what we wanted. I have got some first class people on the team, but in the end we decided we actually could not do it, and would have to leave it to the expert drafters in the Department.

That is yet another reason why—I mentioned it in the written evidence—at a meeting I have already asked the Minister if he would himself table the requisite amendment. When you come up against the sheer complexity that Ann Davies has obviously already come up against, this is another reason why we think that would be a very good idea. It is slightly unusual for a Minister to table an amendment to his own Bill, but it is permitted, as the Minister said when I was talking to him about it. In a complex situation like this, it would absolutely be the best way of getting straight to the desired answer, so I plead with all of you to join me in urging the Minister to take this on.

I was contacted by my constituents, so thank you for that.

I think you have answered all my questions already. We have tabled an Amendment, and I would really appreciate your input on whether we could improve it or argue around it between now and when it is raised in Committee.

Roger Sainsbury:

Thank you.

Q Thank you very much for your evidence and your considered responses. There has been a discussion about the £12 billion surplus. Have you done any research on what you estimate would be the extent of the cost of RIPA—the scheme that you have promoted?

Roger Sainsbury:

That is a very timely question, because for the past couple of years, we have been working on the basis that the RIPA scheme would cost £5.5 billion. That was the estimate given to us by the PPF. Now—I might almost say hallelujah!—about three days ago, the PPF notified us that they had redone the calculation using a much superior methodology. I think it is a phenomenally difficult calculation to do, but they have redone it, and the answer now is not £5.5 billion, but £3.9 billion, or possibly a bit less. Whereas for two years we have been arguing that £5.5 billion is eminently affordable, £3.5 billion, for example, is obviously even more affordable. We do not get that much good news, but that was definitely a bit of good news we recently received. I am pleased to be able to share it with you, if you did not know it.

YouQ said that it is a very complicated calculation. How much confidence is there in that calculation? What input has there been from your members and part of your group on the confidence of that calculation?

Roger Sainsbury:

We would not have any ability to do that calculation at all. It all depends on the statistics held by the PPF of the age of all the members, the amount they have all been receiving and so on. It is way beyond us to make that calculation.

Terry Monk:

I worked with FAS before FAS even came about—at the conception, rather than the birth, of FAS. The PPF and I have worked closely with them for over 20 years. I have immense trust and faith in what they do, how they do it, and what they deliver. Whenever we ask them for help, they give it to us as far as they are able.

Roger Sainsbury:

I would support that. The PPF have been very helpful and I have had a good working relationship with them. I have to say, that was not always so—about three years ago, it looked as if we would be fighting a continual battle against them, but over time we have got to a really good working relationship, and they have been very helpful. In a question of challenging or doubting their ability to do this sort of calculation, when you look at the asset returns that they are getting, boy, they have got some people that know how to handle numbers, haven’t they?

Thank you very much.

If there are no further questions from Members, can I thank the witnesses for their evidence this afternoon? I will move now to the next panel of witnesses.