Stay up to date with notifications from The Independent

Notifications can be managed in browser preferences.

Goode Report: Tight limits on proposed fund: Compensation

Peter Rodgers,Financial Editor
Thursday 30 September 1993 23:02 BST
Comments

Your support helps us to tell the story

From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.

At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.

The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.

Your support makes all the difference.

A NEW compensation fund for pension schemes would be paid for by the pensions industry but would be restricted to cases of fraud, theft and misappropriation.

The proposals were welcomed by the National Association of Pension Funds, which said they were in line with its own recommendations of a safety net to be used as a last resort.

Ron Amy, chairman of the association, said Professor Goode had achieved the right balance and had accepted the industry's strong view that the cost of problems such as inadequate management and disastrous investments by a pension fund should not be covered.

He said: 'The scheme will only kick in if a fund can't pay and there is nobody there to fill the gap. I think that is the way to do it.'

But with a new framework for regulation, minimum solvency standards and encouragement to auditors and actuaries to act as whistleblowers, Mr Amy thought there would be very few calls on the compensation scheme.

''The main thing is that it would take away the worry,' he said. If a scheme had been available to the Maxwell pensioners, they would have had the comfort of knowing that if the day came when their pension benefits actually stopped, the scheme would have picked up 90 per cent of the shortfall.

As well as recommending payment of all but the last 10 per cent of losses, the report says reimbursement by the pensions industry would be in the form of a general levy after the event.

This is similar to the depositor protection scheme for building societies, but a key difference is that there would be no limit on the amount of compensation. The levy, which the report says should come into immediate effect, would be based on the size of the liabilities of the pension funds required to contribute, and it would be administered by an independent Pension Compensation Board, which would have the sole right to decide on a payout.

All funded occupation schemes should be embraced by the scheme, while insured schemes may be brought in through a streamlined procedure, the report says.

Mr Amy said there was 'virtually universal' support for a scheme in the industry, and the big debate had been over its scope.

The report says the new compensation board should have the power to make interim payments where there is strong evidence of fraud, theft or misappropriation of assets, before a final decision. It should have power to withhold payments if it is not satisfied that trustees are taking reasonable steps to recoup losses.

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in