Mr. Jerry Moriarty:

I would certainly agree that it should be examined. I think the minimum funding standard looks at a snapshot picture in time, and it looks at what would happen if a scheme were to wind up at that time. However, many companies and schemes will argue that they are in a good position, and there is no reason they should wind up at this particular point in time. While they might have an issue in that, if they had to, they could not pay all the benefits at once, if they look out over the next 40 years when they are planning to pay benefits, they are perfectly fine from a cashflow perspective. I can also understand from a regulatory perspective that because there are no protections which force employers to bring schemes up to full funding, and there is no pension protection fund, which would cover an insolvent employer situation, the regulator might be focused on protecting against that worst-case scenario because there are no other triggers and protections in place at the moment. Certainly, if this type of legislation came into effect, which had that additional protection, I think that would give a very good opportunity to then re-examine the funding standard as it works.