Allied Steel and Wire pension campaigners call for surplus to be used
Pension protections were strengthened after the Maxwell Scandal, when newspaper tycoon Robert Maxwell stole more than £400m from the pension funds of his Mirror newspaper group to prop up his ailing businesses.His pensioners lost half of what they had paid in. As a result of his action, the Financial Assistance Scheme was set up as a safety net to protect pensioners when the companies they worked for went bust. It was this scheme that helped bail out a group of Welsh workers from Allied Steel and Wire (ASW) in Cardiff who lost out when the company went under in 2002. Although the ASW workers got 90% of their pensions, their value has fallen since that time as they are not linked to rising prices.
'It's destroyed me'
Mr Benson, from Dinas Powys, Vale of Glamorgan, has led a long campaign asking the government to make up the shortfall, which he said has had dire consequences."It's destroyed retirement dreams. Some colleagues have had to downsize," he said. "One lady who was seriously ill herself couldn't afford a funeral after her husband died, and a couple of months later she died herself. "It's soul destroying. It's destroyed me. "There are some horror stories, too many to tell."
Now a cross-party group of Senedd members has written to the prime minister urging him to pay the pensions in full, among them the former Conservative leader in Cardiff Bay Andrew RT Davies."This is a massive injustice that's been inflicted on ASW pension holders and other pension holders across the UK," he said."Through no fault of their own, they've lost their entitlement to a full pension which they paid into, and we believe the system should be corrected and that's why we've signed this letter."It has been revealed that the scheme which replaced the Financial Assistance Scheme, the Pension Protection Fund (PPF), has a surplus of £13bn.Mr Benson said paying a tiny amount of that money to him and his fellow pensioners to make up the shortfall would not be a hardship, but would make all the difference to them."This money, this surplus in the PPF, should be paid to restore our pensions in full."They've got a £13bn surplus in the PPF – use it!"Stop making excuses that it's public money – it's our money. This money is meant for us, not other government policies."
'Any hope?'
The matter was also raised with Pensions Minister and Swansea West MP Torsten Bell at a meeting of the Commons Work and Pensions Committee earlier this month.Committee chair Labour MP Debbie Abrahams asked: "I cannot understand the reason for not making a decision to enable them to spend the last few years of their life in some comfort, can you give us any hope around this?"Bell replied: "It does need to be looked at properly."It needs to be considered in the round of those wider impacts, as all public policy matters are, but I am absolutely aware of the issues."I am also aware of the average age of the people that are affected."The best thing I can do is to say that I am aware and I am looking at it, but the public finance implications are more complicated than you set out."In response, concerning its £13bn surplus, the PPF said it deliberately had what it called a reserve to protect it from future claims or in case people live longer than expected.The Department for Work and Pensions said it recognised members' incomes may have been eroded in recent years."However, these are complex matters requiring a balanced approach," it said."The government is continuing to consider what we have heard from the Pension Protection Fund and Financial Assistance Scheme members on this issue."More on this story on BBC Politics Wales at 10:00 BST on Sunday 22 June
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
23 minutes ago
- The Independent
Reeves' new homes levy slammed as a ‘tax on ordinary Londoners' that will hit families hardest
Rachel Reeves ' plans for a new property tax on homes worth over £500,000 have been slammed as a 'tax on ordinary Londoners' that will hit families hardest. The chancellor is reportedly considering a shake-up that will see homeowners taxed on the sale of properties over the £500,000 threshold, with buyers then forced to pay a yearly tax on their value. It would replace the current stamp duty regime for first homes, which sees buyers pay a tax on the value of properties over £125,000, or £300,000 for first-time buyers. But Simon Gerrard, an estate agent who has long campaigned to reform stamp duty, warned it would amount to a 'London tax'. Speaking to The Independent, Mr Gerrard, chairman of Martyn Gerrard Estate Agents, said: 'Rightmove's latest figures for August show that the average price of a property in London is now £666,983. Upping taxes for properties over £500K is not making the wealthy pay their fair share, it's a tax on ordinary Londoners. 