Letter to the Clerk of the Committee from
the Secretary to the Family Law Committee of the Law Society (PS
14)
Thank you for your letter of 10 June 1998 inviting
the Society to attend the Social Security Committee meeting on
15 July 1998 to give evidence to the Committee about the implications
of the proposals to introduce pension sharing contained in the
consultation document and draft legislation issued by the Department
of Social Security.
The Law Society will be represented by Mrs Hilary
Siddle, Chairman of the Law Society's Family Law Committee and
a partner with Holden and Wilsons Solicitors in Lancaster, Mr
Robin Ellison, national head of pensions at Eversheds Solicitors
in London and Mrs Diane Burleigh, a solicitor and Deputy Director
of the Society's Policy Directorate. Ms Anna Rowland will also
attend the meeting but will not be giving evidence.
The issues which we would like to cover in our
oral evidence to the Social Security Committee are as follows:
(a) The process of law
making. The Society produced a submission to the Hansard Society
on Reform of the Legislative Process on this subject in 1992,
a copy of which is enclosed for your information. You will see
from this that the Society is in favour of greater consultation
taking place on draft legislation before it is enacted. The Society
therefore warmly welcomes the approach being taken to the consideration
of the draft legislation on pension sharing by the Social Security
Committee.
(b) The impact the provisions
will have in practice in family law cases. In general terms the
Society welcomes the approach to reform and the flexibility which
will exist within the system. This will enable couples to make
financial arrangements on divorce which do not take pensions into
account where they are insignificant; to offset pensions against
other assets; make use of the existing provisions on pensions
earmarking or use pension sharing. I enclose a copy of the Society's
response to the Green Paper on pension splitting which gives further
details of the Society's approach to reform
.[1] The Committee
does, however, have some concerns about the proposals which include:
(i) The costs which
individuals may face—this may make pensions sharing inaccessible
for many people;
(ii) The need for
procedural safeguards surrounding agreements designed to implement
pension sharing;
(iii) The impact
of pension sharing on families with moderate or low means. As
mentioned above, the costs surrounding pension sharing may make
this option unavailable for families with moderate or low incomes.
Moreover, in this type of family pension sharing may not produce
very great benefits for the parties. If this is the case, it is
important that the Government makes it clear to the public that
pensions sharing may not be as available or effective in practice
as many people hope that it will be. If this is not done unrealistic
expectations may be aroused;
(iv) The complexity
of the legislation.
(c) The implementation
process. The Society was concerned at the lack of certainty surrounding
the implementation of pensions earmarking and would like this
problem to be avoided when pension sharing is introduced. To this
end it should be clear in advance when pension sharing will be
implemented, that the legislation will not operate retrospectively
and which cases will be covered by pension sharing and which will
not. People need to know whether, for instance, pension sharing
only applies to divorce petitions issued after a certain date,
or whether it applies to applications for ancillary relief issued
after a certain date.
(d) The impact any legislation
will have on the services solicitors can offer their clients and
the type of advice which will be given by them.
The Society intends in due course to submit
detailed written evidence to the Social Security Committee and
the Department of Social Security covering the reform proposals.
If there is any further information which you need from me at
this stage please do not hesitate to contact me.
Jane Leigh
Secretary to Family Law Committee
1 July 1998
1 Not printed here. Back
|
