Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Clive Betts (Labour) in the House of Commons on Thursday, 22 February 2007. It occurred during Ministerial statement on Occupational Pensions.


Occupational Pensions

I welcome my right hon. Friend’s commitment to reconsidering the position of those who have lost pensions because the firm that they worked for has gone into liquidation, but will he also consider a related group of people? I and representatives of the Tinsley Bridge pension scheme recently met the Minister for Pensions Reform. That pension scheme was wound up to avoid forcing the firm into liquidation, but people lost their pensions as a result. The scheme therefore cannot join the Pension Protection Fund, but because the firm is not in liquidation as a result of the action taken by the pension trustees, those potential pensioners are not eligible for help from the financial assistance scheme. However, because of the improved conditions of that scheme, the pension trustees might be under a perverse legal obligation to put the firm into liquidation, thereby causing the loss of hundreds of jobs, in order to get that assistance. Will my right hon. Friend look at that issue when he considers those who have lost their pensions because their firm has gone into liquidation?


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
457 c427 
Session
2006-07
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Appeals Damages Department for Work and Pensions Department of Social Security EU law Insolvency Legal costs Judgements Leaflets Maladministration Workplace pensions Pensions Misrepresentation Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration Pension funds Pension rights European Court of Justice High Court
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk