The High Court decision in the Lloyds Banking case finally clarified the need to equalise for the effect of GMPs.
Trustees and employers with GMPs should therefore seek legal and actuarial advice on the implications of the case and next steps.
What is unequal about GMPs?
From 6 April 1978 to 6 April 1997, individuals could accrue an entitlement to an earnings-related addition to their basic state pension, called the State Earnings Related Pension Scheme (SERPS). An employer could contract its scheme out of SERPS if it was designed to provide a pension at least as good as a statutory minimum, known as the GMP. The GMP is a component of a member’s total scheme pension.
The method for calculating GMPs is set out in legislation and can result in inequality, predominantly because GMPs are payable from different ages (65 for men, 60 for women) and GMPs consequently accrue at different rates.
In the Barber case (17 May 1990), the ECJ ruled that occupational pensions were deferred pay and, as such, schemes were required to treat men and women equally. As a result schemes “equalised” their retirement ages, often at age 65, and adjusted their benefits accordingly.
The Lloyds decision provides long-awaited clarification that there is a requirement to equalise for the effect of GMPs and approves methods to achieve this. See our Alert for details
How we can help
- prioritising immediate next steps
- communicating with and helping pensions teams to answer questions from members
- considering options for achieving equalisation best suited to the scheme’s circumstances
- drafting changes to scheme rules to reflect the selected method
- advising on transfer values and commutation payments
- advising on the potential for limiting backpayments
- advising on actuarial proposals for calculating transfer values on an interim basis, pending equalisation
- considering the impact on any member or bulk scheme exercises (such as PIEs, buy-ins / out, closure and winding up).