{"id":190951,"date":"2025-10-05T05:45:15","date_gmt":"2025-10-05T05:45:15","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/au\/190951\/"},"modified":"2025-10-05T05:45:15","modified_gmt":"2025-10-05T05:45:15","slug":"property118-keir-starmers-personal-pension-act-fair-or-favouritism","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/au\/190951\/","title":{"rendered":"Property118 | Keir Starmer\u2019s Personal Pension Act \u2013 Fair or Favouritism?"},"content":{"rendered":"

One of the quickest ways to undermine trust in politics is the feeling that those at the top are playing by a different set of rules. We\u2019ve all seen examples of this creeping \u201cthem and us\u201d culture, and one of the clearest cases is the Pensions Increase (Pension Scheme for Keir Starmer QC) Regulations 2013 (SI 2013\/2588) \u2014 which you can read in full here: legislation.gov.uk\/uksi\/2013\/2588<\/a>.<\/p>\n

So, what does this Act actually do? In short, it created a bespoke pension arrangement for Sir Keir Starmer when he stepped down as Director of Public Prosecutions. Instead of joining the same civil service pension regime as most, he was placed in a tax-unregistered scheme. This meant his DPP pension was not subject to the lifetime allowance (LTA) cap, which at the time limited registered pensions to around \u00a31 million.<\/p>\n

Put simply, his DPP pension avoided the LTA cap by design. Or, as George Orwell warned in Animal Farm: \u201cAll animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.\u201d<\/p>\n

The Big Question<\/p>\n

Now that Sir Keir is Prime Minister, should he repeal or amend the 2013 Act so that he is bound by the same pension tax rules as everyone else?<\/p>\n

Is it fair for the country\u2019s leader to keep a benefit that no ordinary taxpayer could ever hope to access?
\nOr is this just another example of how those in power quietly move the goalposts for themselves?
\nIn Animal Farm, the pigs began by promising equality but ended up rewriting the rules to suit themselves. Is this any different?<\/p>\n

It is worth noting, however, that any repeal or amendment would not be something the Prime Minister could do on his own. The pension regulation was laid by the Treasury as secondary legislation. Repealing it would require a new statutory instrument and a formal process, not a simple personal decision. As of July 2024, the Treasury confirmed there were \u201cno plans to repeal the regulations.\u201d<\/p>\n

A Tale of Two Systems<\/p>\n

Ordinary Taxpayers
\nKeir Starmer\u2019s DPP Pension Scheme (SI 2013\/2588)<\/p>\n

Lifetime allowance capped at ~\u00a31 million (at the time).
\nNo lifetime allowance cap applied.<\/p>\n

Exceeding the cap triggers significant tax charges.
\nExempt from LTA tax charges by statute.<\/p>\n

Must use registered HMRC pension schemes.
\nPlaced into a one-member, tax-unregistered scheme.<\/p>\n

Same law applies to all ordinary savers.
\nLaw written in his name, following practice for previous DPPs.<\/p>\n

This looks less like equality under the law and more like Animal Farm\u2019s infamous line: \u201cAll animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.\u201d<\/p>\n

Why This Matters Beyond Pensions<\/p>\n

This isn\u2019t just about one pension scheme. It goes to the heart of trust and transparency in our political system.<\/p>\n

Yes, Starmer\u2019s arrangement meant his pension avoided the LTA cap. But it was also part of a broader framework: previous Directors of Public Prosecutions such as Sir Ken Macdonald QC had similar one-person pension schemes, and judicial pensions are structured outside the LTA for the same reasons. The government chose this structure, not Starmer personally.<\/p>\n

When the public see \u201cdonkey sanctuary\u201d tax and trust debacles on one hand, and personalised Acts of Parliament on the other, is it any wonder there\u2019s a growing sense that the rules don\u2019t apply equally? If ordinary landlords and taxpayers must play by the book, why shouldn\u2019t those who write the rules be held to the same standards?<\/p>\n

Join the Conversation<\/p>\n

I\u2019d love to hear what Property118 readers think about this.<\/p>\n

Do you believe this kind of personal legislation is ever justifiable?
\nShould Keir Starmer now lead by example and subject himself to the same pension rules as everyone else?
\nOr is this a storm in a teacup compared to the bigger problems facing the tax system?<\/p>\n

Please share your views in the comments below. The more perspectives we get, the better we can challenge (or defend) the way our tax and pension rules are being applied.<\/p>\n

