Here are extracts from a Times article quoting a new group opposing proposed changes in the Pension Investment Review. The same article appears in
and many others.
There may be a few others all too happy to fill some space rather than read a difficult set of Government papers including the Pension Investment Review and responses to consultations on LGPS and Defined Benefit surpluses.
If you want to know the source of this article, it is the Pension Security Alliance (PSA).
The PSA consists of specialist DB insurer Pension Insurance Corporation (PIC), Just Group, independent pensions consultant John Ralfe, the Older People’s Advocacy Alliance (OPAAL) charity and senior citizens membership organisation Silver Voices.
Professional Pensions Tell us the charity names. The Times (below) leaves out the charities by name. We are dealing here with two insurers who buy out DB pensions and one consultant who is pro buy-out. The charities are being used for sympathy.
This PS alliance has no website, no history and seems to have been founded to pen a press release. It is time that journalists made it clear just what they are doing (copying press releases) and who they are doing it for (those with vested commercial vested interests). OPAAL is a small charity funded by the National Lottery Fund , Silver Voices has plenty to say about the State Pension but like OPAAL makes no mention of Pension Security Alliance on its site.
These charities are not pension specialists but PIC, Just and John Ralfe are. As at 31/05/2025 there is nothing about PSA at any of their three websites. They are keen to talk about pensions in detail but are using the PSA scam to get the message out while mitigating risk to the brand or the insurer’s relationship with the Treasury.
My question to all the journalists and editors of the papers and trade magazines that ran the press release is “why?”. I include the Times, formerly the Thunderer and now the “paste and publisher”. Times you should do better, insurers , consultants and charities that sign up to being quoted, let’s see a little more of you , if we are.
As well as the press release from PSA, the article has a similar statement from UKSIF on another topic in the Government’s publication and finishes with a reasonable quote from John Ralfe and a balancing quote from Daniela Silcock. These are copied on this blog so as not to be incomplete but what is this not integrated into the press release – why stuck like an appendix at the end?
Are the Times considering this kind of reporting worthy of a great paper – I hope not.
Read for yourself.. (my comment is in bold italics)
‘Millions of people’s pensions at risk’ from government reforms
Experts, campaigners and businesses issue stark warning over plan to make it easier for employers to dip into pension schemes
Government pension reforms could put “millions of people’s pensions at risk”, increase the prospect of scheme “collapses” and lower returns, experts have warned.
Pensions specialists, campaigners and businesses issued the warning after the government said it would push ahead with plans to change the law to make it easier for employers to dip into pension schemes.
There are also widespread concerns that reforms to allow the government to force pension funds to invest in British assets may put returns at risk.
As part of a broader set of changes designed to boost the economy, the government said on Thursday that it would change rules governing the extraction of billions of pounds of surplus money in defined benefit pension schemes.
However, the Pension Security Alliance, a new group, warned ministers that pension schemes were
“not piggybanks for others to dip into”.
It said the changes were “not in the interests of” more than ten million members of traditional private sector pension schemes and noted the government had previously warned that surplus extraction could
“reduce security for members”.
The group warned that extraction
“before members’ benefits have been secured runs the risk of those schemes running short of money if financial conditions change. In that case, some schemes could collapse.”
It added:
“We urge ministers to think again.”
Members of the alliance include Just Group, which specialises in retirement financial services, Pension Insurance Corporation, an insurer, John Ralfe, a pensions consultant and chairman of two schemes, and groups representing older people.
“Employers could use this funding to invest in their business, increase productivity, boost wages or utilise it for enhanced contributions,”
the Department for Work and Pensions said.
The reforms also give ministers a “reserve power” to enable them to force pension funds to invest in British assets if they do not do so voluntarily.
What follows is a separate story tacked on the press release is from the UK Sustainable Investment and Finance Association and is reaction to the Government’s backstop
The UK Sustainable Investment and Finance Association, which represents more than 300 financial services firms with more than £19 trillion in assets under management, said it was concerned.
“distorting markets, creating asset bubbles and potentially lowering returns for pension savers. It could also push some schemes into riskier assets than appropriate.”
Renny Biggins, head of retirement at The Investing and Saving Alliance, said schemes must not be forced
“down a path which could jeopardise member outcomes”.
Torsten Bell, the pensions minister, insisted that the government was not directing specific investment strategies.
At this point the article reverts to the subject of pension surpluses.
Schemes can already return surpluses to employers under certain conditions, typically buyouts by insurers. Current rules generally prevent employers from taking surplus funding while running a scheme.
The government estimates that three in four schemes are in surplus and about £160 billion of surplus assets are being held, although another estimate has put the figure at closer to £360 billion. Economic and demographic changes can quickly alter the position.
Finally some comment, one from a PSA member, another from a former member of the PPI that gives a little balance to finish the article.
Ralfe said the legislation must be carefully designed with surpluses
“defined on a tough basis’’
and that employers should be on the hook for repayments if schemes fall into deficit after surplus sums are removed.
“A change that encourages more schemes to continue running and to pay benefits directly, rather than transferring to an insurer, could help members by maintaining flexibility, avoiding transaction costs, and potentially preserving higher benefit value.”
An Appendix of proper articles on the publication by the Times (for balance)
- This Times article quotes opposition to mandates on investments from Amanda Blanc and Miles Cedric Ministers to get power to force pension funds to invest in UK
Pingback: Austerity; twenty years fearing failure, failing to invest – this can change | AgeWage: Making your money work as hard as you do
Pingback: PENSION RISK TRANSFER INDUSTRY – Push Back and Critique | AgeWage: Making your money work as hard as you do