Pension indexation for DB schemes (intact or in the PPF)

The FT has picked up on the “missing” indexation on defined benefits earned before April 1997. These aren’t being paid to 83,000 members of the PPF but nor are they being paid to the members of many occupational DB schemes (including those featured in the photo above). Below is a particularly cruel case where discretionary benefits were purchased only to be lost when the scheme fell into the PPF.

Were the risks properly explained to Tony when he learned about the option to purchase extra indexation. Is he due his extra contributions back? I am sure there are many IFAs who will point out that what appears a guarantee – isn’t always that.

There are many unfairness’s arising from the complex rules surrounding indexation and in the article below – produced by Djuna Thurley of the Parliamentary Research Team, you can see how these complexities came to be.

This blog is here to help people understand why matters are so complex, it shows how hard it has been to balance the various interests of the stakeholders of defined benefit schemes and I suspect many will conclude, as I conclude, that the best solution to the problems with pension indexation – is low inflation.

Defined Benefit (DB) pension schemes provide pension benefits based on salary and length of service. There are statutory minimum requirements on them to:

  • Index pensions in payment in line with inflation, capped at 5% for benefits accruing from service between April 1997 and April 2005, and at 2.5% for benefits accruing from April 2005 – known as Limited Price Indexation (LPI) (Pensions Act 1995s51);
  • Revalue the deferred pensions of early leavers in line with inflation capped at 5%, and at 2.5% for rights accrued on or after 6 April 2009 (Pension Schemes Act 1993).

Importantly, these are statutory minimum requirements -there is nothing to prevent schemes from making more generous arrangements through their scheme rules.

Reform of the Retail Prices Index (RPI)

As discussed below, in 2012 the Coalition Government switched from the Retail Prices Index (RPI) to the Consumer Prices Index (CPI) as the measure of prices used for setting the statutory minimum increase each year. However, many schemes had RPI written in their rules and could not change this.

Reforms to the methodology for calculating the RPI are planned to take effect from 2030. The aim is to address shortcomings acknowledged by the National Statistician in 2013.

In a statement on the future of the RPI in September 2019, UKSA said it intended to address the shortcomings of the RPI by bringing into it the methods of CPIH (Consumer Price Inflation including owner occupier housing costs). Until 2030, it requires consent of the Government to do this. In March 2020, UKSA and HM Treasury launched a consultation on the impact of the reform and when it should take place between 2025 and 2030. In their response to the consultation in November 2020, they acknowledged that there would be an impact on defined benefit (DB) pension schemes and members. For DB pension scheme members with RPI-linked benefits, the reform would result in a reduction in the lifetime benefits (para 95-7).

For DB schemes, the impact would depend on the extent to which their investments and pension benefits were linked to the RPI. DB schemes with CPI linked pensions hedged with RPI-linked assets would see the total value of their assets fall while their liabilities remained unchanged. They would see a negative impact on their funding position (paras 65-76). Chancellor of the Exchequer, Rishi Sunak, said he could see the statistical arguments for the proposed approach but that in order to minimise the impact on the holders of index-linked gilts, he would be “unable to offer his consent to the implementation of such a proposal before the maturity of the final specific index-linked gilt in 2030.” However, he would not offer compensation to holders of index-linked gilts (para 19-20).

The Pensions and Lifetime Savings Association expressed its disappointment that the Government had “chosen to disregard the detrimental impact this move will have on both savers’ retirement incomes and on the assets of UK pension schemes.” It would continue to press its case for solutions to mitigate the impact of the reform.

On 9 April 2021, the trustees of the BT Pension Scheme, Ford Pension Schemes and Marks and Spencer (M&S) Pension Schemes confirmed that they were seeking a judicial review of the decision effectively to replace RPI with CPIH from 2030.

