Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Lord McKenzie of Luton (Labour) in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 9 March 2011. It occurred during Debates on delegated legislation on Occupational Pension Schemes (Levy Ceiling) Order 2011.


Occupational Pension Schemes (Levy Ceiling) Order 2011

I am grateful for the full reply that the Minister has given us on a range of questions but I wanted to make sure that we had covered this point or that he was going to respond to it. Looking at the PPF before a judgment is made, for example, as I understand it before somebody enters the PPF you look and see what the market would have produced. If the market would have produced something which was at or above the PPF levels, that is what would happen. Presumably when those judgments were made, they were made on the assumption that PPF levels would be uprated by RPI—obviously, that is not going to happen, at least for a period—with the expectation that indexation would be lower than RPI. Is there the prospect that that means—at least with the benefit of hindsight, and it may not matter that it is hindsight—that judgments were made that might have been made differently? In some instances, the market would have been able to do better than the PPF on a CPI basis.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
725 c269-70GC 
Session
2010-12
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords Grand Committee
Subjects
Compensation Costs Fees and charges Financial assistance scheme Workplace pensions Pensions Pension funds Pension Protection Fund Consumer prices index
Legislation
Pension Protection Fund (Pension Compensation Cap) Order 2011
Financial Assistance Scheme (Revaluation and Indexation Amendments) Regulations 2011
Occupational Pension Schemes (Levy Ceiling) Order 2011
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk