Mike Slingsby, who has been doing more than most to bring the BP pensioner’s claims to public attention told the BP Pension Group (BPPG)
Another good day’s work which will see the BP Pensions Scandal feature in Hansard again!
Our democratic system where MPs are both national legislators and local representative serves pensions well. We have seen the cause of the former BSPS steelworkers championed by Smith and Kinnock in South Wales. The same is happening for oil workers around Great Britain.
Alistair Carmichael, MP for Orkney & Shetland, has BP Sullom Voe in his back yard, another MP- Justin Madders has picked up that Shell Pensioners are in the same situation. He has Stanlow Refinery in his Ellesmere Port constituency , a third MP is Wendy Chamberlain, from Fife, the location of the JV Cracker at Mossmoran.
J V Cracker
All three have been supporting the BP Pensioners case.
I look forward to watching the forthcoming Westminster debate on Parliament TV . It may not get the attention of the pension press , who too often seem more concerned with the extraction of rents from pension funds than the payment of benefits. But the debate should get coverage from a national press for whom pensions are the tangible reward for years of service.
In January, Carmichael referred to the BP Pensioners as “the Canary in the Coalmine”. To his credit, Jack Grey of Pension Age reported the Canary in January
MP for Orkney and Shetland, Alistair Carmichael, said that BP appeared to be “dealing from the bottom of the deck” regarding pension decisions made by the directors.
He called on BP’s leadership to spend time talking to the scheme’s pensioners in a “serious and meaningful way”.
Carmichael described the dispute as the equivalent of a “canary in a coalmine” for defined benefit (DB) pensions in the UK, and warned that what happens to the BP Pensioner Group could happen to others.
“That’s why this is a matter to which the government must now turn its close urgent attention,” he added.
Carmichael’s evocative rhetoric went down well with the pensioners , Slingsby writing
Let’s all hope that the ‘Canary in the Coal Mine’ get’s another mention from Alistair Carmichael! The Canary could well become our new BPPG Mascot !
More blue tit than canary , but right idea Mike!
Another former Shell oil-worker , Paul Poultney posted
Meanwhile in Caxton St, SWI
Alistair Carmichael’s good humoured opportunism is in sharp contrast to the dilatory efforts of the DWP to listen to their national constituency. This week it owned up to there having been 16,500 red and amber flags thrown stopping people paying attention to their pensions. For two years it has been waiting to get “parliamentary time” to rescind the 2021 transfer legislation which they were warned would lead to this mess.
Anyone awaiting swift remedial action should hold their breath. The DWP told the Sun, who had requested the information that while it acknowledged this was a problem , it could give no time-scale for resolution.
I understand we will have a consultation followed by an election – perhaps Pension Minister ,Paul Maynard, should have a word with Alistair Carmichael.
I doubt lawmakers will wish to interfere with the principles of equity and the exercise of discretion, whether under an “Imperial Duty” or not, that are so central to Trust nature of a DB Pension Scheme.
However one way legislators could encourage provision of pension benefits that maintain the real value of pensions is through a differential rate for the Authorised Payments Tax Charge under s207 of the Finance Act 2004 (currently being reduced from 35% to 25% in the Budget).
My suggestion would be that the lower 25% rate would only apply where the scheme had already revalued all accrued pension rights and pensions in payment in line with with the Pensions Increases Act (as used for calculating the Annual Allowance) and had secured the benefit for members by hard coding into future increases in the terms of any buy-out. Failing to secure the real value of the pension benefits would then carry a higher tax rate (say 35%). Where companies like BP and Shell have not protected the real value of their pension promises they would need to reflect the higher potential tax rate in their deferred tax liability provision against any reported surplus.
The justification for the penalty tax rate is that I understood one of the justifications for the Corporation Tax deduction for payments to authorised pension schemes plus the capacity of the scheme to avoid tax on its investment income was that the provision of inflated protected pensions would reduce dependence on means tested benefits in later life and in the case of pensioners not requiring means tested benefit, the pension was taxable on receipt.
Such a great post “Oldie” – I will try to explain it to myself and others with a blog.
Pingback: Putting members first. A proposal for the taxation of pension surpluses | AgeWage: Making your money work as hard as you do