209. This investigation has particularly looked at the establishment of the M Plan, a primarily money purchase arrangement based on defined contributions. In such an arrangement the risk as to what benefits a member's share of the fund will buy rests entirely with the member. For C Plan members there is no such risk: their benefits are defined by reference to their final salaries. It might be argued that the issues before me have been about whether those members should benefit from the successful risk taken by fund managers in the placement of their investments even though the same members were not at risk should those investments have been less successful. Looked at in that way the argument seems to me to lack the moral high ground which is implied by the assumption that the Fund as it existed prior to the M Plan should be ring-fenced for the benefit of C Plan members.

One has to say this is a such a poor argument that it casts extra doubt on the rest of the determination.  Complainants have not claimed the moral high ground or made any argument based on morality.   That the M-Plan is inferior to the C-Plan is acknowledged but that produces no grounds for saying that the C-Planners' promise should be compromised so as to make the M-Plan cheaper for the company.

If one bought an annuity a decade ago you would have got a far better deal than somebody buying an annuity now.   But you would not give much time to the argument that the deal you have gives you too much pension, and that some should be taken to help others less fortunate.