The development of public and Parliamentary concern
Jump to
The development of public and Parliamentary concern
20. On 14 March 1995, during a debate in the House of Lords on the Pensions Bill 1995 (Official Report Vol. 562, col. 818), Baroness Gould of Potternewton tabled an amendment which would have had the effect of introducing a transitional period of ten years during which the amount of SERPS to be inherited would be reduced in steps of five per cent a year from April 2000. In moving her amendment, Baroness Gould said it was her understanding that there was little public awareness of the forthcoming change, and that the measure would come as a great shock to many people when it happened. The then Minister of State for Social Security replying for the then Government said: "This reduction... will not come as a surprise... 14 years is a more than adequate lead-in period [and] more than enough notice to give people who may be affected when the year 2000 comes." The amendment was withdrawn.
21. On 28 October 1998 the Director General of Age Concern wrote to the then Minister of State for Social Security saying that Age Concern was being contacted by an increasing number of older people who had only recently discovered that the amount of SERPS a surviving widow or widower received would depend on the exact date on which their spouse died. She said that as far as Age Concern knew there had been little general publicity and no attempt to inform individuals contributing to SERPS. Age Concern was said to have heard of a number of occasions when BA staff had given incorrect information in reply to enquirers. In reply, the then Minister of State said on 30 November 1998 that steps were being taken by BA to make sure that all staff received comprehensive briefing on the issue "by the end of the year". He said that publicity about the changes had been included "as part of the information about the 1995 Pensions Act", and that more detailed information had been featured in leaflets NP45 and NP46 from spring 1996.
22. By that time, the issue was already beginning to cause more widespread concern. For example, in a written Parliamentary Question on 3 November 1998 (Official Report, Vol. 318, col. 554) Mr David Rendel MP had asked the Secretary of State for Social Security what measures had been taken to publicise the future halving of the SERPS inheritance provisions, and when the department's leaflets and other literature had first referred to the change. The then Minister of State had replied that the department had arranged publicity about the Pensions Act 1995 with an advertising and direct mailing campaign in the autumn of that year. After further Parliamentary Questions had been tabled, on 16 February 1999 "The Sun" newspaper published an article headed "Biggest pension scandal ever" and subtitled "The Government gave out bad advice for ten years". Other national newspapers including "The Times", "The Financial Times" and "The Daily Telegraph" took up the story in the same week. Since then, articles about the changes have featured in many newspapers and magazines. The subject has also been widely covered on television and radio.
23. On 22 February 1999 a series of further Parliamentary Questions about SERPS was tabled. One of them (Official Report, Vol. 326, col. 170) asked the Secretary of State if he planned to write to all men with SERPS entitlements who had retired between 1986 and 1996 and whose decisions might have been affected by incomplete information from DSS. The Question also asked if the Secretary of State would compensate such men. In reply, the then Minister of State said that the Government was considering ways to heighten general awareness of the 50 per cent reduction in inheritable SERPS; and that existing compensation arrangements could offer redress to those who could show that their financial decisions had been affected to their detriment by misleading information from DSS.
24. On 5 July 1999 the Director General of Age Concern wrote to the then Minister of State for Social Security saying that Age Concern had taken advice from counsel and had been told that there was a strong legal argument that the reduction in a spouse's SERPS entitlement from April 2000 was in breach of article 1 of the First Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights, having regard in particular to the repeated failure over ten years to notify or publicise the proposed change. On 22 July the then Minister of State replied that, after receiving the letter from Age Concern, the Government had taken legal advice but believed that they were acting in accordance with their legal obligations under the Convention. On 16 September and 22 December the Director General of Age Concern wrote to the Minister of State clarifying Age Concern's view that it was the poor handling of the SERPS change, not the original change in the 1986 Act, that gave rise to the Convention violation. The Director General also said that if the Government did not give an assurance that the principle of preserving accrued rights would be adhered to, Age Concern would have to give consideration to commencing legal proceedings under article 1 of the First Protocol. In reply the Minister of State said that he was confident that the 1986 legislation accorded with the Government's obligations under the Convention, and that any regulations introduced under section 52 of the Welfare Reform and Pensions Act 1999 (the 1999 Act) (see paragraph 33 below) would do so. He added that the Government did not believe, purely as a matter of law, that the Convention required individual notification of changes to state benefits.
