Respondent

Pension Scheme Regs

1997

Transiti-onal Prov’ns Regs

1997

Discretionary Payments Regs 1996

Early Termination of Employment Regs 2000

Costs

Pre 6 April 1988 membership

Employers’

Organisation

Schedule 4 (para 4(8)) & Schedule 8 (paras 16 & 17) require amendment.

New Reg 21(1A) is superfluous.

New Reg 21(6A) should commence “Paras (5) & (6) apply to”.

They oppose such a purchase facility. This would be a question for the Tripartite Committee to consider in the context of a new look scheme.

GMB

GMB support the proposals, but argue that they should be extended to all unmarried partners.

They strongly endorse extension to cover all service back to 1972, but on the basis that any additional cost would also be at no additional cost to the member. At the very least, the additional cost should be split between the employer and the member on a 2:1 basis.

NAPO

They support the proposals, but want unmarried partners back to 1972 to be included.

They consider that 1972 – 88 service should be included, with costs to be borne by the LGPS.

UNISON

They welcome the proposals. Allowing authorities to provide pensions to partners of members who died before the Act comes into should be considered.

They consider that all survivors’ pensions should be backdated to 1972 at no cost to members. Heterosexual unmarried partners should be treated in the same way as civil partners.

Avon Fire Authority

They support provision of additional grant to meet new costs.

London Borough of Brent

They are broadly supportive.

They are concerned about potential costs.

Brighton & Hove Council

They support the proposals.

They point out that the LGPS Regulations 1997 gave employing authorities the discretion to automatically provide widowers’ pensions for pre-1988 service. They consider the current proposals should make similar provision.

Carmarthen-shire County Council

They consider that provision should be made for employers to pass a resolution covering 1972 – 1988, thereby treating it as post-1988 service.

Cornwall County Council

They support a facility in the LGPS for active members to purchase membership between 1 April 1972 and 5 April 1988, providing that the full cost is met by the member.

Derbyshire County Council

They support the proposals.

They support a facility in the LGPS for active members to purchase membership between 1 April 1972 and 5 April 1988, providing that the full cost is met by the member.

Durham County Council

They support the proposals.

They support a facility for members to count pre-1988 membership provided that the full cost is met by the member.

Hampshire

County Council

They consider that any further back-dating must be solely at the scheme member’s cost.

London Borough of Haringey

They support the Employers’ Organisation’s position.

They consider that if take up exceeds expectations and impacts on LGPS funds, the Government should meet such costs.

They support further amendment to allow the buying in of 1972 – 88 membership on a full cost basis to provide survivor benefits for civil partners.

London Borough of Hounslow

They support the proposals.

They consider the cost should be small and  therefore can be met by the Fund.

Lancashire

County Council

They support the proposals.

They support a facility for active members to count 1972 – 1988 membership for purposes of calculating a civil partner’s benefit, providing that the full cost is met by the member.

Merseyside Pension Fund

They support the proposals but with provisos – see right.

Protect-ions provided to widowers must be extended to civil partners.

They consider that a facility to count pre-1988 membership must be available on the same basis as that provided to female employees when widowers’ pensions were introduced.

Northumber-land County Council

They support a facility for members to count pre-1988 membership provided the full cost is met by the member.

South  Tyneside MBC /

Tyne & Wear Pension Fund

They consider that the current proposals do not properly achieve parity between married couples’ widowers’ pensions and civil partners as regards pre-1988 membership.

They consider that under the draft Regulation 2, payment to partners is subject to suspension on forming a new partnership – but it could be difficult for employers to ascertain this. They think that there should be a new clause to allow them to decide if they want to have a suspension facility.

They consider that Regulation 21 (7), on waiving suspension for new partnerships,  should be amended to include civil partner cases.

Regulation 5(7) of the draft regulations refers to heading of Regulation 22, but with the wrong title.

South Yorkshire Pension Authority

They have no objection to allowing scheme members to count 1972 – 1988 membership, providing they meet full cost themselves.

Staffordshire

County Council

Regarding Schedule 8, paragraphs 16 and 17, they suggest inserting "or civil partners" after “surviving spouses’”.

They consider the  amend-ments look correct.

They consider the amendments look correct.

In Regulation 21(3)(a) “Her” & “she” should be replaced by “his” & “he”.

Regulation 5 (7) of the draft regulations refers to the heading of Regulation 22, but with the wrong title. 

In Schedule 1, they question if the definition of "eligible child" needs changing.

Surrey County Council

They consider that members should be able to back-date membership to 1972, meeting the costs themselves.

Tameside MBC/

Greater Manchester Pension Fund

They consider the proposals seem to place civil partners in a better position than widowers as regards whether the civil partnership was entered into before or after the member ceases employment.

They consider that the introduction of mechanisms for counting pre-1988 membership should be delayed until April 2006.

London Borough of Tower Hamlets

They support the proposals. They support the elimination of any form of disparity between the LGPS and other public sector schemes.

They are concerned about potential costs and consider these should be taken into account in the current review of funding provisions.

Warwickshire County Council

They are concerned about the  backdating of entitlement to 1988 due to the cost to the  employer’s revenue accounts.

They consider costs to the  pension fund should be negligible and subsumed by the pension fund on an ongoing basis.

They are concerned that by restricting relevant service from 6 April 1988, civil registration members are being treated differently to the married female membership. Warwickshire employers have resolved to award all post-1972 service as relevant for the calculation of widowers’ pension entitlement.

West Midlands Pension Fund

They consider that only post-1988 membership should count towards a civil partner’s benefit. But if it were decided to provide for active members to count 1972 – 1988 membership, this should be treated in the same way as widowers’ provisions.

West Yorkshire Pension Fund

They consider that in 42(4)(b), reference is made to Regulation 143 – but this Regulation has already been deleted.

In regulation 44(1)(b) – the meaning of “eligible child” should be made more precise.

They support extension to unmarried opposite sex partners.

They support having a facility in the LGPS for active members to purchase membership between 1 April 1972 and 5 April 1988, providing that the full cost is met by the member.

Wiltshire

County Council

They support the proposals

They consider that the cost should be spread over an appropriate recovery period and addressed as part of the triennial valuation exercise.

They suggest that perhaps there should be an opportunity for employers to allow pre-1988 membership to count at no cost to the member in a similar way as in the 1997 Regulations. But there would be a potential problem if an employer who had exercised the discretion in respect of widowers’ benefits decided not to do so for civil partners.