Your browser is no longer supported

For the best possible experience using our website we recommend you upgrade to a newer version or another browser.

Your browser appears to have cookies disabled. For the best experience of this website, please enable cookies in your browser

We'll assume we have your consent to use cookies, for example so you won't need to log in each time you visit our site.
Learn more

Pensions: what could the Tories do?

  • 1 Comment

The Tories are committed to tackling the deficits in the public sector schemes - but what are the implications for the local government nest egg?

It is increasingly likely — almost inevitable, it seems — that the Conservatives will form the next government. Equally probable, to judge by recent remarks, is that the incoming administration will try to ‘fix’ public sector pensions.

There is growing disquiet among the political classes and the media about public sector pensions. They are too generous, the payments are guaranteed and schemes allow workers to retire too early, say the critics.

While most private sector pension plans are now by defined contribution, the returns from which depend on investment returns, the local government pension scheme is still final salary.

Where the normal retirement age for the Local Government Pension Scheme (LGPS) is 65, private sector workers will often stay in employment for several years longer.

And, of course, the total cost must not be overlooked. Most public sector schemes are ‘unfunded’ — they will be paid for out of future government revenues and contributions from tomorrow’s workforce. LGPS is unusual among public sector pensions in being funded, but the deficits are — in part because of the recession and stock market collapse — massive.

According to accountants PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC), the deficit as at the end of last year amounted to 34% of liabilities — or 43% if typical private sector calculations are used.

A Conservative government can now be expected to take the issue head on. Shadow chancellor George Osborne is the latest Tory front-bencher to indicate that action would be taken.

Speaking on the BBC’s Andrew Marr Show, Mr Osborne said: “When it comes to [public sector] pensions, I’m not bound by any deal that the Labour Party has done with the public sector unions who pay their bills, but I will do this in a way that is fair.

“When I reform public sector pensions, I will want to do it in cooperation — I hope — with those who represent the public sector. I am not out to slash and burn the public sector. I want to do this in a way that gets value for money for the taxpayer, but treats the public sector fairly.”

Mr Osborne added: “I mean public sector pensions are actually a longterm burden on the state and that’s why they need to be reformed.”

To add to the anxieties of public sector workers, he explained: “We will take decisions to make sure that public sector pay reflects prevailing economic conditions.” But a Conservative party spokeswoman was not willing to provide any details of the nature of likely pension reforms.

Assuming a proposal is made to amend the LGPS, Unison pledges not to accept anything that damages its members’ interests.

A Unison spokeswoman says: “We will resist it fiercely, like we have done before. We have drawn up a new pension scheme that is sustainable for the future and there is no reason why the Tories should attack it. Don’t forget, most of the local authorities are Tory controlled, and they were responsible for working on the local government pension schemes.”

Gary Simmons, local government partner at PwC, argues there are a lot of uncertainties about the LGPS, including both the real size of the deficits and how they can be reduced.

Estimates of the defi cits, says Mr Simmons, range between £50bn and £100bn — an impressively large margin of doubt.

But LGPS obligations have been built up by past employment and it is unlikely those liabilities can be cut by retrospectively reducing entitlement. “In the private sector, you cannot change this,” Mr Simmons says. “I think the same is likely to apply with public sector pensions.”

The defi cit will need to be addressed by increased contributions, either from employers or the government. To prevent the defi cit growing even larger, and to prevent it recurring, either contributions will need to increase, or entitlements be cut back.

“It’s not an easy thing to solve,” says Mr Simmons. “You can’t magic money up from thin air. The benefit structure could be looked at.”

But, he argues, pensions need to be considered as part of a broader staff reward structure and it may prove diffi cult to cut the cost of LGPS, even if the way benefi ts are distributed is reformed.

Simply moving from fi nal salary to career average pay would not, in itself, cut the cost of a scheme, Mr Simmons points out. It might, though, be attractive to a government that wanted a fairer scheme, or greater flexibility.

Similarly, moving to a defi ned contribution scheme would not necessarily reduce costs. It does, though, transfer risk to the employee — with the possible result that a retired employee with
an underperforming pension could then become entitled to more state benefits.

This, in turn, could increase the burden on the public purse.

Independent pensions consultant John Ralfe is also doubtful about the ease with which savings can be achieved in the LGPS. He agrees that simply moving from a final salary to a career average scheme would not resolve the underlying problems.

“It would not go anywhere near,” he says. “Most people aren’t very affected, because salaries over their working lives don’t increase much above inflation.”

On the costs side, it is the salary growth of local government staff that is increasing pressure on the scheme, Mr Ralfe argues. Given Mr Osborne’s comments in the Andrew Marr interview on public sector remuneration, cutting pay may be a means of reducing future LGPS liabilities, as well as cutting other revenue costs.

“Whatever the Tories may do to address the issue, must be much stronger than just moving from fi nal salary to career average,” says Mr Ralfe. He suggests it will be necessary to consider the future of the LGPS alongside other public sector schemes, including that for MPs.

“Unsurprisingly, MPs are showing no sign of accepting reduced pensions,” he says. “The politics are very interesting. MPs are a very effective lobby group.”

Mr Ralfe adds: “Before you start looking at local government you should look at the unfunded public schemes, which are more generous because the normal retirement age is 60, not 65 as in the LGPS. So I don’t think any changes will start with local government.”

But making changes to the LGPS and other public sector schemes that both reduce costs and are politically achievable is bound to be extremely difficult. “I cannot see that an incoming Conservative government would find it any easier to grasp the nettle than the current Labour administration,” says Mr Ralfe.

Rather, it would be more difficult for Tories, he argues, drawing the analogy that Republican governments in the United States are better able to cut military spending than are Democrats.

Nor should voter self-interest be overlooked. “If you tot up the total number of members of unfunded [public sector] schemes and members of LGPS, including current and former employees and pensioners, it’s almost 10 million people,” Mr Ralfe calculates. “I can’t see that the Conservatives would find this easy. What we have heard so far is more rhetoric than anything else.”

Many local government staff will hope his analysis is correct.

  • 1 Comment

Readers' comments (1)

  • If my local authority pension entitlement is diminished by a future government, I may review my position as I could earn more per hour working for an agency. I personally would not trust a private sector financial company enough to want to pay into a private sector pension.On a more general point, bearing in mind Keynes concept of the multiplier principle, has any economist or politician calculated the effect on the future economy of reduced spending power by pensioners, especially bearing in mind the increasing number of elderly and retired persons for the next 30 years? In addition has the effect of reduced public sector pension funds on the future stock market been calculated? And finally, private sector companies manage public sector pension funds and invest them on behalf of the members and the local authorities. What will be the impact on those firms?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

Have your say

You must sign in to make a comment

Please remember that the submission of any material is governed by our Terms and Conditions and by submitting material you confirm your agreement to these Terms and Conditions.

Links may be included in your comments but HTML is not permitted.