Changes To Uk State Pension In 2015

[MAJIC]

They've spent so many years funding current pensions out of current NI contributions, instead of tucking money away that the problem will just get worse.

This is an interesting and complex topic that I have been trying to get my remaining brain cells around. At the moment, and I am open to persuasion, if the government "tucked away" money

1. it would increase the amount of taxes, or increase the deficit spending, as obviously the government is already running a massive deficit and has no extra money it can "tuck away"

2. It would therefore reduce the amount of money in the economy, sending the GDP down the tubes

3. Where on earth would the government "tuck away" the money? Government bonds? Hmm, government bonds are created to fund the deficit spending, so that would mean the national pension funds would be cycled around to fund the the deficits and then I get a headache trying to think about it could work. Or maybe funding public works or paying more public service jobsworthies? Oh gawd, not that.

The only system I can see is the current system, where current contributions (indeed all forms of taxation) get sucked into the Great Common Tax Pot and the national pensions are paid out through Great Government Expense Account, with the balancing act financed through bonds, which are then purchased by Merv the Magician, conjuring up great swathes of crispy electronic quids as buyer of last resort.

Or the national pension is dropped entirely, with a corresponding reduction in taxes, forcing the Great British Debtors to actually save and be responsible for their future. As the level of self-responsibility in the UK has dropped to almost zero (unlike Thailand where it is almost 100%) and everybody expects to suck on the UK State Nanny's Nipple, this simply ain't gonna work.

The problem as you highlight is "at the moment" or where we are now. The governments in the past should have been tucking the money away for many years, in years where there were surpluses or sales from privatisations back in the 80's etc. Instead they've been overspending for too long. Not unlike the local thirty baht in forty baht out mentality of many people here.

Compounded by people are living longer. The number of workers funding the retirees on a current basis continues to dwindle, while the number of people who are retired increases.

At the moment it's difficult to do much following so many years of mismanagement highlighted by the global financial crisis. At some point they need to start tucking away part of today's contributions for the same people in the future. Perhaps segregating the pots by year to start with.

There are plenty of successful sovereign wealth funds in the world. Look at Singapore for example. The government could even channel money into industries with temporary problems, or make strategic investments - other than banking of course Imagine say allocating part of their portfolio to invest in SMEs or as venture capital. In addition taking investments in solid blue chip British companies so at least the UK still owns something.

Essentially the governments and their overspending are effectively bankrupting the country , instead of saving for the future they are spending now and praying something will change to turn them around

And that is the crux of the present problem:Basic "MISMANAGEMENT"

After the Second World War,when the current Pension Scheme was introduced,by the Politicians of the day,in whose wisdom,there was decided to be no Investment,Potential.

And the scheme was run on the basis that contributions were paid in by those that were working and drawn out by the Retirees,a simple in the Pot... and out of the Pot...on a weekly basis.

The wonder of it all,is that it has managed to last this long.

Considering that Private Pension Providers are legally obliged to provide growth for the investers in Private Pension Schemes,its a wonder that the powers that be, have not been prosecuted for Fraud,as well as Mismanagement.

Even a small extra National Insurance Contribution, to be set aside for Investing for future Retirees,would have generated a collossal Pot/Amount..... for 60 years plus! of compounded Interest gains!

Who in their right mind,and with a choice,would join a Pension Scheme with Zero Growth Rate?

Edited May 5, 2011 by MAJIC

[MAJIC]

O.G. - are sure this correct ? I read it differently:-

I talked it through with a young lady in Newcastle a couple of weeks ago , I think we are actually both right.

She explained, as you have pointed out, that if you defer collecting your pension then yes it increases.

But as I am living in Thailand it is frozen at the rate when I am elegible to collect, I can still defer and I will receive a percentage increase on the rate I would be paid at pension age. I reach pension age in the second half of March 2012, it was my intention to defer it for the minimum period, which I think is five weeks, I assumed that I would collect the rate that kicked in after April, but as I was advised I would be be paid the current rate of about £102 plus a small percentage increase for the deferment - does that make sense?

I am assuming that the information she gave me was correct.

It seems to me deferring the Pension is not too generous.

The loss of 5 weeks pension @ £102 = £510

The exchange is for + 1% which equals £102 + 1% = £103.02 a gain of £1.02 per week

It will take 500 weeks x 1.02 to break even on your Pension loss of £510, or (9.61 years) instead of taking it on the day of retirement.

But perhaps I have missed something here?

Of course it would be a good deal if we knew how long we have left on this Planet,which the Government have done there Maths,as the Life Insurance Companies do.

Personally I'm taking my Pension from my 65th Birthday,and not a day later!

[prakhonchai nick]

It seems to me deferring the Pension is not too generous.

The loss of 5 weeks pension @ £102 = £510

The exchange is for + 1% which equals £102 + 1% = £103.02 a gain of £1.02 per week

It will take 500 weeks x 1.02 to break even on your Pension loss of £510, or (9.61 years) instead of taking it on the day of retirement.

But perhaps I have missed something here?

Of course it would be a good deal if we knew how long we have left on this Planet,which the Government have done there Maths,as the Life Insurance Companies do.

Personally I'm taking my Pension from my 65th Birthday,and not a day later!

If you defer the pension for less than 1 year, you receive a 1% increase for each 5 weeks of deferral, and are then paid the current pension rate when you claim. NOT THAT APPLYING WHEN YOU REACHED PENSION AGE.

The longer you defer during the initial year the longer it will take to recoup what you have lost -if ever!

BUT if you defer for more than 1 year, you can claim a lump sum payment for the deferred period, (taxable!) and currently receive the pension at the current rate when you claim.

It is only worth considering deferrment for a few weeks so as to be able to receive the April 6th pension increase, (ie having a birthday in March) but even a 5 week deferral will likely take 4 years to recoup.

[theoldgit]

If you defer the pension for less than 1 year, you receive a 1% increase for each 5 weeks of deferral, and are then paid the current pension rate when you claim. NOT THAT APPLYING WHEN YOU REACHED PENSION AGE.

That's what I assumed to be the case, but when I put that scenario to the advisor in Newcastle she was adamant that I would receive the rate that would apply when I reached pension age. I don't doubt what say you but I have no reason to doubt her either, are you able to point me in the direction of the actual rules?

It is only worth considering deferment for a few weeks so as to be able to receive the April 6th pension increase, (ie having a birthday in March) but even a 5 week deferral will likely take 4 years to recoup.

My birthday is on the 21st March 2012 but I'm beginning to go along with the theory that a bird in the hand.........., as MAJIC says "Of course it would be a good deal if we knew how long we have left on this Planet".

[prakhonchai nick]

Over the past 2/3 years the Pension Dept have regularly given out incorrect information to Thailand Expats. Their most glaring lie was to tell those claiming pension prior to 6th April 2010 that they were not eligible to claim extra benefit for their wives (ADI) since they were not in the UK. Since the benefit was worth around 1.5 million baht over 10 years it was a huge loss to those who believed what they were told.

Now they are telling lies again

The pension payable is that which is current when you claim, not that applying when you reach pensionable age.

http://www.pensionsadvisoryservice.org.uk/state-pensions/deferring

Extra Pension

By deferring your State Pension, your income is increased at a rate of 1% for every 5 weeks you put off drawing it. This equates to 10.4% extra for a complete year of deferment.

For example let us suppose that an individual decided to defer their State Pension in 2008 when their total State Pension was £110 a week for a total of 2 years. Also let us suppose that during these 2 years the April increases in State Pension amounts meant that their total State Pension had risen to £120 a week. Then on claiming after 2 years this individual would receive their regular pension of £120 a week plus an Extra State Pension amount of £24.96 per week (i.e. 20.8% of £120). This gives a total state pension, after 2 years of deferment, of £144.96 per week.

[prakhonchai nick]

Further to the above. whilst there is a large increase in the weekly pension payable by deferring, there is a massive loss from not claiming immediately

My advice is to defer for 5 weeks if that will see you able to receive the April 6th increase then claim and it will take some 4/5 years to recoup the loss. Otherwise defer if you wish for a minimum of 1 year and take the Lump Sum., but far better to have the money immediately and make your own investments.

[meatboy]

i reached 65 in march2010,i defered my pension till march2011,you can either have it in a lump sum or an increase weekly from the date you claim,as others have posted it will take 10years to get back the defered amount,if you are a non tax payer it makes sence to take the lump sum,like i did for tax purpuses year ending 2010-2011,if you go into the next tax year the lump sum will be added to that year.

[prakhonchai nick]

i reached 65 in march2010,i defered my pension till march2011,you can either have it in a lump sum or an increase weekly from the date you claim,as others have posted it will take 10years to get back the defered amount,if you are a non tax payer it makes sence to take the lump sum,like i did for tax purpuses year ending 2010-2011,if you go into the next tax year the lump sum will be added to that year.

I hope Meatboy, you were not given incorrect information.

Since you were 65 in March 2010, then if you were married, you could have claimed ADI for your wife. By deferring your pension beyond 5th April 2010, you lost the right to claim ADI

[Johnniey]

Beano - the retirement age is not 60 and 65. Women have already been increased and men get an increase soon. By 2020 it will be 66 or 67 for everyone.

Back paying for the pension was well worth it - but in the last couple of years the amount need to pay has doubled. And the number of years needed has reduced so the calculations need to be done carefully.

My complaint is I made voluntary contributions in the past getting up to 35 years and planned to make the last 5 years on retirement. Then they changed the rules to 30 years so I made 5 years of payments that I did not need to do.

PS - I also felt the poll tax was a good idea, maybe poorly implemented and used as an excuse to increase local taxes but much fairer than the old rates or even the current whatever it is called system.

I thought of paying voluntary contributions 20 years ago but didn't. If I had to get my payments up to the 30 years, I'd be real pissed off now as they've reduced it to 20 years. I'd be real pissed off if I paid the 13 years or so that I need to get it up to 20 years and they changed it in 10 years to only 10 year required years.

I'd be real pissed off if I paid and died when I'm 68(the currently forecast age I'd receive it).

I have to decide if i want to gamble with my pension or use the money to boost my poker bankroll At least I know i have the odds in my favour there.

[theoldgit]

Thanks for the advice 'prakhonchai nick', reading your posts I suspect you have more than a layman's knowledge.

I cannot imagine that their call centre staff are instructed to give out false, or at least misleading, information, but either way it's a pretty sorry state of affairs as people rely on accurate information to plan their future.

[meatboy]

i reached 65 in march2010,i defered my pension till march2011,you can either have it in a lump sum or an increase weekly from the date you claim,as others have posted it will take 10years to get back the defered amount,if you are a non tax payer it makes sence to take the lump sum,like i did for tax purpuses year ending 2010-2011,if you go into the next tax year the lump sum will be added to that year.

I hope Meatboy, you were not given incorrect information.

Since you were 65 in March 2010, then if you were married, you could have claimed ADI for your wife. By deferring your pension beyond 5th April 2010, you lost the right to claim ADI

yes i did get adi.

[prakhonchai nick]

Thanks for the advice 'prakhonchai nick', reading your posts I suspect you have more than a layman's knowledge.

I cannot imagine that their call centre staff are instructed to give out false, or at least misleading, information, but either way it's a pretty sorry state of affairs as people rely on accurate information to plan their future.

Conceivably the call centre staff have inadequate training, and when faced with a caller from overseas probably take the easy option of saying they are not entitled.

I have personally assisted 4 expats here in Thailand to obtain their ADI after they were each initially told they were not entitled because they and their wives were in Thailand. I wonder how many others were not so fortunate.

[prakhonchai nick]

i reached 65 in march2010,i defered my pension till march2011,you can either have it in a lump sum or an increase weekly from the date you claim,as others have posted it will take 10years to get back the defered amount,if you are a non tax payer it makes sence to take the lump sum,like i did for tax purpuses year ending 2010-2011,if you go into the next tax year the lump sum will be added to that year.

I hope Meatboy, you were not given incorrect information.

Since you were 65 in March 2010, then if you were married, you could have claimed ADI for your wife. By deferring your pension beyond 5th April 2010, you lost the right to claim ADI

yes i did get adi.

I am more than curious meatboy. I am currently trying to help someone obtain ADI who's application sent before the deadline became lost, and Pension Dept refuse to consider a fresh claim submitted after 6th April 2010, despite specifically asking for one to be submitted.

Since you deferred until March 2011, how were you able to claim ADI, since the last date for claiming was 5th April 2010.

[meatboy]

i reached 65 in march2010,i defered my pension till march2011,you can either have it in a lump sum or an increase weekly from the date you claim,as others have posted it will take 10years to get back the defered amount,if you are a non tax payer it makes sence to take the lump sum,like i did for tax purpuses year ending 2010-2011,if you go into the next tax year the lump sum will be added to that year.

I hope Meatboy, you were not given incorrect information.

Since you were 65 in March 2010, then if you were married, you could have claimed ADI for your wife. By deferring your pension beyond 5th April 2010, you lost the right to claim ADI

yes i did get adi.

I am more than curious meatboy. I am currently trying to help someone obtain ADI who's application sent before the deadline became lost, and Pension Dept refuse to consider a fresh claim submitted after 6th April 2010, despite specifically asking for one to be submitted.

Since you deferred until March 2011, how were you able to claim ADI, since the last date for claiming was 5th April 2010.

i might have got it wrong,first what is adi,i have got 6additionals on my pension calcalation they sent me,but maybe i cant claim it wife has income from property she has in the uk i know i had to fill in about 20pages of questions from the time i left school i think the only question they didnt ask me was what age was i when i had my first sexual encounter.

[prakhonchai nick]

i might have got it wrong,first what is adi,i have got 6additionals on my pension calcalation they sent me,but maybe i cant claim it wife has income from property she has in the uk i know i had to fill in about 20pages of questions from the time i left school i think the only question they didnt ask me was what age was i when i had my first sexual encounter.

ADI is Additional Dependants Increase. This WAS payable for the benefit of wives or someone caring for your children.

It was only claimable until 5th April 2010 provided you reached 65 before then. If you deferred claiming your basic pension until after 5th April 2010 you would not be able to claim ADI.The benefit is payable until 5th April 2020 (unless your wife claims her own state pension prior to this or dies), and is worth around £57 frozen pounds a week.

The amount could be less if your wife was working -I'm not sure how they would regard property income. However, since you claimed your state pension only this year, you would not have been entitled to ADI anyway.

If by chance you had any contact with the Pension Dept before 5th April 2010 and you were told you could not claim extra benefit for your wife (as many expats were) then you might have a case against them to have the benefit paid.

[MAJIC]

This deferring your pension for a year is absolute bullshit.

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Pensionsandretirementplanning/StatePension/StatePensiondeferral/DG_179966

For every five weeks you put off claiming you can earn an increase to your State Pension of one per cent. This is equivalent to about 10.4 per cent extra for every full year you put off claiming. You can benefit by putting off claiming your State Pension for as little as five weeks.

By deferring your pension one year, ie collecting nothing, they will give you ten percent extra in subsequent years. On the face of it this sounds great. But what it means is that.

1. It will take you about 8 years to claw back that year you missed claiming. So if you retire at 66 and put it off to you are 67, then you will be 75 before that deferred year has been paid to you. And if you defer two years, then plan on waiting until you are 83 before the money has been paid to you.

2. Presumably if you are thinking about deferring it then you don't need the cash at the moment, so why not simply take it now and put it on deposit in YOUR bank account? Interest rates surely cannot continue at the current piss-poor level (note the Ayudaya bank will currently give you 2.7% annualised interest on a nine month deposit).

I simply cannot see any point in deferring collecting our pension for a single second. The bastards are relying on pensioners being stupid and financially incompetent, a term which should more fairly be applied to the UK government and banking industry.

IMO You are correct in your last statement above.

They are merely playing the Percentages Game of "Life Expectancy"the very same game that the Life Insurance Companies (who have 150 + years of Death Records) that calculate your "Life Expectancy"

So for the sake of their scheme keeping in Profit,you are expected to die,before you have clawed back the extra Pension deal,let alone,live long enough to make a profit by ones decision to defer ones Pension.

Calculated Risk! in other words more lose than gain,the basis of most financial risk services.

Edited May 6, 2011 by MAJIC

[prakhonchai nick]

IMO You are correct in your last statement above.

They are merely playing the Percentages Game of "Life Expectancy"the very same game that the Life Insurance Companies (who have 150 + years of Death Records) that calculate your "Life Expectancy"

So for the sake of their scheme keeping in Profit,you are expected to die,before you have clawed back the extra Pension deal,let alone,live long enough to make a profit by ones decision to defer ones Pension.

Calculated Risk! in other words more lose than gain,the basis of most financial risk services.

Indeed a calulated risk

If you defer for 1 year plus you will receive a lump sum with interest at 10% plus AND the increased pension declared on 6th April

However if you should die within the first year you/your family will lose out by virtue of bot having received any payments during that year.

Bear in mind however if Bereavement benefits are payable following your death, these will benefit from having deferred, and will be 1% higher for every 5 weeks of deferral.

As long as you defer for at least 1 year take the Lump Sum and NOT a higher pension AND do not die within the first year of deferral, you should win.

[cardholder]

IMO You are correct in your last statement above.

They are merely playing the Percentages Game of "Life Expectancy"the very same game that the Life Insurance Companies (who have 150 + years of Death Records) that calculate your "Life Expectancy"

So for the sake of their scheme keeping in Profit,you are expected to die,before you have clawed back the extra Pension deal,let alone,live long enough to make a profit by ones decision to defer ones Pension.

Calculated Risk! in other words more lose than gain,the basis of most financial risk services.

Indeed a calulated risk

If you defer for 1 year plus you will receive a lump sum with interest at 10% plus AND the increased pension declared on 6th April

However if you should die within the first year you/your family will lose out by virtue of bot having received any payments during that year.

Bear in mind however if Bereavement benefits are payable following your death, these will benefit from having deferred, and will be 1% higher for every 5 weeks of deferral.

As long as you defer for at least 1 year take the Lump Sum and NOT a higher pension AND do not die within the first year of deferral, you should win.

I haven't done the maths but this conclusion is somewhat different to the 8/10 years payback described by others. Are you minded to show your calculations ?

[MAJIC]

IMO You are correct in your last statement above.

They are merely playing the Percentages Game of "Life Expectancy"the very same game that the Life Insurance Companies (who have 150 + years of Death Records) that calculate your "Life Expectancy"

So for the sake of their scheme keeping in Profit,you are expected to die,before you have clawed back the extra Pension deal,let alone,live long enough to make a profit by ones decision to defer ones Pension.

Calculated Risk! in other words more lose than gain,the basis of most financial risk services.

Indeed a calulated risk

If you defer for 1 year plus you will receive a lump sum with interest at 10% plus AND the increased pension declared on 6th April

However if you should die within the first year you/your family will lose out by virtue of bot having received any payments during that year.

Bear in mind however if Bereavement benefits are payable following your death, these will benefit from having deferred, and will be 1% higher for every 5 weeks of deferral.

As long as you defer for at least 1 year take the Lump Sum and NOT a higher pension AND do not die within the first year of deferral, you should win.

Could you please explain how taking a deferred Pension will have any effect on Bereavement Benefits,which I have always been led to believe are 2 different Claims,and not linked to Pensions? i.e Bereavement Benefit is a one off Payment to the Spouse of £2000 ,to cover the first year after the Spouses Death.

There is however,for those with Children a "Widowed Parents Allowance"providing the Surviving Spouse is over 45 years of age,and is paid on a age related scale.

"Widows Pension" was phased out many years ago for ordinary folks! if there is something else which has taken its place,I would like to hear about it.

Perhaps you are referring to a Surviving Spouse with a Pension in her/his own right?

There is no" Married Pension" any more either,just a Single Persons Pension,with another type of Top Up!

Edited May 6, 2011 by MAJIC

[prakhonchai nick]

Majic and Cardholder have both raised good points.

If Pension is deferred for less than 1 year, when claimed you will receive the then in force pension payment + a 1% increase for every 5 weeks of deferral. However you will have received no pension during the deferral period. The small weekly additional increase will take years to make up for the weeks/months during which you had pension.

If Pension is deferred for 1 year or more. You can either receive a lump sum payment of the weekly pension you would have received with the 1% addition for every 5 weeks of deferral, and then take the pension at the current weekly rate OR you can have an increased pension with no lump sum. The problem with the latter is that it will take a very very long time to break even since you received no pension for at least 1 year.

So basically if you wish to defer, do so for a minimum of 1 year and take the lumps sum and the pension at the then current rate. No loss - around 10% increase on the year (Taxable) + any pension increase payable during the deferral period.

Bereavement Benefits is the collective name for the 3 benefits which may be payable upon death

First is the Bereavement Grant of £2000 (minimum 1 NI contribution required to receive this)

Then comes the Widowed Parents Allowance. This is NOT age related. It is payable if your widow (or widower) is bringing up children. Normally payable up to age 20 if the child is receiving secondary education (not university). This is based on NI contributions and unlike the current state pension where 30 NI contributions are required for full pension, 44 contributions are still required for full benefit. The point about deferring the state pension, is that this benefit would also be higher had you deferred prior to death.

Finally there is Bereavement Allowance. This is payable only to those over 45, and for only 1 year. Again based on NI contributions which will increase slightly if state pension had been deferred.

[meatboy]

i might have got it wrong,first what is adi,i have got 6additionals on my pension calcalation they sent me,but maybe i cant claim it wife has income from property she has in the uk i know i had to fill in about 20pages of questions from the time i left school i think the only question they didnt ask me was what age was i when i had my first sexual encounter.

ADI is Additional Dependants Increase. This WAS payable for the benefit of wives or someone caring for your children.

It was only claimable until 5th April 2010 provided you reached 65 before then. If you deferred claiming your basic pension until after 5th April 2010 you would not be able to claim ADI.The benefit is payable until 5th April 2020 (unless your wife claims her own state pension prior to this or dies), and is worth around £57 frozen pounds a week.

