With respect to these two amendments, it is understandable that one might think that rights to GMPs in these occupational pension schemes derive from ““pensionable”” service and that this might be a more appropriate term to use in the legislation. However, we are dealing here, by definition, with contracted-out schemes. In these schemes, members derive rights from undertaking employment which is ““contracted out”” from the state second pension provisions.
Due to the nature of the legal status of this employment and to the link with lower-rate contracted-out national insurance contributions which are payable by both employer and employee, the contracting-out legislation uses the term ““employment”” rather than ““pensionable service””. Similarly, the legislation refers to ““earner”” rather than ““member””. Therefore, while understandable in their intention, the proposed amendments do not fit with the legislation already in existence.
Again I believe that we are at one in what we think should apply. I hope that explanation has given the noble Baroness some reassurance.
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 c1007 Session
2006-07Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 11:29:49 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_400462
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_400462
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_400462