UK Parliament / Open data

Pensions Bill

Proceeding contribution from Lord McKenzie of Luton (Labour) in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 4 July 2007. It occurred during Debate on bills on Pensions Bill.
moved Amendment No. 9: 9: Schedule 1, page 38, line 40, at end insert— ““19A In each of paragraphs 5A(3)(a), 6(4)(b) and 6A(2)(b) of that Schedule (calculation of increase to survivor’s pension where member’s guaranteed minimum pension deferred) omit the words ““after it has been reduced by the amount of any increases under section 109 of the Pensions Act””.”” The noble Lord said: My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 10, 11, 36 and 37. In Committee, I moved an amendment to Clause 14 that I described as covering a complex and technical issue. I do not propose to tax noble Lords’ patience by explaining the matter again other than to remind them that I introduced the House to the PUCODI. The amendment was designed to prevent someone from losing out in the event of their scheme converting their guaranteed minimum pension; it would prevent those in receipt of increases to their guaranteed minimum pension at the point of conversion from losing the inflation protection given through increases to the state pension. After that amendment was agreed, we realised that it did not cover a specific group: widows, widowers and surviving civil partners of scheme members who had had their GMPs converted before they died. This amendment corrects that oversight and allows that group to inherit those increases, as they do now. However, while working on it, we also discovered that a reference in the legislation governing such inheritance—Schedule 5 to the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act—has the unintentional effect of requiring a double deduction in respect of scheme indexation from the amount payable to those survivors. The second part of the amendment will remove that. The other amendments are needed simply to tidy up various references in the light of these changes. I must apologise to noble Lords for asking them to make such amendments. My only excuse is that this is a very complicated area and the legislation is particularly dense. We intend in the longer term to look again at the whole area in detail to see whether it can be simplified, a result that I assure your Lordships would be much welcomed by anyone who has needed to look at this legislation. I beg to move. On Question, amendment agreed to. Clause 14 [Conversion of guaranteed minimum pensions]:

About this proceeding contribution

Reference

693 c1083-4 

Session

2006-07

Chamber / Committee

House of Lords chamber

Legislation

Pensions Bill 2006-07
Back to top