The Judicial Pensions (Remediable Service etc.) Regulations 2023
Write the words of this act the way you think they should read. Solon shows your change as a redline against the published text and pins it to that exact text, so it can never be applied to wording you did not see.
Change 1
17 Benefits for children
(1) This regulation applies where— (a) P died before the immediate detriment remedy was obtained, (b) the immediate detriment remedy was obtained by an adult survivor of P, (c) P is survived by a child who is not living in the same household as the adult survivor, (d) the child would have received benefits in respect of P under the 2015 scheme if— (i) an immediate detriment remedy had not been obtained in relation to P’s remediable service, and (ii) a 2015 scheme election had been made in respect of P, and (e) the benefits payable under the relevant judicial legacy scheme in respect of the child are, in the opinion of the scheme manager of the scheme, less valuable (looked at in the round) than those that would have been payable in respect of the child if— (i) an immediate detriment remedy had not been obtained in relation to P’s remediable service, and (ii) a 2015 scheme election had been made in respect of P. (2) The benefits payable in respect of the child under the relevant judicial legacy scheme, so far as they are determined by reference to P’s remediable service, are such benefits as would have been payable in respect of the child, so far as they are determined by reference to P’s remediable service, if— (a) an immediate detriment remedy had not been obtained in relation to P’s remediable service, and (b) a 2015 scheme election had been made in respect of P. (3) Paragraph (2) applies in relation to benefits that were payable in respect of the child before, as well as after, the immediate detriment remedy was obtained.
17 Benefits for children
(1) This regulation applies where— (a) P died before the immediate detriment remedy was obtained, (b) the immediate detriment remedy was obtained by an adult survivor of P, (c) P is survived by a child who is not living in the same household as the adult survivor, (d) the child would have received benefits in respect of P under the 2015 scheme if— (i) an immediate detriment remedy had not been obtained in relation to P’s remediable service, and (ii) a 2015 scheme election had been made in respect of P, and (e) the benefits payable under the relevant judicial legacy scheme in respect of the child are, in the opinion of the scheme manager of the scheme, less valuable (looked at in the round) than those that would have been payable in respect of the child if— (i) an immediate detriment remedy had not been obtained in relation to P’s remediable service, and (ii) a 2015 scheme election had been made in respect of P. (2) The benefits payable in respect of the child under the relevant judicial legacy scheme, so far as they are determined by reference to P’s remediable service, are such benefits as would have been payable in respect of the child, so far as they are determined by reference to P’s remediable service, if— (a) an immediate detriment remedy had not been obtained in relation to P’s remediable service, and (b) a 2015 scheme election had been made in respect of P. (3) Paragraph (2) applies in relation to benefits that were payable in respect of the child before, as well as after, the immediate detriment remedy was obtained.
One line that says what changes, such as "Halve the dog tax".
Who it helps, what it costs, what it fixes. It is what persuades people to support it.
How this law is officially changed
Solon does not know this law's official route yet. The proposal is recorded all the same, and the route appears here once its source is added.
A proposal here is not law. Support on Solon is evidence that people want the change; the official route says what it takes to make it law.
Sign in to file your proposal. What you have written stays on this page.
Sign in to file itThink it through
Ask what your change would do, who would gain and who would bear a cost, and where something like it is already law. The assistant reads your draft as it stands, cites the law and the studies it finds, and takes no side. What you file stays yours.