The amount could be less if your wife was working -I'm not sure how they would regard property income. However, since you claimed your state pension only this year, you would not have been entitled to ADI anyway.

If by chance you had any contact with the Pension Dept before 5th April 2010 and you were told you could not claim extra benefit for your wife (as many expats were) then you might have a case against them to have the benefit paid.

i did know about this its for another adult that depends on you for suport[page 75 in the pension guide] my wife gets more income from property rent than i get pension so i depend on her.

[prakhonchai nick]

i did know about this its for another adult that depends on you for suport[page 75 in the pension guide] my wife gets more income from property rent than i get pension so i depend on her.

You are a very fortunate man.

[12DrinkMore]

On looking again a the "lump sum" option, this may if fact be a good option for us old gits in Thailand.

Here is a useful brochure

http://www.nidirect....spd1_05.08_.pdf

1. The interest rate is 2% above Merv's bank rate

2. The lump sum is taxable, but unless you have other sources of income in the UK you should not have to pay tax.

3. When you do chose to take the lump sum, then the pension you receive will be at the actual current rate including increases.

The only decision is when to take the lump sum. Not easy, but if you start feeling a bit iffy, then maybe grab it quick, as it might make you feel better.

Interestingly in the UK and those countries where the annual increase is applied, you can stop and start your pension at will. Unfortunately the overly-clever jobsworthies have explicitly prevented us from doing this, as it would enable us to get a yearly increase by delaying each year's pension and taking a lump sum annually.

Oh well, for me I suppose all this will change anyway in a couple of years.

Edited May 7, 2011 by 12DrinkMore

[theoldgit]

I am grateful for the above link, it makes interesting reading. I note that the booklet is issued in Northern Ireland and refers to the Pensions Act (Northern Ireland) 2008, is it safe to assume that the same Act also applies in the UK, albeit with a different title?

[12DrinkMore]

I am grateful for the above link, it makes interesting reading. I note that the booklet is issued in Northern Ireland and refers to the Pensions Act (Northern Ireland) 2008, is it safe to assume that the same Act also applies in the UK, albeit with a different title?

Yep, there is the

http://www.legislati...2008/1/contents

and

http://www.legislati...008/30/contents

but, unless someone knows better, they are the same bit of legislation.

http://www.legislati...otes/division/5

Territorial Extent

17.The provisions of this Act extend to England and Wales and Scotland. Certain provisions within this Act also extend to Northern Ireland.

Territorial extent: Wales

18.The Act's effect in Wales is the same as in England. The Act contains no provisions which relate exclusively to Wales, or affect the National Assembly for Wales.

Territorial extent: Scotland

19.The Act generally applies in Scotland as it does in England. The power to initiate the new mechanism of pension compensation sharing on divorce (contained in Chapter 1 of Part 3) is conferred on courts in England and Wales by amendments of matrimonial and civil partnership legislation (contained in Schedule 5). The Act contains equivalent amendments to the Scottish matrimonial and civil partnership legislation (Schedule 6).

20.The Scottish Parliament's consent has been sought and obtained for the provisions in the Act that trigger the Sewel Convention. These provisions are contained in Schedule 7 to the Act. The Sewel Convention provides that Westminster will not normally legislate with regard to devolved matters in Scotland without the consent of the Scottish Parliament.

Territorial Extent: Northern Ireland

21.Provisions relating to the Personal Accounts Delivery Authority and the scheme established under section 67 extend to Northern Ireland. The Act also contains provisions dealing with the Pensions Regulator Tribunal, information relating to private pensions policy and retirement planning, the Pension Protection Fund, the Fraud Compensation Fund and the extension of the Financial Assistance Scheme and these also apply in Northern Ireland. The approval of the Northern Ireland Assembly to the extension of these provisions has been given by way of a Legislative Consent Motion

Presumably there are a lot of jobsworthies behind all this bureaucratic <deleted>. That is the way of BIG government and why there is such a huge deficit and high taxes. Streamlining and efficiency are utter anathema in the public sector.

Edited May 7, 2011 by 12DrinkMore

[Patronus]

Presumably there are a lot of jobsworthies behind all this bureaucratic <deleted>. That is the way of BIG government and why there is such a huge deficit and high taxes. Streamlining and efficiency are utter anathema in the public sector.

To be fair, this not new.

They have just got bigger and better at not streamlining and being inefficient in the last 10 years.