As the noble Baroness has explained, this amendment is intended to address the concern that, as the definition of post-conversion benefits stands, it might not permit the accrual of money purchase benefits after the conversion had occurred. This would obviously not be an outcome which we intended. However, for the reasons I shall give, we do not believe that that is the effect of the current wording of the definition. This clause is about the conversion of the GMP into scheme benefits of the same actuarial value. The GMP accrued from 1978 to 1997 and therefore the proposed legislation cannot by definition have an impact on post-1997 accruals. By excluding money purchase benefits from the definition of ““post-conversion benefits”” and, indeed, from the definition of ““pre-conversion benefits”” as well, we are preventing a scheme from including any such benefits an individual accrued during the GMP period from the conversion calculations. We are not stopping anyone from accruing post-1997 rights in their scheme, of whatever type.
I trust that that is the reassurance the noble Baroness seeks.
Pensions Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord McKenzie of Luton
(Labour)
in the House of Lords on Monday, 4 June 2007.
It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL)
and
Debate on bills on Pensions Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
692 c1006 Session
2006-07Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 11:29:45 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_400459
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_400459
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_400459