![handle is hein.journals/denlj7 and id is 1 raw text is: Pensions and Retirement on the Agenda
Helen Desmond*
In the last year or so it appears that not a day goes by without something on
pensions being mentioned in the press or on the media. When it emerged, in
December 1991, that anomalies had been discovered in pension funds of
companies the late Robert Maxwell had controlled, anomalies which were
subsequently revealed as £420 million in missing assets, pensions were already
firmly on the agenda. That event (described as a spectacular fraud) ensured that it
would remain so, probably until legislation is introduced to set an entirely new
single statutory framework for the operation of pension funds.
The problem which has to be faced in so doing is to find the middle ground
between assuring the individual that his financial contributions will be well looked
after and produce a reasonable pension at the end of the day, being protected from
the various catastrophes which can occur along the way, and encouraging
employers to continue to believe that the increased costs and inconvenience of
complying with protections are in fact worthwhile and that it is in their interests to
continue to provide a company based scheme for employees' pension provision.
The alternative scenario is to change fundamentally the way in which financial
provision is made post retirement, which could involve the employer, or series of
employers, in financial contributions but not in administration or pension
payment.
Existing agenda items
The decision of the European Court in May 1990 in Barber v. Guardian Royal
Exchange Assurance Group,' raised the profile of pensions considerably. The
resulting high profile campaign by the pensions industry as to their preferred
interpretation of the Barber judgment, together with a host of cases,2 has meant
*Lecturer in Law, University of Buckingham.
1. (Case 262/88) [1990] I.R.L.R. 240.
2. Roscoe v. HickHargreaves [1991] (EAT/205/91 Lexis); W. F. Lee v. Shell U.K. (unreported); Keary,
Roberts & Searle v. Gullick Dobson Ltd. [1991] (unreported); Neath v. Hugh Steeper Ltd. [1991] P.L.R.
91; and see Helen Desrmond, A tangled web: Barber and beyond - a research report, (1992) I.R.J.
Vol. 23, No. 3.](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.journals/denlj7&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)
What Is HeinOnline?
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most