It's common for schemes to go into the PPF where a business with a scheme in deficit becomes insolvent (as that's the whole point of the PPF). But in practice it is much rarer for a scheme to be allowed to go into the PPF as part of a solvent restructure. This is because both TPR and the PPF are rightly concerned to ensure that corporates don't artificially manipulate things using restructuring processes so as to "dump" the scheme into the PPF and walk away from their pension obligations. Therefore it is only exceptionally that this happens (through the special process of a "regulated apportionment arrangement" or "RAA"). Statistics published last year showed that there had been only 8 RAAs ever approved, although one was recently also approved for the Halcrow Pension Scheme, and one is also being explored in relation to the British Steel Pension Scheme.
Does this mean RAAs are becoming easier?
Probably not. A few months back the Work and Pensions Select Committee issued its report on the fallout from the BHS saga. One of their recommendations was for the government to look at whether RAAs should be made (a little) easier to avoid forcing insolvency outcomes on employers that were struggling with their DB deficit. The government is consulting on the Committee's recommendations. However in the meantime TPR and the PPF remain strongly of the view that RAAs and "solvent" restructures (resulting in a DB scheme going into the PPF) should remain very much the exception, and only where it is possible to structure things so that the pension scheme ends up with a much better deal than if the employer became insolvent. Otherwise employers would be able to manipulate restructuring processes to walk away from their pension funding obligations.
Is this a good outcome for the members?
It should be, in that the whole RAA regime is designed to ensure this ie that schemes and therefore members end up in a better funded position than if the employer was forced into an insolvency process. TPR and the PPF won't approve an RAA unless this is the case. In the Hoover case, it was a condition of the deal that £60 million be injected into the scheme.
|
