Deputies on pensions
Monday 18th April 2011, 2:27PM BST.
Matt Fallaize
1. No.
2. I decided not to become a member for two reasons: first I did not feel comfortable as an elected member subscribing to a largely taxpayer-funded pension scheme on very generous terms, and second I have a young family and a big mortgage and I did not want to have pension contributions deducted from my monthly remuneration.
3. Yes. That was one of the reasons which persuaded me not to join the scheme.
4. By my calculations 80% of contributions supporting the scheme are paid by taxpayers – that is £4 out of every £5 paid in. It is understandable that some taxpayers would regard such an arrangement as unbalanced and not representing good value.
5. Members of the government, which is what we are, cannot in my view be regarded as employees of the government in the conventional sense – and so I would have thought that a pension scheme designed for employees would have been unsuited to elected politicians.
6. I think colleagues who are members of the pension scheme are best placed to answer that. What I will say is that I am very sympathetic to the case for public sector pension reform and, having not joined the scheme, I am quite pleased that I can freely debate the merits of that case as a politician knowing that any decisions reached will not impact upon my own pension arrangements.
7. I am not a member of the scheme and have no intention of joining.
8. I would favour reform for the reasons I have outlined above, but I think that government’s commitment to making efficiency savings has to be judged across all public sector expenditure and not just against those items which may at any one time attract particular media interest.
9. Is there anything else you would like to say on this matter?
No, but thank you for the opportunity to respond to your 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
Campaigns
Voice For Victims
Voice for Victims is a campaign aimed at promoting the rights of those affected by child sexual abuse.
This is Guernsey
Guernsey Press
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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