'It's already nearly impossible for normal people to start a family in London as it is. This London tax will only make it harder.' He said the threshold for the potential tax change should be significantly higher than £500,000 in London, or Labour would fail in its mission to support working people. He also warned that the potential tax change could distort the property market for homes worth around £500,000. Mr Gerrard warned: 'You're going to see a ceiling at the £500,000 threshold for that band of the market, as people avoid falling under the regime, and then a significant jump in values with nothing in between. 'Prices above £500,000 will skyrocket as sellers account for the losses caused by the tax that used to be paid by the buyer.' Currently, stamp duty is paid by those buying homes over £125,000, or £300,000 for first-time buyers. A first-time buyer purchasing a £500,000 home to live in would pay £10,000 of stamp duty under the current rules. If adopted, the new levy would be paid by owner-occupiers when they sell a home worth more than £500,000. The amount would be based on the property's value, with the rate set centrally and collected by HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC). It would not replace stamp duty on second homes. Then, anyone having purchased a home worth more than £500,000 would pay an annual tax on the property under the proposals. It is believed the plans are aimed at targeting the financial gains made by property owners due to the huge increase in house prices. But critics warned it could push up asking prices for properties above the £500,000 threshold, with sellers looking to offset the payment of the tax. Ministers have already been briefed on the proposals, which could be rolled out during this parliament, The Guardian reports. Under one option, a national property levy would replace stamp duty on owner-occupied homes. In the longer term, a second stage could see a local property tax replace council tax, a move designed to repair the finances of struggling local authorities. No final decisions have been made, and Treasury sources stressed that while a national levy could be implemented in the coming years, reform of council tax would take longer and would probably depend on Labour winning a second term. The review reflects growing pressure on the chancellor to introduce more wealth-based taxes. Labour's deputy leader, Angela Rayner, has already urged Ms Reeves to consider measures that target property wealth, and Ms Reeves is under pressure to raise revenue without breaking Labour's pledge not to increase taxes on working people. The average house price in the UK was £272,664 in July, according to Nationwide. Current stamp duty receipts from primary residences vary significantly depending on the housing market, raising £11.6bn last year. Treasury officials believe a national property tax would be a more stable source of income and would eventually raise a similar amount. Unlike stamp duty, which currently applies to around 60 per cent of home sales and is paid by buyers, the new levy would affect only about a fifth of transactions. The proposals are informed by a 48-page report published last year by the centre-right think tank Onward. Written by Dr Tim Leunig, a former government adviser who helped devise the furlough scheme during the Covid pandemic, it set out a dual national and local 'proportional property tax' based on property values. Dr Leunig wrote: 'These proposals would make it easier and cheaper to move house, for a better job, or to be near family, as well as being fairer. It should not be the case that a terrace house in Burnley pays more than a mansion in Kensington – and it wouldn't be under these proposals.' A Treasury spokesman said: 'The best way to strengthen public finances is by growing the economy – which is our focus. Changes to tax and spend policy are not the only ways of doing this, as seen with our planning reforms, which are expected to grow the economy by £6.8bn and cut borrowing by £3.4bn 'We are committed to keeping taxes for working people as low as possible, which is why at last Autumn's Budget, we protected working people's payslips and kept our promise not to raise the basic, higher or additional rates of Income Tax, employee National Insurance, or VAT.'
The Independent
23 minutes ago
- The Independent
Urgent warning to close ‘loophole' within online age checks
England's children 's commissioner, Dame Rachel de Souza, has urged the government to prevent children from using virtual private networks (VPNs) to bypass age verification on pornography websites. Her new report reveals a rise in children accessing online pornography, with 70 per cent of respondents having seen it before age 18, up from 64 per cent two years ago. The report highlights that 59 per cent of children and young people encountered pornography online accidentally, suggesting harmful content is pushed by algorithms rather than sought out. VPNs allow users to mask their location, enabling them to circumvent age checks introduced by the Online Safety Act on adult content platforms. While the government states VPNs are legal for adults and will not be banned, it warns platforms that promote workarounds for children will face severe penalties and fines.