Background: development of limited price indexation

Before April 1997 there was no general obligation on Defined Benefit schemes to increase pensions in payment (although there was a requirement on schemes that were contracted out of SERPS to provide indexation capped at 3% on rights accrued from 1988). Despite the absence of a general obligation, it appears that many schemes did apply some form of inflation protection to pensions in payment on a voluntary basis and many applied LPI retrospectively to service before 1997 (Deregulatory Review, March 2007)

In 1993, the Pension Law Review Committee, chaired by Professor Roy Goode, recognised the importance of indexation from the individual’s perspective:

Most important is the uncertainty with regard to inflation. The individual is concerned not with money amounts but with what the pension will buy. (Pension Law Reform. The report of the Pension Law Review Committee, para 3.1.10)

Despite this, the Committee did not recommend making indexation requirements retrospective, because it:

[…] recognised that to require all earnings-related schemes to introduce LPI for pension rights accrued before the appointed date would place a considerable burden of costs on such schemes. (Ibid)

Limited Price Indexation (LPI) – a requirement to index pensions in payment in line with inflation capped at 5% – was introduced under the Pensions Act 1995 (s51).

The Labour Government legislated to reduce the LPI cap to 2.5% for rights accrued from April 2005 in the Pensions Act 2004 (s278-9). Following a consultation, it had decided that “mandating some level of protection from inflation remains desirable” but that lower inflation levels made a reduction in the cap appropriate:

In 1995, when the legislation introducing LPI was passed, long-term expectations of inflation were significantly higher: the 5 per cent cap was only intended to provide for partial cover against inflation. But the Government’s success in reducing inflation means that mandatory indexation has effectively become full inflation cover, something which is proving disproportionately expensive for some schemes to provide. (Cm 5835, p23).

In December 2006, an independent review looked at whether LPI should be removed. However, the reviewers – representing the employer and union sides – were unable to agree. The Labour Government decided not to remove the requirement on the grounds that it was an important protection for members and there was no clear evidence that removing it would have a direct and significant effect on employer provision (Deregulatory Review, March 2007).

Members of some occupational pension schemes – such as the Hewlett Packard Pension Association – have called on the Government to require indexation of pre-1997 rights. However, the Government has said it has no plans to do this, on the basis that it would mean “significant additional expenditure for any scheme and its sponsoring employer” see Library Debate Pack CDP- 2017-0016, September 2017.

Switch to the CPI – April 2011

From April 2011, the Coalition Government changed the measure of inflation used for determining the annual minimum increases from the Retail Price Index (RPI) to the Consumer Prices Index (CPI) (HC Deb, 8 July 2010, c14-16 WS).The change was controversial because the CPI inflation tends to be lower than RPI inflation. The impact of the legislative change on individual schemes would depend on what their rules said (DWP, Impact assessment, 12 July 2011).

The Government considered introducing a ‘statutory override’ to allow schemes to change their rules where they might otherwise be prevented from doing so. (DWP, The impact of using CPI etc – consultation on Government proposals, December 2010). However, it decided against on grounds that trust in pensions was important and that government justification demanded strong justification. Where a scheme did intend to change its rules for future accruals, employers would be required to consult (Government response to consultation, June 2011, para 18 and 34).

On 7 November 2018, the Supreme Court ruled that the wording of the rules of the Barnardo’s pension scheme did not permit it to switch from the RPI to another index that it considered more appropriate unless the RPI had been officially withdrawn and replaced, which it had not.

Consultation on ability to change scheme rules

In its December 2016 report on Defined Benefit pension schemes, the Work and Pensions Select Committee said schemes that had latitude in their rules to switch to the CPI had tended to do so. It recommended that the Government consult on “permitting trustees to propose changes to scheme indexation rules in the interests of members”:

Pension promises are just that. Any change to the terms of them should not be taken lightly. In circumstances where an adjustment to the scheme rules would make the scheme substantially more sustainable, however, a reduction in benefits could well be in the interests of members.

In its February 2017 Green Paper, the Government asked for views on whether:

  • There was evidence to suggest an affordability crisis that would warrant permitting schemes to reduce indexation to the statutory minimum;
  • The Government should consider a statutory over-ride to allow schemes to move to a different index, provided protection against inflation was maintained;
  • The Government should consider allowing schemes to suspend indexation in some circumstances. (DWP, Security and Sustainability in Defined Benefit Pension Schemes, CM 9412, Feb 2017).

