The Public Service (Civil Servants and Others) Pensions (Remediable Service) 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
62D Retrospective ill-health retirement assessment under Section II
(1) This regulation applies in relation to an immediate choice member (“M”), where— (a) M was, as at the closing date, a member of Section II, and (b) either— (i) all of M’s remediable service was in alpha, or (ii) M’s remediable service was mixed service. (2) The immediate choice decision-maker may make an election for M’s service to be treated as if, during the period of M’s remediable service, M had claimed payment of an ill-health pension. (3) Except where the scheme manager is the immediate choice decision-maker, an election under paragraph (2) may only be made after the scheme manager has determined an application which is— (a) made by or on behalf of M, (b) in a form and manner determined by the scheme manager, and (c) received by the scheme manager during a period determined by the scheme manager. (4) The scheme manager may by written notice require the person making the application under paragraph (3) to provide in relation to the application such information which— (a) is within the person’s possession, or (b) the person may reasonably be expected to obtain. (5) As soon as reasonably practicable after receipt of an application made under paragraph (3), the scheme manager must— (a) determine whether an election under paragraph (2) may be made in relation to M, (b) determine the entitlement, if any, to ill-health pension for the period claimed, as if all of M’s remediable service had been in Section II, and (c) notify the person who made the application of the determinations made in accordance with sub-paragraphs (a) and (b). (6) Where the scheme manager is the immediate choice decision-maker, the scheme manager must, as soon as is reasonably practicable after determining that they are the immediate choice decision-maker, determine whether to make an election under paragraph (2) in relation to M. (7) The scheme manager may refuse an application made under paragraph (3) where the scheme manager is not satisfied that, but for a relevant breach of a non-discrimination rule, M would more likely than not have claimed payment of an ill-health pension during the period of M’s remediable service. (8) An election under paragraph (2) is made by— (a) a person other than the scheme manager when that person sends confirmation to the scheme manager that such an election is to be made following receipt of the notification mentioned in paragraph (5)(c); (b) the scheme manager at the time determined by the scheme manager. (9) Where an election under paragraph (2) is made, the scheme manager must treat M as if the ill-health pension had been payable from the day after M’s last day of service in an employment or office which is capable of being pensionable service in a civil service scheme.
62D Retrospective ill-health retirement assessment under Section II
(1) This regulation applies in relation to an immediate choice member (“M”), where— (a) M was, as at the closing date, a member of Section II, and (b) either— (i) all of M’s remediable service was in alpha, or (ii) M’s remediable service was mixed service. (2) The immediate choice decision-maker may make an election for M’s service to be treated as if, during the period of M’s remediable service, M had claimed payment of an ill-health pension. (3) Except where the scheme manager is the immediate choice decision-maker, an election under paragraph (2) may only be made after the scheme manager has determined an application which is— (a) made by or on behalf of M, (b) in a form and manner determined by the scheme manager, and (c) received by the scheme manager during a period determined by the scheme manager. (4) The scheme manager may by written notice require the person making the application under paragraph (3) to provide in relation to the application such information which— (a) is within the person’s possession, or (b) the person may reasonably be expected to obtain. (5) As soon as reasonably practicable after receipt of an application made under paragraph (3), the scheme manager must— (a) determine whether an election under paragraph (2) may be made in relation to M, (b) determine the entitlement, if any, to ill-health pension for the period claimed, as if all of M’s remediable service had been in Section II, and (c) notify the person who made the application of the determinations made in accordance with sub-paragraphs (a) and (b). (6) Where the scheme manager is the immediate choice decision-maker, the scheme manager must, as soon as is reasonably practicable after determining that they are the immediate choice decision-maker, determine whether to make an election under paragraph (2) in relation to M. (7) The scheme manager may refuse an application made under paragraph (3) where the scheme manager is not satisfied that, but for a relevant breach of a non-discrimination rule, M would more likely than not have claimed payment of an ill-health pension during the period of M’s remediable service. (8) An election under paragraph (2) is made by— (a) a person other than the scheme manager when that person sends confirmation to the scheme manager that such an election is to be made following receipt of the notification mentioned in paragraph (5)(c); (b) the scheme manager at the time determined by the scheme manager. (9) Where an election under paragraph (2) is made, the scheme manager must treat M as if the ill-health pension had been payable from the day after M’s last day of service in an employment or office which is capable of being pensionable service in a civil service scheme.
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.