The following is an extract of the debate on the Pension Protection Fund amendments:

Mr. Nigel Waterson: .. A closely related aspect is the cut-off date for pension increases. In its briefing, Age Concern has expressed its own worries. It says that the actuaries Lane Clark and Peacock and the Occupational Pensioners Alliance estimate that some pensioners may receive only 70 to 80 per cent. of their total pension promise under the PPF. It refers to pensioners who retired before 6 April 1997. It states:

"We believe the Bill should be changed so everyone can be entitled to 100 per cent. compensation".

That is the point I am trying to make. I cannot see why there should be either the 90 versus 100 per cent. distinction or the little distinctions buried in the small print, not immediately visible to the average leisured reader, which will cheese pare away the amounts that people will receive in real life.

..It is no good Ministers saying that they are providing a full guarantee and safety net. We visited the BBC website the other day, which said bluntly that people will get 90 per cent. if they are not retired and 100 per cent. if they are, with no qualification. We have had to write it a letter pointing out that that "ain't necessarily so". Ministers should be more up front. They were more up front in Committee, because they had no alternative, but we need to get the message across to people out there in the real world that this is not a full guarantee. To use the Minister's phrase again, there is an element of "rough justice". That is the point behind our probing amendments, and I commend them to the House.

Note: Despite the above criticism the government has continued during the Second Reading debate in the House of Lords to describe the PPF as providing "100 per cent of the original pension promise" for existing pensioners which the OPA consider to be highly misleading.