Deputies on pensions

Monday 18th April 2011, 2:27PM BST.

piggy bank The Guernsey Press asked deputies the following questions relating to the fairness and appropriateness of their pension arrangements:

1. Are you currently a member of the States Members’ Pension Fund?
2. Why did you decide to become a member?
3. Were you aware of the disparity between your personal contribution (6%) and that of the taxpayer (25%)?
4. Can you say if you believe that is a fair split and explain in what way it represents taxpayer value?
5. Why, in your view, is a pension scheme based on that provided for full-time States employees appropriate for self-employed political representatives who are elected for a four-year term only?
6. Given the need to reform the public sector pension scheme generally, are you comfortable with the political message it sends out with you being a member of effectively the same scheme but on even more generous terms?
7. Do you intend to remain a member of the scheme?
8. Would a States decision to close the States Members’ scheme send a powerful message that the Assembly is serious about cutting costs?
9. Is there anything else you would like to say on this matter?

Some deputies responded by answering each question posed, while some provided a general comment on the issue

Six deputies were quoted in recent articles published by the Guernsey Press explaining why they had opted out of the scheme. Those deputies were offered the chance to respond to the above questions.

While Matt Fallaize and Mike Collins provided new comments, the remainder said their original comments still stood.

These were:

Jack Honeybill

Deputy Honeybill opted out of the scheme and his reasons were published in a previous Guernsey Press article on the subject. He said he opted out for two reasons – a reasonable pension from 40 years in the private sector and a desire to follow up his belief that the States must show financial restraint with individual action.

‘I take my responsibilities very seriously and I did not think it was morally right for me to take it.’

Graham Guille

Deputy Guille opted out because he was already entitled to a pension from his career in the fire service. But he warned about changing the public sector scheme.

‘We find ourselves training staff that are pinched by the private sector,’ he said. ‘We have to offer them something over and above what they would get elsewhere. ‘If we start changing the level of the pensions we are going to see an exodus.

Marc Laine

Deputy Laine said he did not join the scheme because he believed the money could be better spent elsewhere, and reducing the island’s budget deficit should be deputies’ top priority.

Sam Maindonald

Deputy Maindonald said her reasons for opting out where similar to Deputy Laine’s.

‘I am paid for the work that I do as a deputy and I don’t expect the taxpayer to have to pay me additionally to supplement my private pension.’

Two others that opted out but have already publicly explained why – Matt Fallaize and Mike Collins – also answered the newspaper’s questions.

Their answers are on separate pages which, along with all the other answers received, may be accessed by clicking on the links below.

DEPUTIES WHO DID NOT RESPOND

Hunter Adam
Leon Gallienne
Mike O’Hara
Francis Quin
Carol Steere
Jane Stephens
Martin Storey

Click each deputy’s name to view their full responses to the questions:

To read Guernsey Press stories in full click here for subscription details. Individual editions are now available online.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35

1
James EG

April 18, 2011 at 7:42 pm

Interesting comments, but I just wish there had been a question about whether the scheme should be Defined Benefit or Defined Contribution. This is THE big issue with public sector schemes generally.

Will the independent review be considering the option of a DC scheme for deputies?

Report abuse
2
Martino

April 19, 2011 at 7:54 am

Deputy Mike Garrett’s response is a perfect example as to why the States’ Defined Benefit (gold plated) schemes, propped up by the Guernsey taxpayer, should end now.
Arrogant, head in the sand and what on earth has this man done during the last three years?

Report abuse
3
Paul Le Page

April 19, 2011 at 10:19 am

Martino – at least Deputy Garrett actually bothered to respond in some detail and present his views.

You may not agree with him but I’m sure you’d agree with me that it is far better to hear the views of someone you disagree with than be fobbed off.

Speaking of fobbing off, read Deputy Peter Sirrett’s “response.” Then there are the 7 Deputies who didn’t respond at all – however I will give them the benefit of the doubt as they may be extenuating circumstances we are unaware of.

Report abuse
4
Martino

April 19, 2011 at 12:58 pm

Yes, you’re right in that respect Paul. The ones who didn’t respond and those like Deputy Sirrett who engaged in a fobbing off exercise have shown their clear contempt for the electorate.
Praise though to morally sound Deputies like Tony Spruce who have been totally open and honest and who have pulled out of the scheme because they can see the obvious unfairness of it all.

Report abuse
5
Paul Le Page

April 19, 2011 at 2:12 pm

Yes, Martino – I agree that those who oppose the scheme have done the right thing in pulling out.

In the spirit of honesty though, it would be remiss of me not to point out that I actually think our Deputies should be paid more than they are at this time. Whether that remuneration comes in salaried form or as part of a pension scheme is another matter though.

I personally think that, given the potentially short career of a politician, it would be better both from an administrative and moral perspective to pay our Deputies a higher salary and expect them to make their own pension arrangements if they so wish.

As I’m not a Deputy I can say with all sincerity that I have no vested interest in holding this view, apart from my own opinions on the importance of the role and what is a fair wage.

Report abuse
6
Martino

April 19, 2011 at 2:48 pm

Yes, Paul, fair enough, but another huge anomaly at the centre of all of this is that they’re supposed to be ‘self-employed’ like I am. `Also, how on earth are deputies to put an end to the unsustainable public employee gold plated pension scheme if they persist with their own?
The only fair way to resolve this is through an independent review of both politicians’ and civil servant pensions, carried out by a panel of PRIVATE pensions experts, that is absolutely binding on all parties.

Report abuse
7
Paul Le Page

April 19, 2011 at 4:18 pm

Self-employed – that’s something else we have in common, Martino!

As you will know, being self-employed means that Deputies have to pay a higher contribution rate than if they were employed – it also saves the taxpayer money by removing the employer’s contribution. So from that perspective it’s not all bad.

Like you though I do find the whole “self-employed” thing slightly bizarre in the context of pension arrangements. Perhaps the best way to avoid this confusion would be to remove the pension (leaving members to contribute to a private pension if they so wish) and pay a higher wage?

Report abuse
8
Martino

April 19, 2011 at 4:58 pm

I think you’ve hit the nail on the head Paul. Treat our deputies as true self-employed and raise the wage, leaving them free like the rest of us to cater for their own private pension arrangements, if any. In the meantime suspend the current scheme.
The civil servant nut is harder one to crack but those Defined Benefit pensions have got to go. In the real world of the private sector they’ve all but gone already because they’re simply unaffordable.

Report abuse