Royal Parks Regulations 2010 etc - Statutory Instruments Joint Committee Contents


Appendix 4


4 S.I. 2010/345: memorandum from the Ministry of Defence


Armed Forces (Redundancy, Resettlement and Gratuity Earnings Schemes) Order 2010 (S.I. 2010/345)


The Committee has asked the Ministry of Defence to submit a memorandum on the above instrument dealing with the following points:

(1)  Is article 26 intended to apply only in relation to teachers' or NHS pension schemes. If not, why is this suggested by the heading and the Explanatory Note? If so, why does the article not identify more specifically the relevant provisions of the Superannuation Act 1972 and the Superannuation (Northern Ireland) Order 1972?

(2)  Given the circumstances in which paragraphs (1) and (3) of article 36 apply, explain the purpose and effect of paragraphs (2) and (4) of that article.

(3)  Explain the purpose and effect of the wording of article 36 following the formula in paragraph (5).

We set out below our view on paragraphs (1) and (2) of your Memo. In working to answer your third point, it became clear that the formula set out in the SI is somewhat repetitive and therefore could be confusing. We therefore propose to revoke this Order and make a new one that clarifies the position. We will also make the corrections set out at paragraphs (1) and (2) below in the new Order. We will issue the new Order free of charge. We apologise for any inconvenience that this remedial action may occasion.

Response to Questions (1) and (2)

(1) Yes, article 26 is intended only to apply in relation to teachers' or NHS pension schemes that have been established under the Superannuation Act 1972 and the Superannuation (Northern Ireland) Order 1972. We thought this provided sufficient reference, but agree that greater clarification could be given, namely to state that it is in relation to such schemes established under sections 9 and 10 of the 1972 Act or articles 11 and 12 of the 1972 Order.

(2) Paragraphs (2) and (4) are intended to set out the position as clearly as possible and to avoid any doubt about when monies need to be repaid. However, on reflection, we consider that the words "Subject to paragraph (1) [or] (3)" (as the case may be) are not correct and should be deleted from paragraphs (2) and (4).

No party's position will be prejudiced by the above.

The Ministry of Defence

16 March 2010


 
previous page contents

House of Lords home page Parliament home page House of Commons home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2010
Prepared 30 March 2010