Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Baroness Noakes (Conservative) in the House of Lords on Monday, 14 July 2008. It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL) and Debate on bill on Pensions Bill.


Pensions Bill

There are two answers to that. The Financial Services Authority or an equivalent EU supervisory body would regulate that body, which would be the case if reinsurance needed to be put in place as part of the risk management arrangements. The important distinction is the financial services compensation scheme. As I argued in my opening remarks, if there was a failure, that scheme would provide better benefits than would the PPF. The PPF is typically referred to as producing a 90 per cent benefit, which it does not. On average, it produces an 80 per cent benefit and often produces a 60 per cent benefit if a pension scheme has to go into the PPF. If a pension scheme had to go into the financial services compensation scheme, those PPF rules would not apply, so a higher degree of assurance would be provided through that compensation scheme than exists via the PPF.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
703 c1024 
Session
2007-08
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Compensation Companies Annuities Competition Administrative delays Equality Health Eligibility Gender Income tax Divorce Insolvency Discrimination Financial assistance scheme Index linking Private sector Workplace pensions Pensions Lump sum payments Pension Protection Fund PAYE Scotland State retirement pensions Regulation Taxation Retirement State earnings related pension scheme Pensions Regulator Private equity Civil partnerships dissolution State second pension Impact assessments
Legislation
Pensions Bill 2007-08
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk