The Government's proposals
Jump to
Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration
State earnings-related pension scheme (SERPS) inheritance provisions: redress for maladministration
The Government's proposals
8. On 29 November 2000 the Secretary of State made a further statement to Parliament in which he announced that the proposal for a protected rights scheme was to be abandoned. Instead, the surviving spouse of anyone reaching, or due to reach, state pension age before 6 October 2002 would inherit up to 100% of their SERPS entitlement. For those reaching or due to reach state pension age after 5 October 2002 but before 6 October 2010 there would be a sliding scale whereby their surviving spouse would inherit between 60% and 90% of their SERPS entitlement, depending on the date of birth of the contributor. For those due to reach state pension age on or after 6 October 2010, their surviving spouse would inherit up to 50% of their SERPS entitlement, as envisaged in the 1986 legislation. The Secretary of State said that the new proposals were designed to give full protection to every pensioner; to give younger people adequate notice of the change to the SERPS rules; and to provide transitional arrangements, not provided in the 1986 legislation, for those approaching retirement age. The proposals would also avoid the problems of finding ways to attract claims from those who had been misadvised and of sifting out fraudulent claims.
9. A note outlining the proposals, which DSS provided when consulting me about them, is reproduced at annex A to this report. That note is by way of a commentary on draft regulations to be laid before Parliament under section 52(8) of the Welfare Reform and Pensions Act 1999 for approval by resolution of each House of Parliament.
10. In his statement on 29 November the Secretary of State also said that there were people—he suggested they were likely to be few—who had evidence that they had been misinformed by DSS or BA. To the extent that they were not covered by the proposals he had announced, they would have access to the usual departmental procedures for dealing with cases of maladministration. I reproduce at annex B to this report extracts from the procedures published by DSS for financial redress for maladministration.
