Prospect submission to Treasury pension consultation

The Treasury is consulting on proposals to remedy to the discrimination identified in the McCloud and Sargeant Employment Tribunals with a deadline for responses of Sunday 11th October 2020. This is an age discrimination ruling on how public sector pensions were reformed in 2015.

We are clear that the remedy should provide members with the opportunity to make an informed decision, have clarity on their pension benefits and not be in a position of detriment.

Only the deferred choice underpin will allow our members to make an informed decision when making an election for the remedy period and ensuring no detriment.

Please email the Treasury now to help us get your voice heard.

Name *

Your email *

Postcode *

Subject

I am writing to respond to the Treasury public service pension schemes consultation on changes to the transitional arrangements following the Sargeant and McCloud rulings. 
The consultation outlines two proposed remedies, an immediate choice and a deferred choice underpin.  
The remedy should allow for members to make an informed decision and not be in a position of detriment under any circumstances. 
The Deferred Choice Underpin should therefore be adopted as this would allow members to make an informed decision and ensure there is no detriment. 
In addition, I would like to make the following comments on the questions asked in the consultation: 
<ul>
<li>Deferred Choice Underpin should be adopted for all schemes over immediate choice.  </li>
<li>Defaults should be set by each scheme advisory board instead of the same position between legacy and reformed schemes being adopted across all schemes. </li>
<li>Members should not be required to pay interest on money owed to schemes because these occurred as a result of discrimination and not the fault of members. </li>
<li>Ill health retirement cases should be treated as a priority for revisiting past cases. </li>
<li>Members with Effective Pension Age or Early Retirement Buyout Option contracts should be provided with option of a refund of contributions or purchase of added pension. </li>
</ul>
I oppose the decision for the costs of the McCloud remedy to be treated as a member cost under the cost sharing mechanism. These costs are not the fault of scheme members and outside of the prescribed member costs and therefore should be designated an employer cost for the purposes of the cost sharing mechanism.

To show you're an actual person, what is 5 + 2 ? *

Data will be processed by Organic Campaigns: Privacy policy. Acknowledgements