Andy Smith makes an important point. He is a top actuary from Barnet Waddingham and a spokesperson for a generation of wronged pensioners he does not belong to, but who holds professional responsibility for being a proper actuary.
Well there is plenty to be happy about and the PPF and FAS are showing the way for schemes that owe billions in unpaid increases to the pre-97 brigade who haven’t got the right at least to some inflation linked pay (we hope backdated).
But let’s not get away from the problem of rogue companies like Hewlett Packard whose pension schemes are not in PPF but who don’t pay increases to their pre-97 pensioners
Jane Foley made Andy Smith’s point with a little more passion d, being herself a victim of a rogue fund, her spokesperson at the WPC Patricia Kennedy .
Let us wish this amendment of the Pension Schemes Bill success.as it passes into legislation.
In my opinion these rogue companies and their schemes have to explain why it is that they are not use the companies resources (if the scheme is not funded to surplus) or the scheme’s surplus if it is to pay those who have outstanding increases (at the least to the minimal).
They are not required to , but their is a decency to pensions that they should conform to and that has been set by the Government’s requirement that the PPF sets the way.
There are many campaigning , some from the Brighton beach protest. I pay tribute to Terry Monk as a leader but to all who have spoken out over the last 28 years. They speak for those who have died without recompense
I was at a conference of Pension People yesterday, watching Rachel Reeves make this announcement, I clapped. The Chair called for points of note and not a person mentioned this. I mentioned this. Like Andy Smith, I feel responsibility for the harm done to the Pre-97 pensioners impacted.