There’s been a lot of discussion recently in the general and specialist pensions media about government plans to make it easier for Defined Benefit fund sponsors – the employers — to access what some in the pensions industry call “trapped surpluses,” which many DB schemes have built up in recent years. In their pursuit of growth, the government wants to encourage sponsor companies to invest their pension surpluses, or at least part of them, to boost the UK economy. This could involve fund sponsors investing surpluses in their own companies, with the inducement being a reduction in tax paid on these surpluses to 25 pct from 35 pct For all Defined Benefit fund members there is also an important potential gain because a surplus, or part of it, could be used to increase the pensions of both existing and future pensioners.  For example, it might be possible to use the RPF surplus to

PRG asked a Reuters Pension Fund member who has made use of the scheme’s internal dispute process how he found the experience. The main takeaways: the whole process is slow but works well. It is fact driven, not overly bureaucratic and serious consideration was given to the member’s complaint. Background to complaint In May 2022 this member submitted a request for a retirement quotation. The timing coincided with the handover of the administration of the pension scheme to Isio from Capita, which resulted in some disruption. It took until mid-December 2022 for the member to receive a valid quotation. The member was not happy with the delay, so made a complaint to Isio requesting specific action. Initial handling of complaint by Isio Member’s comment: Isio responded within a month, rejecting my request for specific action. They did provide a clear reason for the rejection, but it was based on an

Plans for relaxing long-established rules on the way DB pension fund surpluses can be used are due to be announced this spring, the UK Treasury said at end-January, and details will be set out in a reply to a consultation on the “Options for Defined Benefit Schemes ” launched by the previous government.The Treasury also said that trustees and sponsoring employers could use such pension fund surpluses to ” increase the productivity of their businesses through higher wages or by paying more to scheme members.” So far, there does not appear to have been mention of how, if at all, members will have any influence or say, in how the surpluses might be used.According to Chancellor Rachel Reeves, the aim is to ” introduce new flexibilities for well-funded defined benefit schemes to release surplus funds where it is safe to do so, generating even more investment ” for some of the UK’s

In a recent House of Commons debate on private pensions schemes, Alistair Carmichael, MP for the Shetlands and the Orkneys, criticised some major employers in the UK for failing to pay their pensioners discretionary inflationary increases for their pre-1997 service. Carmichael, whose constituency includes companies such as BP, Shell and Exxon, delivered an eloquent and fervent speech, saying there was “a fundamental point of fairness at stake”, condemning such organisations who would have encouraged their staff to sign up to the company pension scheme, with the latter’s expectation of receiving annual increases in line with inflation during retirement.  The MP maintained that pensions “are simply deferred income, with our being paid later, after we have stopped working, for the service we have done.”  He went on to say that the corporates “don’t seem to understand that they are the inheritors of businesses built by others and that those others are