I read in yesterday's Guardian that a judge has ruled that it is quite wrong that the survivor of a gay marriage should not get some of the pension that his (in this case) partner had collected in life.
In my own case, should BH survive me, she will get half of the pension that I get from the civil service, a half paid for, at least in part, by additional contributions from myself during my time in the service.
In this case, it seems to me that the judge has been empowered to change the liabilities of a pensions company without being required to make any provision for paying for that change. The pensions company which computed the premiums for pensions with surviving partner provision in the sure and certain knowledge of how many surviving partners there were likely to be and of how long they were likely to last, is now expected to pay out on the basis of a changed definition of a partner.
The numbers may not be particularly large, but it does not seem right that the legal people can dump on the financial people in this way, at no cost to themselves. It is a bit like the council announcing that you have to spend £1,000 on a bat survey before you are allowed to demolish your garden shed, in the sense that they are free to make such rules, but it is you who has to pay for them.
No comments:
Post a Comment