Skip to main content

Pension Schemes: dealing with the past service liability (P.110/2009) – comments.

This content has been automatically generated from the original PDF and some formatting may have been lost. Let us know if you find any major problems.

Text in this format is not official and should not be relied upon to extract citations or propose amendments. Please see the PDF for the official version of the document.

STATES OF JERSEY

PENSION SCHEMES: DEALING WITH THE PAST SERVICE LIABILITY (P.110/2009) – COMMENTS

Presented to the States on 3rd November 2009 by the Minister for Treasury and Resources

STATES GREFFE

2009   Price code: C  P.110 Com.

COMMENTS

This Proposition will increase the 2009 States' contribution to PECRS and JTSF from £6.7 million to in the region of £19 million, an increase of £12.3 million, with similar increased costs being incurred for the next 19 years. Whilst the current arrangements and those proposed by Senator Shenton both pay off the debt over a period, because Senator Shenton is proposing a much shorter payback period, the annual amount is naturally significantly higher. These increased costs would have to be met from either a reduction in services or an increase in taxation of £12.3 million. The size of the pre- 87  debt  is  already  known  and  acknowledged,  and  the  increased  costs  of  early repayment could only be warranted if there were significant actuarial or legal reasons which justified a shorter period of repayment of the debt.

This proposition will have no impact on the benefits paid to members of the scheme. The proposition will result in extra costs for the States of Jersey over the next 20 years but will not reduce or enhance benefits paid to scheme members.

Senator Shenton poses questions which suggest that he is uncomfortable with the generational burden created by the debt arrangements. The States actuary comments on this as follows: "In many ways the changed incidence of cost in respect of the debt can  be  looked  at  as  correcting  a  lack  of  pre-funding  of  increases  for  a  former generation, whilst the change to pre-funding of future increases can be looked at as ensuring that the same doesn't happen again. It is the current generation that is picking up the lion's share of that cost and adopting a shorter period for the Pre-1987 Debt would  increase  that  burden".  In  other  words,  the  current  generation  is  already suffering costs that were built up by a former generation.

The report states that the length of time agreed (82 years) is unacceptably long and out of step with the U.K. The States actuary comments: "The new funding regime does not apply to public sector schemes in the U.K. and, indeed, most of the larger U.K. public sector schemes are unfunded and operate on a pay as you go basis". The PECRS is therefore in a significantly better funding position than its U.K. counterparts at present by virtue of the States having agreed this scheme for repayment of the debt.

Senator Shenton further states: "In the U.K. employers must agree plans to fill pension scheme  deficits  within  10  years  if  possible,  not  82  years".  The  States  actuary comments on this as follows: "The comment referring to the 10 years is not correct. This refers to a trigger point' that the U.K. Pensions Regulator uses for managing its own workload – generally it will not ask for further information about a scheme's funding plan where a number of criteria are satisfied. One of these criteria is that the deficit recovery period is less than 10 years. The Pension Regulator has been at pains to point out that this not a limit or a target, and that longer recovery periods may be justified. This has been emphasised by a recent statement issued by the Pensions Regulator." The States actuary goes on to say that "The debt mechanism appears to be designed to ensure that the liabilities are properly funded."

In  summary  the  debt  arrangement  as  it  currently  stands  provides  for  an affordable  negotiated  settlement  of  the  debt  of  a  previous  generation  over  a justifiable  timescale  and  is  way  ahead  of  many  other  similar  U.K.  central government schemes. Accordingly this proposition is not required. Moreover, accepting this proposition would result in an extra cost of £12.3 million per annum increasing each year over the next 20 years.  

Further details on the origin and history of the pre-1987 debt are laid out in the Appendix to this comment – Paper on the PECRS past service liability by Richard Raggett, Secretary to the Committee of Management, prepared for and approved by the Committee of Management, September 2009.

APPENDIX