Daily Mail
23 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Woman who was sexually assaulted by passenger on flight to London is refused compensation - despite her attacker being jailed for six years
A woman who was sexually assaulted as she slept on an airplane has been denied compensation from a government scheme - because the plane she flew on was registered abroad. The woman, who cannot be identified for legal reasons but is being referred to by her lawyers as Kelly, was attacked on a Qatar Airways flight from Doha to Gatwick last September. Her attacker, Momade Jussab, was detained on landing and charged with one count of sexual assault by penetration and two counts of sexual assault, for which he was found guilty after a trial and jailed for six and a half years in May. However, Kelly's bid for compensation from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme (CICS) - a taxpayer-funded redress initiative for victims of crime - that would have helped pay for therapy after the attack was turned down. The Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority, which administers the scheme on behalf of the Ministry of Justice, said the attack did not take place in a 'relevant place' - namely, on British territory. Current rules dictate that aircraft are only deemed 'relevant places' if they are registered in Britain - but the jet bore a Qatari registration. Kelly's lawyers are calling for justice secretary Shabana Mahmood to update the rules so they are in line with current legislation on aircraft offences. The Civil Aviation Act was only changed 30 years ago to allow offences committed on foreign planes to be tried in British courts. But the rules on the compensation scheme have not caught up. Have you been denied CICS compensation? Email: Kelly, who is in her 20s, from London, said: 'I do not understand why I, and other victims like me, have been excluded from the CIC Scheme. 'I was attacked on a flight en route to the UK, I am a UK citizen, and this crime was investigated and prosecuted by British authorities. 'I should be entitled to compensation, and being excluded from the scheme is unfair and illogical. 'I am still suffering with the effects of the attack and want to move forward with my life.' She told BBC News that she had awoken on the flight in the darkened cabin coming back from a trip to Africa to find Jussab, 66, putting his hand down her trousers. He had covered them both with a blanket to hide what he was doing from other passengers. 'I said to him, "What are you doing?" I said, "Stop",' she said. 'He said, "No, please". And I had to force his hand out of my trousers and that just made me get up straight away. 'I left my phone, I left my bag, I left my passport, I left everything. I left my shoes and ran into the toilet, left the door open (and) told the flight attendant.' She was moved elsewhere in the cabin - but remained terrified she would encounter Jussab again. But he was arrested on landing, and jailed for six and a half years at Lewes Crown Court in May as part of an extended sentence - meaning he must serve at least two thirds before he will be eligible for parole. However, Kelly remains traumatised by the incident, and had hoped to use the award from the CICS to seek professional counselling from a therapist. She added: 'I understand that he's been sentenced and he's done what he's done and he's paying the price for that. But what about me? I can't afford certain therapy. 'I just want to be compensated for what I've been through. I want professional help and I want to be heard.' Law firm Leigh Day, which is representing Kelly, has written to Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood, urging her to close what it believes is a gap in the law. The letter points out that, had Kelly been on a UK-registered plane, she would be eligible for compensation. Its solicitor Claire Powell said: 'Our client suffered an horrific sexual attack on a UK-bound flight. 'She was refused compensation under the Criminal Injuries Compensation scheme simply because it was a foreign flight and the rules have not been amended in line with the updates to the Civil Aviation Act. 'It is a gap that needs closing urgently and we trust the Justice Secretary will agree, particularly in light of this Government's commitment to addressing violence against women and girls.' The CICS makes payments of between £1,000 and £250,000 for both physical and mental injuries resulting from crimes affecting either an individual or their loved one, with a maximum payout across multiple claims of £500,000. Its rules are approved by Parliament, meaning any potential changes to the scheme must be given the nod by MPs. A Ministry of Justice spokesperson said: 'Our thoughts remain with this victim, and we remain resolute in our mission to halve violence against women and girls in a decade. 'The rules that the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority follows, and the values of payments for injuries, are set by Parliament. Other routes are available for victims to receive support.'
