Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Lord McKenzie of Luton (Labour) 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

What we are not yet happy about is the model which suggests that open schemes with ongoing liabilities would be protected by a third party. We are not sufficiently confident about the extent of that cover, and that is not to impugn BrightonRock or any particular entity. The Pension Protection Fund is not seeking to hold a monopoly position, but it is a fairly new institution that is building confidence with people in the pensions arena, and it should be entitled to do so. I also return to the point that in a model such as BrightonRock—the noble Lord, Lord James, indicated in his contribution that he was speaking more generally, but others would allow that there is a risk of cherry-picking—we would really need to understand exactly how secure the covenants were, particularly as some of the entities involved are not UK-based. In one particular case, it is regulated out of Malta. That is where we are, but I stress to the noble Baroness that the powers are in place should there be a view to use them.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
703 c1028-9 
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