Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Baroness Hollis of Heigham (Labour) in the House of Lords on Thursday, 10 July 2008. It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL) and Debate on bill on Pensions Bill.


Pensions Bill

The noble Lord would be the first to accept that if you go for a level annuity, as opposed to an index-linked annuity, you have your money up front from that same pot—but over the course of 10 or 12 years with 5 per cent inflation, it will probably halve in value. As I understand the consultant actuaries’ report, what is happening with conditional indexation is that companies would index only where they felt they could afford to do so, given the state of the deficit or surplus in the fund. That would mean that unless the fund were adequately funded—it may partly be a matter for the regulatory regime to ensure that that is so—the value of the pension would be eroded for many years because it was not indexed. I am perfectly willing to be persuaded that that is still preferable to a DC scheme without any indexation at all because people object to the level of annuity, but that is the risk. Although that reduces the cost for the employer, it means that the employee is effectively taking on the vast bulk of the risk of inflation over a period when they are also carrying increased longevity. That may be a risk worth taking, but that is surely where it lies.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
703 c963 
Session
2007-08
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Crimes against humanity Finance Fees and charges Investment Employment agencies Genocide Index linking Personal savings Low incomes Public appointments Workplace pensions Pensions Migrant workers Temporary employment Shipping War crimes Personal Accounts Delivery Authority National employment savings trust scheme
Legislation
Pensions Bill 2007-08
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk