Pensions Act 2004 and the Equality Act 2010 (Amendment) (Equal
Treatment by Occupational Pension Schemes) Regulations 2023
Considered in Grand Committee 4.25pm Moved by Viscount Younger of
Leckie That the Grand Committee do consider the Pensions Act 2004
and the Equality Act 2010 (Amendment) (Equal Treatment by
Occupational Pension Schemes) Regulations 2023. The Parliamentary
Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions
(Viscount Younger of...Request free
trial
Pensions Act 2004 and the Equality Act 2010 (Amendment) (Equal
Treatment by Occupational Pension Schemes) Regulations 2023
Considered in Grand Committee
4.25pm
Moved by
That the Grand Committee do consider the Pensions Act 2004 and
the Equality Act 2010 (Amendment) (Equal Treatment by
Occupational Pension Schemes) Regulations 2023.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work
and Pensions () (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak also to the Occupational Pension Schemes
(Amendment) (Equal Treatment) (Northern Ireland) Regulations
2023, the Pensions Act 2004 (Amendment) (Pension Protection Fund
Compensation) Regulations 2023 and the Pensions (Pension
Protection Fund Compensation) (Northern Ireland) Regulations
2023. These regulations were laid before this House on 18
September 2023. In my view, the provisions in these sets of
regulations are compatible with the European Convention on Human
Rights.
When the UK left the European Union, much EU law was initially
preserved to ensure legislative continuity. Now, however, some
pieces of law need to be restated. This is because following the
Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act after 31 December
2023 certain retained EU law addressed in court cases will stop
applying. Therefore, to remove any legal ambiguity for
occupational pension schemes, DWP is restating the law addressed
in three court cases—Allonby, Walker and Hampshire—the former
only in relation to the extent that it applies to guaranteed
minimum pensions.
We will be debating four sets of regulations: a set of two
instructions for Great Britain and Northern Ireland covering the
Allonby and Walker judgments and a similar set of two
instructions for the Hampshire judgment. At the request of the
Northern Ireland Executive, the Government have agreed to
legislate on behalf of the Department for Communities in Northern
Ireland. I will start therefore with the Pensions Act and the
Equality Act 2010 (Amendment) (Equal Treatment by Occupational
Pension Schemes) Regulations 2023 and its Northern Ireland
equivalent that relate to the Allonby and Walker judgments.
Allonby is about the right to equal pay between men and women
where discrimination has arisen in an occupational pension scheme
because of legislation on guaranteed minimum pensions—GMPs.
Regulation 2 restates the law dealt with in the European Court of
Justice’s Allonby judgment, but only to the extent it applies to
guaranteed minimum pensions legislation from 17 May 1990 onwards.
I will provide a little background, as there are a few things
that need to be brought together. First, GMPs, which were a part
of the occupational
pensions system from 1978 to 1997, are unequal for men and
women, reflecting general differences in treatment between men
and women in legislation at the time. There are disparities,
including the age at which guaranteed minimum pensions can be
paid: age 65 for men and age 60 for women. These differences in
treatment can result in men and women in identical employment
receiving different amounts of pension benefits from their
occupational pension scheme.
Secondly, the European Court of Justice’s Barber judgment of 17
May 1990 found that pension benefits must be paid to men and
women on an equal basis for pensions earned from the judgment
date onwards. This means that pension schemes are required to
equalise pensions to correct the unequal impact caused by members
having a GMP.
Thirdly, in 2004, the European Court of Justice’s Allonby
judgment found that where legislation is the source of
discrimination, it is not necessary for a claimant to be able to
point to a real-life opposite sex comparator.
This brings us to the Equality Act 2010, which requires schemes
to have an equal treatment rule; anything in a pension scheme’s
rules that treats one sex less favourably than the other should
be read as if it does not do so. However, this applies only when
there is a real-life comparator. If a woman wanted to show that
she was being treated unequally, for example, she would have to
point to a real-life man who was being treated differently. In
some pension schemes this was difficult to prove. Noble Lords
will remember occupations such as dinner ladies or miners.
4.30pm
The effect of the Allonby judgment was to override this
requirement of the equality legislation as it applied to GMPs
earned from 17 May 1990. Therefore, because of Allonby, schemes
are required to equalise pensions for the unequal effects caused
by the GMP legislation even in the absence of a real-life
comparator. Regulation 3 will make the same changes for the
Pension Protection Fund.
I turn to Regulation 4. The Walker judgment was about pension
rights on which survivor benefits are based where a member is in
a same-sex marriage or civil partnership. Survivor benefits are
important because they provide the member with a degree of
reassurance that, should the worst happen, their surviving spouse
or civil partner will continue to receive some ongoing financial
support from the member’s scheme.
I will provide the Committee with some background history. Before
2005, same-sex couples could not enter into a legally recognised
relationship such as a marriage. This meant that often they did
not have that same reassurance. While same-sex civil partnerships
were introduced in December 2005, occupational pension schemes
were permitted to calculate civil partnership survivor benefits
based on the scheme member’s pension rights earned only since
that date. The result of this was that someone who retired in
2010 could have 40 years of pension rights built up over a
lifetime, but their civil partner could inherit less than five
years of survivor benefit rights. A determined man, Mr Walker,
challenged the legislation. The UK Supreme Court concluded that
the exception to the non-discrimination rule in the legislation
was not compatible with the EU’s framework directive on equal
treatment in employment.
The Government remain committed to the outcome of the Walker
judgment. It is therefore important to remove any doubt by
amending the Equality Act to reflect it. The changes we are
making will mean that legislation will not allow schemes to
restrict the pension rights used to provide survivor benefits for
survivors in a same-sex legal relationship to only those earned
after December 2005. The change to legislation will give affected
scheme members peace of mind and certainty.
I turn to the Hampshire judgment. I will start by giving some
context to the Pensions Act 2004 (Amendment) (Pension Protection
Fund Compensation) Regulations 2023 and the corresponding
Northern Ireland regulations. These regulations retain the
effects of the Hampshire judgment in domestic legislation. Mr
Hampshire, a member of the Turner and Newall pension scheme, took
early retirement in the late 1990s. His employer subsequently
became insolvent and the scheme was assessed by the Pension
Protection Fund. Under Pension Protection Fund rules, Mr
Hampshire’s benefits were substantially reduced because he was
below the scheme’s normal pension age when his employer became
insolvent. Mr Hampshire took the Pension Protection Fund to the
European court. The court ruled that former employees must
receive at least 50% of the value of their pension benefits in
the event of their employer’s insolvency.
There was further litigation in the domestic courts which
concluded with the UK’s Court of Appeal upholding the High
Court’s ruling that the cap on Pension Protection Fund
compensation constituted unlawful age discrimination. The cap
previously applied to individuals below their scheme’s normal
pension age when their employer became insolvent. The Pension
Protection Fund is now identifying its members and members of the
Financial Assistance Scheme affected by the Hampshire judgment,
increasing their payments and paying arrears, where appropriate,
to comply with the terms of the judgment. It is also uncapping
the compensation payments of its affected members and backdating
arrears.
In practice, most Pension Protection Fund members receive more
than the 50% minimum established by the Hampshire judgment and
few were affected by the compensation cap. However, without the
Pensions Act 2004 (Amendment) (Pension Protection Fund
Compensation) Regulations 2023 and the Northern Ireland
equivalent, the Hampshire judgment would sunset on 31 December,
and there would be no entitlements under the judgment in respect
of insolvencies arising after that date. Retaining the effects of
the Hampshire judgment beyond the sunset date means that all
members of eligible pension schemes affected by the Hampshire
judgment can be reassured that they will receive at least 50% of
the value of their original pension benefits in the event of
their employer’s insolvency.
The regulations also remove redundant references to the Pension
Protection Fund compensation cap from the legislation to improve
its clarity, ensure that it reflects the High Court’s decision,
and provide the Pension Protection Fund with statutory cover. The
Pension Protection Fund protects most private sector
defined-benefit schemes, has almost 300,000 members and offers a
vital safety net to members whose employer has become insolvent
and therefore can no longer support the pension scheme. These
regulations support that safety net.
These regulations will bring reassurance to members of
defined-benefit occupational pension schemes, as well as to the
pensions industry. All involved can be confident that nothing
will change in practice with regard to the effects of the three
judgments after 31 December 2023. I commend the regulations to
the Committee and I beg to move.
of Childs Hill (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount for his complete exposé of
all the problems that have existed and how the Government are
trying to rectify them. Our Benches agree with these SIs. There
is no problem with them. I see other noble Lords have lots of
notes; I know from experience that I can be brief knowing that
they will deal with the minutiae. This seems to be more rules
bringing old EU law into domestic legislation. These SIs raise
broader points about discrimination in pensions, which is roughly
the scope of the legislation. However, as usual, in bringing old
EU laws into place we are missing the opportunity to make pledges
to follow the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman’s
recommendations. It reports conversations with WASPI—Women
Against State Pension Inequality—women. I would appreciate it if
the noble Viscount could comment on how that is going to be dealt
with.
Will the noble Viscount give the committee an update on the
LEAP—legal entitlement and administrative practices—exercise
through which the Government are doing a corrections exercise for
historic errors and underpayments to women? I understand that
these processes are taking place, but I do not know quite how far
they have gone or how quickly they are going or when the majority
of cases will be dealt with. I hope that the noble Viscount can
put a bit of meat on that and give us some timeframe for LEAP and
WASPI women, which are two issues close to my heart.
(Lab)
My Lords, I declare my interests set out in the register as a
pension scheme trustee. I welcome these statutory instruments and
thank the Minister for the clarity of his explanation of their
history. The equal treatment by occupational pension scheme
regulations before us maintain the protection of the right not to
be discriminated against on the grounds of sexual orientation in
relation to pension benefits, particularly survivor benefits,
which would be lost on 31 December 2023 but for these
regulations. That is a pretty compelling reason for welcoming
them.
Those protections were originally secured through the EU
framework directive for equal treatment and confirmed by our
Supreme Court in the Walker case. They apply to occupational
pension scheme benefits and to compensation to beneficiaries of
pension schemes that enter the Pension Protection Fund.
My first thought was: gosh, the Government are taking things to
the wire, time-wise, given that the House rises on 19 December.
It does raise worrying concerns about what other pension
protections for UK citizens, previously preserved by Section 4 of
the European Union (Withdrawal) Act, will be lost because of a
failure, whether by intent or neglect, to meet the 31 December
2023 deadline for changes to domestic legislation to be made for
them to be retained. What level of confidence can the Minister
give the House that all protections of pension benefits for
members and beneficiaries preserved by Section 4 of the European
Union (Withdrawal) Act are or will be captured in changes to
domestic legislation prior to 31 December? Is it intended that
some of those protections will not be preserved? If so, which are
they?
These regulations also restate retained EU law on the right to
equal pay between men and women where discrimination arises from
the legislation on guaranteed minimum pensions by amendments to
the Equality Act and the Pensions Act 2004, so the right
continues to apply to occupational schemes and PPF payments. Very
importantly—it is certainly close to my heart—the regulations
retain the intent of the 2004 ECJ judgment of Allonby to nullify
the requirement for a real-life opposite-sex comparator to
demonstrate unequal treatment. Instead, a notional or statistical
comparator can be used. That is such an important judgment and it
demonstrates the value of the many ECJ judgments that contributed
so importantly to progressing gender equality issues. As my noble
friend was reflecting, so was I; I was actually a commissioner of
the EOC, which supported the Allonby judgment at the time the ECJ
pronounced its decision.
Unless the amendments to legislation are made by 31 December,
this particular important protection is lost. Again, that is
another compelling reason for welcoming these regulations. What
level of confidence can the Minister give us that all rights to
equal pay between men and women in the payment of pension
benefits to members and beneficiaries, previously preserved by
Section 4 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act, are or will be
retained in changes to domestic legislation prior to 31 December?
While welcoming what we can see, we are nervous about what we
cannot see, so we seek assurances on that.
The regulations before us on PPF compensation are also necessary
because again, under the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform)
Act 2023, without them the more generous PPF compensation payment
calculations, which flow from the 2018 Hampshire judgment from
the European court, would be lost. So too would the effects of
the further clarifying 2020 Hughes judgment in the High Court,
which was to disapply the then-existing cap on PPF compensation
to those below their scheme’s normal retirement age, when the
employer became insolvent. The High Court considered that it
constituted unlawful age discrimination. For the intent of these
judgments to remain, the regulations before us are required by
the deadline of 31 December 2023, and of course there is an
obvious and compelling reason why they are welcome.
It is very fortunate that the Government decided as policy to
retain the effects of these judgments. It would have been a
pretty poor show had they not, given the impact on
individuals—and particularly so, given that the PPF is currently
well funded, so much so that it is reducing its levy. We are very
dependent on government to identify those elements of retained EU
law to be retained in domestic law. What assurance can the
Minister give that every element of retained EU law that impinges
on the eligibility of pension scheme members for PPF compensation
and the level and value of that compensation will be retained in
domestic law after December 2023?
4.45pm
(Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for a very helpful introduction to
these orders and particularly for explaining the background to
the court cases, which will make reading Hansard for this debate
a bit more comprehensible than might otherwise have been the
case. I also thank my noble friend Lady Drake, to whose comments
I shall return, and the noble Lord, of Childs Hill, whose
confidence in my determination to expose the detail and minutiae
I trust will not be disappointed.
All these regulations are a product of Brexit, the gift that
keeps on giving. I shall start with the draft Pensions Act 2004
(Amendment) (Pension Protection Fund Compensation) Regulations
2023—the other way around from the Minister. As we have heard, it
was prompted by two court decisions: the Hampshire court
judgment, whereby the ECJ found that former employees should get
at least half the value of their accrued pension benefits if
their employer was insolvent before they hit pension age, and
Hughes, when the High Court disapplied the cap on PPF
compensation for those below normal pension age on the date of
the employer’s insolvency.
These regulations amend the Pensions Act 2004 to ensure that
affected scheme members receive at least the minimum level of
protection due under the Hampshire judgment and remove reference
to the PPF cap. Also, interestingly, they clarify how the
Hampshire judgment is being implemented by providing a
calculation of PPF compensation by reference to a one-off
valuation, as approved by the Court of Appeal in Hughes.
As has been noted, action is needed because, under Section 4 of
the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, the principles of EU
law will sunset at the end of this year and cease to have effect,
including where the position has changed as a result of court
cases, which is very relevant to us today. The purpose of these
regulations is to ensure that the effects of the Hampshire and
Hughes judgments will be preserved in domestic legislation. Could
the Minister confirm for the record that nothing will change from
the current position once these regulations take effect and the
relevant EU retained law has sunsetted?
Secondly, paragraph 10.1 of the Explanatory Memorandum reports
that the DWP met with a cross-section of representatives of the
pensions industry to seek views on its proposed response to the
Hampshire judgment. There was broad support for retaining the
effects of the judgment—but anybody who has worked in government
will know that “broad support” can cover quite a range of views
being expressed in the room. Out of interest, was there any
opposition to retaining the effects of the Hampshire judgment
and, if so, on what grounds? I am just interested in who was in
the room.
I have read the draft Pensions (Pension Protection Fund
Compensation) (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2023, which look on
the face of it to be identical to the regulations I have just
discussed, but amending the Pensions (Northern Ireland) Order
2005 instead of the Pensions Act 2004. Can the Minister confirm
for the record that the effect of those regulations will be the
same as the other ones, but just in Northern Ireland rather than
in Great Britain? When regulations are this technical, it is
important for the Committee to hear from the Minister what the
intention is rather than just taking my word for it—love of
detail notwithstanding.
I turn to the draft Pensions Act 2004 and the Equality Act 2010
(Amendment) (Equal Treatment by Occupational Pension Schemes)
Regulations 2023—these are not catchy titles. These regulations
were also prompted by court cases. In the Allonby case—I take the
Minister’s point that this is being retained only inasmuch as it
relates to GMPs, not its broader findings—the ECJ found that an
opposite-sex comparator was not needed to demonstrate
discrimination, where that was caused by legislation. In the
Walker case, the UK Supreme Court found on the basis of EU
equality law that legislation could not allow occupational
pension schemes to restrict survivor benefits for survivors of
same-sex civil partnerships or marriages so that only
contributions from 5 December 2005 matter, when these became
possible.
Something the Minister said confused me a little. I think he said
that the Government were restating the law to avoid and remove
any ambiguity. From reading these judgments, I understood that
their contents have so far been resting on retained EU law and
that, when that sunsets, there will be nothing supporting them. I
may have misunderstood, so perhaps the Minister could clarify
that. I understood—or perhaps misunderstood —that these
regulations were necessary because without them the contents of
those court judgments would not be retained.
Presumably, the Government could have amended domestic law to
bring it in line with all these judgments. We have had an awful
lot of pensions Bills in the last year; presumably any one of
them would have been a means for doing this. Can the Minister
explain why that did not happen? Since retained EU law rights
will sunset at the end of the year, we need changes to be made.
These regulations amend the Equality Act to remove the need for
an opposite-sex comparator and they amend the Pensions Act 2004
to introduce the same test for unequal treatment when members are
entitled to payments from the PPF. They also amend Schedule 9 to
the Equality Act 2010 to reflect the framework directive rights
with which the legislation was deemed incompatible.
Will the Minister confirm for the record that the effect of these
changes is to maintain the position we are in now, resting on
retained EU law? Is the position of the survivors of all
marriages and civil partnerships now the same, whatever the sex
of either the surviving or the deceased member? Is everybody, in
any civil partnership or marriage, in the same position,
irrespective of the sex of those involved?
These regulations retain one form of protection, as my noble
friend Lady Drake articulated, but still we are left with a
significant gender pensions gap, an issue to which the House
returns periodically. There are various contributory factors,
including the carer penalty and the impact of the gender pay gap
that means women are more likely to have lower pension
contributions. What plans do the Government have for reforms to
reduce the gender pensions gap more widely?
One of the contributory factors is the fact that women are less
likely to be eligible for auto-enrolment, so will the Minister
tell the Committee when the Government intend to implement the
provisions of the Private Member’s Bill sponsored by the noble
Baroness, Lady Altmann, which enabled the extension of
auto-enrolment from age 18 and set contributions from the first
£1 of earnings?
As far as I can tell, the draft Occupational Pension Schemes
(Amendment) (Equal Treatment) (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2023
seem to mirror the provisions of the previous regulations but
amend the Equal Pay Act (Northern Ireland) 1970 and the Pensions
(Northern Ireland) Order 1995, instead of the Equality Act and
the Pensions Act. Once again, can the Minister confirm that the
effect will be the same, albeit just in Northern Ireland?
Finally, I am really interested to hear the Minister’s response
to the question from my noble friend Lady Drake: given how close
we are now to the end of this year, are there any other areas
where DWP has been relying on retained EU law that will be
sunsetted in a few weeks? A clear assurance to the Committee for
the record would be very helpful on that point. I look forward to
the Minister’s reply.
(Con)
My Lords, I thank the three noble Lords who have spoken for their
general support for these regulations. The noble Baroness, Lady
Sherlock, was right when she alluded to there being an element of
complexity but, if I may say so, all four of us have seen through
that complexity. I appreciate the general support. Nevertheless,
I am very aware that a number of questions were raised and, as
ever, I will do my best to answer them, in no particular
order.
The noble Lord, of Childs Hill, asked about the
WASPI. I understand exactly why he raised that. He will probably
expect the only answer that I can give: we are not able to
comment on the status of the WASPI at the moment because, as he
will be aware, there is an ombudsman investigation ongoing. He
has probably heard me say that in the Chamber before; I wish I
could say something different, but I am afraid I cannot go any
further.
of Childs Hill (LD)
Does the Minister have any idea of when we might hear or when the
judgment will allow us to say something?
(Con)
I wish I could as well, but it would depend on when the ombudsman
is ready to do so, and I am not aware of when that might happen.
Of course, we can always ask, but it is fair to say that if we
asked, I think we might know what the reply might be. However,
that is a fair question.
I said that this was in no particular order. In answer to a
question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, on why there
is a reference to resolving ambiguity when these rights arose
under EU law—that was towards the end of her speech—in the
Pensions Protection Fund regulations, references to the
compensation cap in the Pensions Act 2004 are removed by these
regulations to reflect the decision in Hughes. I hope that makes
sense.
The noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, asked whether I can confirm
that the effect is to maintain the current position. Yes, the
regulations reflect decisions of judgments relating to the
current position.
I think the question that was asked by the noble Baroness, Lady
Drake, as well as the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, referred to
the effect of the Northern Ireland regulations and whether they
are the same as the GB regulations. The answer is yes, the effect
of the Northern Ireland regulations is just the same as the GB
regulations.
The noble Baroness, Lady Drake, asked a very specific question
about whether all protections are preserved, and if they are not,
which ones would fall away after 31 December 2023. I think that
falls into a number of questions she asked about timing, so I
hope I can reassure her by saying that, on the timings leading up
to 31 December 2023, I am not aware of any issues or concerns
over the timing. I hope that gives some reassurance. However, to
put a little more into the answer, the noble Baroness may be
aware that the Government have decided to allow the Bauer
judgment to sunset under the Retained EU Law (Revocation and
Reform) Act. This means that former employees whose employer
becomes insolvent on or after the sunset date will not have an
entitlement under that judgment. However, I reassure her that I
am not aware of any other preserved under Section 4 of the
European Union (Withdrawal) Act, which I believe she raised.
The noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, asked whether the Northern
Ireland regulations provide the same effect. The answer is yes—I
think I have covered that.
The noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, asked whether anything will
change from 1 January 2024 as regards protection provided by the
decisions in Hampshire and Hughes, and yes, that is correct. For
insolvencies after that date, the same rules will apply because
of these regulations.
The noble Lord, , raised a question about the
LEAP exercise, and I hope I can give a slightly longer and more
helpful answer in terms of where we are with that. He will know
that the DWP became aware of the issue of state pensions
underpayments —which was not addressed under previous
Governments— in 2020 and took immediate action to investigate the
extent of the problem. The Government have fully committed to
ensuring that any historical errors are put right as quickly as
possible where underpayments are identified, and the DWP will
contact the individuals to inform them of the changes to their
state pension amount and of any arrears payment that they will
receive. My department in its annual report and accounts,
particularly for the year 2022-23, published on 6 July 2023
updated figures relating to estimated expenditure and the number
of cases affected. The overall number of customers to be reviewed
is approximately 678,000; of those, we estimate that 170,000
customers will be affected. Between 11 January 2021 and 31 March
2023, 263,350 cases were reviewed. I can reassure the noble Lord
that the department is on track to complete the exercise for
category BL and category D by the end of 2023—to get into some
granular detail on this. I think I understand that, and I hope
the noble Lord will be reassured by it. For missed conversion
cases, the exercise will run to late 2024—the end of next
year.
The noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, asked a specific question
about whether there was any opposition to retaining the Hampshire
judgment. The answer is that there was very little
opposition—hardly any, although I am not sure I can give her any
more information on that—to retaining it from stakeholders. I
think it was to do with the Hampshire judgment that the noble
Baroness raised.
5.00pm
The noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, asked about needing to make
changes as a result of the Walker case, as it was a Supreme Court
decision. I think this was to do with Allonby and Walker, to be
fair. Although the Walker judgment was a judgment of the UK
Supreme Court, it was based on EU law rights, and it is therefore
sensible to restate the law addressed in the judgment so that its
effects clearly continue after the end of the year. I hope that
is helpful.
On the Walker judgment, the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, talked
about the survivors. Schemes had to seek their own advice to
ensure that they were legally compliant with the Walker judgment,
and they will need to seek their own advice to ensure that they
are legally compliant with the legislation going forward. I hope
that this answers the noble Baroness’s question.
Towards the end of her remarks, the noble Baroness, Lady
Sherlock, asked about the pensions gap—this question was perhaps
wider than these regulations. I reassure her that, as a
Government, we have made great strides in reducing the gender
pensions gap, with the introduction of automatic enrolment. She
will know as well as I do how much we have done in that respect
on the enrolment and the Private Member’s Bill we brought forward
not so long ago, going from 22 down to 18.
I think I have covered almost all the questions, but I suspect
that there may be some more. As ever, I will need to read Hansard
carefully, not least to be sure that I pick up the questions from
the noble Baronesses, Lady Drake and Lady Sherlock.
(Lab)
I will need to read very carefully what the Minister
said—hopefully it will cover all of the points, but, if not, I
will drop him a note.
(Lab)
On that last point, the Minister mentioned the Private Member’s
Bill, but my question was actually about when the Government were
planning to implement its provisions—perhaps he could give me a
steer on that. I would be grateful if he would read Hansard
because, if he thinks that he has answered the questions, I
perhaps did not shape them as precisely as I had intended. Could
he have a look at that and then come back to me?
(Con)
Most certainly— I am grateful that the noble Baroness has put me
right on the precise question. I knew what she was asking at the
time. On the timing and where we are with the rollout of the
Private Member’s Bill, I do not have that to hand—actually, it
has been handed to me, so perhaps I do; it is one I prepared
earlier. The consultation on implementation is coming soon—I am
aware that a consultation comes out of that Private Member’s
Bill—but, in terms of actual dates, I am afraid I cannot go any
further. But I hope that that directly answered that particular
question. I feel that a letter is due. A lot of questions were
asked about exactly how this should be, and I pledge to answer
them all fully if I have not done so this afternoon.
Motion agreed.
Occupational Pension Schemes (Amendment) (Equal Treatment)
(Northern Ireland) Regulations 2023
Considered in Grand Committee
5.03pm
Moved by
That the Grand Committee do consider the Occupational Pension
Schemes (Amendment) (Equal Treatment) (Northern Ireland)
Regulations 2023.
Motion agreed.
Pensions Act 2004 (Amendment) (Pension Protection Fund
Compensation) Regulations 2023
Considered in Grand Committee
5.03pm
Moved by
That the Grand Committee do consider the Pensions Act 2004
(Amendment) (Pension Protection Fund Compensation) Regulations
2023.
Motion agreed.
Pensions (Pension Protection Fund Compensation) (Northern
Ireland) Regulations 2023
Considered in Grand Committee
5.04pm
Moved by
That the Grand Committee do consider the Pensions (Pension
Protection Fund Compensation) (Northern Ireland) Regulations
2023.
Motion agreed.
|
