19-JUL-1993 12:21
PAUL FIFOOT
0372723755
section 1 or of any order to give effect to the said section 2; and
(ii) in respect of any subsequent period or periods up to the date on which a calculation is to be made to determine whether a supplementary payment is to be made under paragraph 5 of the Scheme, by the percentage increase rate for such period or periods obtained from the relevant orders made under section 59 of the Social Security Pensions Act 1975 as from time to time in force."
There remain outstanding: (I) what is meant by "the date....that would have been used..." to determine a pension supplement. This expression is used in McDonald's fax of June 1st. I included it in the draft of 14th June in square brackets as a marker and asked for an explanation in my fax of 15th June. As it stands it is meaningless; a formula such as "would have been used" requires to be completed by "if (such and such] had applied or occurred" or "notwithstanding [such and such] condition had not been fulfilled". What is the relevant condition in this case?
(II) the other point raised in
paragraph i8 of my tax of 15th June.
Part II D: See comments on Part I above.
What is the answer to the question in paragraph 19 of my fax of 15th June ?
Part II E: Would Alan McDonald have another look at this. The 14th June text combines some of his original categories and the present Head E combines his items G and H. Both would seem to fall under e.g. regulation 10 of the Pensions Regulations made under Cap 89 which makes different provisions from those applicable to mixed service with scheduled governments. If his item G falls under Head A, does not his itcm H do so also ?
4
P.04/05
Page 240Page 241
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.