The March 2018 White Paper ruled out changes to override scheme rules:

We are committed to protecting members’ pension benefits, and are presently ruling out measures which would override provisions in scheme rules and allow employers, or schemes, to change the measure of inflation used to calculate annual increases. However, we will continue to monitor developments in the use of inflation indices. (Cm 9591, March 2018).

In conclusion

The PPF does not pay discretionary increases on pre April 1997 pensions, it doesn’t pay any increases at all. But it makes this very clear in its member facing literature

There are intergenerational unfairnesses in pensions and many people are finding their indexation is “missing”. However, the PPF appears clear on its rules and my unhappy inclusion is that when investing into a DB scheme where your benefits are dependent on your trustees’ discretion, you are taking a risk on your employer’s covenant. It’s a tough risk, as it has limited compensation, but the PPF’s compensation is a whole lot better than what came before.

Pension increases will continue to be a bone of contention. The only proper way of mitigating the risks to pensioners is to maintain inflation in the BOE’s 2% target range.

About henry tapper

Founder of the Pension PlayPen,, partner of Stella, father of Olly . I am the Pension Plowman
This entry was posted in pensions and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

7 Responses to Pension indexation for DB schemes (intact or in the PPF)

  1. John Mather says:

    “Defined Benefit (DB) pension schemes provide pension benefits based on salary and length of service.”

    Until they don’t and need the PPF

    When will this blog start to have a balanced view and recognise the reality DB fails in most cases

    If you ignore these where the taxpayer underwrites the scheme

    • Peter Tompkins says:

      DB doesn’t fail in most cases. It needs rescuing in some (the PPF minority). But in the overwhelming majority it delivers what it says on the can.

      Suggesting that it fails damages consumer confidence in a very important employer supported benefit, most obviously in the public sector where failure never occurs.

      • John Mather says:

        I excluded the pubic scheme DB from the comment but thousands of schemes are in either PPF or in a buyout and yet the myth of Gold Plated schemes is trotted out time and time again, Where is the compensation from the peddlers of these scams?

  2. Derek Benstead says:

    The PPF should be modified so that the PPF only gives no increases pre 6 April 1997 pension if the originating scheme didn’t. If the originating scheme gives any increases on pre 1997 pension, then the PPF should provide CPI indexation up to 2.5%, as it does for pension from post 1997 service. This is not going to make the administration of the PPF any more complicated. The money to pay for it is in the originating schemes, which were funded to provide the full benefits.

    Whether the cap on increases of 2.5% is high enough, and whether the PPF should invest to provide increases above 2.5% as can be afforded from investment returns, are two more debates we could have.

    • Stefan Zaitschenko says:

      “The money to pay for it is in the originating schemes, which were funded to provide the full benefits.”

      That is incorrect as schemes that enter PPF assessment are in deficit and that is why there is need to be considered by the lifeboat. I am in the photograph above. We took the issue of loss of pre97 indexation to Parliament (Frank Field’s WPSC). The PPF does not have the funds to pay the same level as the original scheme and relies on the lower liabilities of reduced benefits to function and potentially create a surplus. ie including the 10% cut for those under NPA. The PPF would need significant extra funding to maintain scheme benefits at the original levels which would need to come from general taxation or increased levies from DB schemes, neither of which is likely.

      In our case (BSPS) the major cause underfunding of the DB scheme deficit and not taking into account the changes in size and automation of the sponsor. The scheme like many other DB schemes became akin to a Ponzi with few paying in compared to pensions being paid out.

    • Peter Beattie says:

      I would agree that pensioners pre 1997 service should be offered inflation protection otherwise we are stuck in increasing pension poverty due to rapidly increasing ‘cost of living’. I have spent 22 years with no indexing due to being made ‘redundant employee’ of the Solvera Group Pension Scheme’ in 1997. Solvera (now in the PPF) rules stated a maximum of 3% RPI to offset inflation but we were robbed of that due to the 2004 flawed rules of 2004 and the government in 1997. When is the government going to be fair with ALL pensioners?

  3. Pingback: Cumbo calls into question pension transparency. | AgeWage: Making your money work as hard as you do

Leave a Reply