Sara

Andy and the Queen

I was reading this morning the Hansard account of the debate in the Lords Grand Committee on the losses incurred on pensioners by legislation that has meant they have had no increases in their pre-97 pensions.

You can read it here, it is a debate about the cost of fixing things for those in the PPF and FAS both going further and (by way of lump sum) going back. The cost is not just in money that will and should be paid but in the cost of administrating this properly.

This brings into the debate the expert in the PPF’s operations one of the “Youngs”, Sara Protheroe. The Conservative  Lord Younger quotes her

I also note the comments made by Sara Protheroe, the PPF’s chief customer officer, who said:

“While implementing this change will be no small task”—

that is probably an understatement—the PPF is

“fully committed to delivering this at the earliest opportunity if and when it becomes law”.

That welcome commitment raises an important practical question for the Government, does it not? What assessment has the Minister made of the extra resources that might be required? What support will be provided to the PPF to ensure that delivery can take place smoothly and without delay? Have the Government assessed whether additional resources, which could come via capacity or funding, will be required to implement this change effectively? If so, how do they intend to provide that support?

A few minutes later we have Baroness Altmann, calling the other half of the Young couple into the debate, as the debate moves on to compensation and the help that can be made to those worst hit by loss of pensions this century. Here she is.

I understand—I will go through this in more detail in the next group—that the Financial Assistance Scheme, for example, is supposedly funded by public money, while the PPF itself and employer contributions, in the form of the levy, provides the money for PPF compensation, but £2 billion from the scheme was transferred to the public purse. Thankfully, when we were trying to improve the Financial Assistance Scheme in 2005, Andrew Young recommended stopping annuity purchase, which had been happening and, unfortunately, transferred much of the money to insurers rather than putting it towards the Government to pay out over time. Nevertheless, the Financial Assistance Scheme itself represents some of the biggest losers and the ones with the most pre-1997 accrual.

I will not bore readers by giving my views on this debate. They can read the Hansard report on what happened from lunchtime into the early afternoon here. The debate includes many good friends of this blog and the Pension PlayPen , in particular Lord (Bryn) Davies.

What is said by all in this debate on the Pension Schemes Bill is unlikely to be widely reported as the amendments put forward were withdrawn because they were Conservative amendments , but Bryn is a union man and his comments are important. I hope he will talk to us when these debates are finished on Pension PlayPen.

A challenge to the pension world – is there a married couple like the Youngs?

I bring this debate to my reader’s attention because they are independently quoted as authoritative.

I imagine there were Peers listening to the debate who clocked Sara Protheroe being quoted by Lord Younger and Andrew Young being referred to by Baroness Altmann, both between 1:30 and 1:45.

I hope that a mental record was made – for I suspect what we have here is something of a record from a couple who have done more for those in PPF and FAS than any other!