Debate contribution: Occupational Pension Schemes (Collective Money Purchase Schemes) (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2024
Debate contribution by Mr Gordon Lyons on .
- MLA
- Mr Gordon Lyons
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 23 September 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Executive Committee Business
- Heading
- Occupational Pension Schemes (Collective Money Purchase Schemes) (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2024
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4544207
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I beg to move
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. This rule primarily makes two technical amendments to the principal regulations — the Occupational Pension Schemes (Collective Money Purchase Schemes) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2024 — to clarify certain provisions and to ensure that the regulations meet the original policy intention. The principal regulations provide for an authorisation and supervision regime for collective money purchase schemes, which are commonly known as collective defined contribution (CDC) pension schemes. I turn to the first amendment. The rule amends the principal regulations to clarify provision relating to the annual actuarial valuation and benefit adjustment processes for CDC schemes. Each year, benefits are renewed and adjusted where required so that the value of scheme assets held is in balance with the projected cost of benefits. A balance needs to be maintained between the value of the available assets of the scheme and the amount needed to provide the target benefits to members on an ongoing basis.
The intention is to provide that, where a cut to benefits must be made due to an economic downturn, the CDC scheme's trustees can smooth the impact of the benefits cuts on members over three years. That is called a multi-annual reduction. The mechanism helps to reduce volatility and ensure that the current and future benefits remain relatively stable. If that were not done, the benefits of the recovery would likely go to future pensioners, which would not be in line with the principle that, as far as possible, all members — current pensioners, those who are currently accruing benefits and those who are not contributing but have rights to a future pension from the scheme — should share in the upsides and downsides at the same time. The rule also ensures that information about any multi-annual reduction and subsequent offsetting must be reported to the Pensions Regulator in the actuarial valuation in order to ensure proper oversight. The second amendment ensures that, where a scheme winds up, beneficiaries' accrued rights are transferred to suitable pension schemes or alternative pension arrangements. A key element of the winding-up process is the calculation of the share of the fund for each person who is a beneficiary at that time. The scheme rules may provide that that person be a member but could include a spouse, a child or a person financially dependent on a deceased beneficiary. The intention has always been that, if a beneficiary dies during the winding-up period, the pot allocated to them will not be extinguished but will be reallocated among their successors where a scheme's rules provide for that. In conclusion, the rule provides clarity for CDC schemes moving forward by more accurately reflecting the policy intention, and I commend it to the House.
Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am sure that everyone will agree that that was a fascinating debate. I know that we all look forward to watching our contributions when they lead the evening news later. On a serious note, I sincerely thank the Committee for its work. The CDC schemes will be an important addition to the UK pensions landscape, and the rule provides clarification to more accurately reflect the policy intention. I am grateful to the Committee for its work and for the consensus across the Chamber.
547 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
Jev’s structured answers met the documented threshold for “not flagged”.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.02 (flagging needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not flagged).
- None of the five culture-war criteria was met (each was below 0.60).
- Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.73).
- No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
- The overall probability was at or below the not-flagging threshold.
This is an AI-generated assessment of the text, made against published criteria. It is not a finding of fact about the MLA or their intentions. The Assembly record itself is the fact.
Jev’s structured answers
| Question | Probability | Met? |
|---|---|---|
| Identity framing | 0.02 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.01 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.73 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.02 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 1.00 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-related subject | 0.99 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
| Irish language, Ulster-Scots and language policy | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 11:06 UTC by jev-1.13.0 (requested as typesafe/jev) under rubric 2026.10-r9, methodology 1.9.
Disagree with this assessment?
Classifications can be challenged. A person reads every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.