Fact Checks Completed<\/p>\n

Legislation passed in 2013 and applied to Keir Starmer QC
Regulation: The Pensions Increase (Pension Scheme for Keir Starmer QC) Regulations 2013.
UK Legislation \u2013 SI 2013\/2588<\/a>
\nWhether this was unique treatment
Treasury memo confirms it was standard to create individual schemes for outgoing DPPs. Sir Ken Macdonald QC had a similar scheme.
Treasury Explanatory Memorandum 2013<\/a> |
Explanatory Memorandum 2007 (Sir Ken Macdonald QC)<\/a>
\nNature of the scheme (tax-unregistered)
Such schemes are not subject to LTA charges but also lack normal HMRC registration benefits. Judicial pensions are structured in a similar way.
Treasury memo referencing judicial model<\/a>
\nLifetime Allowance exemption
Correct: Starmer\u2019s DPP pension was not subject to the \u00a31m LTA cap.
BBC Fact Check, March 2023<\/a>
\nCan the Prime Minister repeal or amend the Act?
Not directly. Any repeal would need Treasury action and a new SI. Treasury confirmed in July 2024: \u201cThere are no plans to repeal.\u201d
House of Commons Written Question, 9 July 2024<\/a>
\nCommentary by experts
Tax lawyers note the scheme was created by government, not Starmer personally. Starmer has said he does not want special treatment and would subject himself to the same rules as everyone else if the LTA were restored.
Sky News, March 2023<\/a><\/p>\n

This article is provided for information only and reflects my understanding of the law and published sources at the time of writing. It does not constitute legal or financial advice. Interpretation of public documents is subject to revision.<\/p>\n

Potential Opposing Viewpoints<\/p>\n

For balance, it\u2019s worth acknowledging how supporters of Sir Keir\u2019s pension arrangement might defend it. You may or may not agree with these points, but they are part of the wider debate:<\/p>\n

\u201cIt wasn\u2019t unique to Starmer.\u201d Treasury documents confirm that creating one-person pension schemes for Directors of Public Prosecutions had been long-standing practice. His predecessor, Sir Ken Macdonald QC, had a near-identical arrangement.
\n\u201cIt was not a personal tax dodge.\u201d The scheme was created by the government under the Superannuation Act, not designed by Starmer himself. It was simply part of his employment terms when leaving public office.
\n\u201cUnregistered does not mean untaxed.\u201d While his DPP pension avoided Lifetime Allowance charges, unregistered schemes also lack some of the tax reliefs enjoyed by registered pensions. So is it really an unqualified perk?
\n\u201cJudges are treated the same way.\u201d Judicial pensions have long been structured outside the Lifetime Allowance regime. If judges get this treatment, why shouldn\u2019t the DPP?
\n\u201cThe Prime Minister can\u2019t just repeal it.\u201d Any change would require a formal Treasury process and Parliamentary approval. Stripping someone of accrued pension rights could trigger legal challenges and be seen as retrospective punishment. Is that the right precedent to set?<\/p>\n

Of course, whether readers find these arguments convincing is another matter. Many landlords and taxpayers may still feel it highlights an uncomfortable \u201cone rule for them, another for us\u201d culture.<\/p>\n

Note on the Lifetime Allowance<\/p>\n

Some readers may point out that the Lifetime Allowance (LTA) \u2014 the rule which capped most registered pensions at around \u00a31 million and applied punitive tax charges for exceeding it \u2014 was abolished from 6 April 2024. That is correct. However, it remains important to understand the context and continuing relevance:<\/p>\n

Historical protection: Between 2013 and 2023, while the LTA regime was in force, Sir Keir Starmer\u2019s DPP pension scheme was exempt from it. This meant he avoided the tax charges that ordinary savers faced if their pensions exceeded the cap.
\nAbolition in 2024: The LTA charge was removed in April 2023 and the allowance itself was abolished from April 2024. Since then, new rules limit only tax-free lump sums and death benefits. For now, everyone is outside the LTA regime.
\nPossibility of reinstatement: The abolition was a political decision, not a permanent safeguard. A future government \u2014 including one led by Sir Keir himself \u2014 could choose to reintroduce the LTA or a similar cap. If that happens, his statutory scheme may again avoid those rules unless it is specifically amended.
\nStructural insulation: Because his pension is a one-member, unregistered scheme created by statutory instrument, it is harder to bring it back within scope of any re-imposed LTA without further legislation. That is a degree of protection ordinary savers do not have.
\nWhy this still matters: The point of the article is not technical pension reform, but the principle of fairness. Parliament once wrote a law naming a single individual and exempting him from rules that applied to everyone else. Even though the LTA has now been removed, that precedent and its potential future implications remain relevant.<\/p>\n

In short, the fact that the LTA no longer applies today does not erase the historical advantage or the principle at stake. If anything, it raises further questions about what might happen if the cap returns in the future.<\/p>\n

Have your say by commenting below<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"One of the quickest ways to undermine trust in politics is the feeling that those at the top…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":190952,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[14],"tags":[64,63,99,186,184,185],"class_list":{"0":"post-190951","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-personal-finance","8":"tag-au","9":"tag-australia","10":"tag-business","11":"tag-finance","12":"tag-personal-finance","13":"tag-personalfinance"},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/au\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/190951","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/au\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/au\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/au\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/au\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=190951"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/au\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/190951\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/au\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/190952"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/au\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=190951"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/au\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=190951"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/au\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=190951"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}