Posts Tagged ‘LGPS’

David Davison

On the 8th May the Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government issued a policy consultation entitled “Local Government Pension Scheme: Changes to the Local Valuation Cycle and the Management of Employer Risk.” This comes following the publication in September of the “Tier 3 employers in the LGPS” research findings. The consultation closes on the 31 July 2019.

The first proposal is to change the actuarial valuation cycle in LGPS, from every 3 years to every 4 years, to coincide with the 4 yearly valuations of LGPS as a whole. I do have some concerns that for admitted bodies in the Schemes this will mean that they receive less information and ultimately the information provided will have to have a much longer shelf life. I suspect this is driven more by the inefficiencies in administration and a drive for cost savings than it is for any drive for valuation consistency.

I think to make this change work Schemes should be supplying annual updates on the funding and cessation position (perhaps linked to the provision of FRS102 information) which would allow organisations to be better informed about their position and options.

Of greater importance to charity participants are a series of proposals primarily aimed at looking to help employers better manage exits from the Schemes.

The document recognises that “for some employers a significant issue is the cost of exiting the scheme which can be prohibitive.” The consultation seeks views on two alternative approaches:-

  • To introduce a ‘deferred employer’ status that would allow funds to defer the triggering of an exit payment for certain employers who have a sufficiently strong covenant. Whilst this arrangement remains in place, deferred employers would continue to pay contributions to the fund on an on-going basis. This is looking to broadly replicate the ‘deferred debt arrangements’ (‘DDA’) brought in by DWP to deal with Section 75 debts in multi-employer schemes and the suspension arrangements implemented in Scottish LGPS in 2018;
  • To allow an exit payment calculated on a full buyout basis to be recovered flexibly – i.e. over a period of time providing this is deemed to be in the interests of the Fund and other employers. This is designed to put in to regulation a framework to provide flexibilities on a more formal and consistent basis to those being utilised ‘informally’ by some funds via alternative arrangements.

Whilst I welcome the sentiment and the objective to formalise any additional flexibilities offered the consultation proposals stop well short of fully recognising the issues and finding a full range of workable solutions to deal with them.

  • The DDA legislation and the changes to the cessation position in LGPS in Scotland brought in in 2018 have both been damp squibs with schemes choosing to ignore the changes and to continue to plough their own furrow. The fundamental issue seems to be that schemes are using any request to use the new regulations as an opportunity to re-negotiate security arrangements with the participant. This is hugely short-sighted as it ignores the lack of security on the benefits already built up and that it cannot be in the interests of the organisation, or indeed the other organisations participating, to build further liabilities. This stance in most cases therefore forces organisations to stay in the Scheme which is exactly the result the changes were looking to avoid! The proposals in this Consultation just seem re-inforce this issue referring to employers who are “sufficiently strong” being the only ones who avail of the proposed funding flexibilities – exactly the employers who can probably afford to exit or even potentially continue in the Scheme;
  • The proposals need to consider what options are available for less “sufficiently strong” employers. It cannot be sensible to force employers in to insolvency as a result of their pension liabilities but instead find a better way to manage these. In the interests of the impacted employer and others in the Scheme it would seem more productive to identify methods where the fund can obtain the maximum possible amount, even if this amount is less than the full cessation position. Some LGPS have already pioneered work in this area and the proposed changes are well behind the curve in terms of effective solutions;
  • The gilts based cessation methodology is flawed. Over the past 10 years gilt yields have fallen from over 5% to well below 2% which means that exiting employers are subjected to something of a lottery in exit terms. Currently high cessation values based on low gilt yields make exits less affordable keeping employers tied to the scheme – again counter-productive. Funds feel their hands are tied in investment terms forcing them to either invest very long term liabilities in poorly performing gilt assets or some funds remaining invested in the same way effectively just taking the cross subsidy benefit from their charity participant to help fund public sector liabilities. A more equitable system could be to look at the rolling average gilt value over a period or based upon the expected local authority borrowing costs;
  • There continues to be no recognition of the issue of legacy liabilities within LGPS. It is wholly inequitable for public sector bodies to expect admitted bodies in their Funds, often charities, to cross subsidise the public entity for benefits built up by staff while working for them. These liabilities should continue to be held by the public body in the same way as they were pre a transfer and new employers should be fully protected from these. Benefits reverting back to a prior employer for service linked to that employer just means that they continue to be dealt with on an on-going’ valuation basis (as they were initially) and not converted to a cessation basis. This is a solution which is also likely to make exits more affordable.
  • The suggestion that the steps proposed are linked to protecting the remaining employers in the Funds and this is repeated here. This whole issue of residual risk has been over-egged. The risk is already there and rising – what is needed is an affordable way to minimise the associated risk with the accrued liability and limit any future accrual. How can it be sensible to have 2 employers where one has one active member and one has no active members and yet they are both treated in vastly different ways.

The proposals in this consultation paper are a hugely disappointing response to the issues and in my view provide a wholly inadequate range of options to address the major issues faced. You’d have thought having sat on its hands over this issue for such a long time that the response would have been more comprehensive and considered.

I will be preparing a more detailed response to the consultation which I will share in a future Bulletin. I would also suggest that if you are a charity affected by these issues that you also respond to the Consultation.

David Davison

This is a challenging time for LGPS. Funding pressures, consolidation, Tier 3 issues and investment pooling are all high on the agenda. When it comes to taking effective decisions and shaping the future direction of LGPS there needs to be confidence that these issues are being addressed independently and without conflicts of interest. However is this really the case?

LGPS are run as parts of a local authority and the key staff are Council employees. Usually the individual ultimately responsible for the delivery of scheme services is a senior executive or finance officer in the Council. Can these individuals discharge their duties to the scheme independently of their responsibilities to the Council and can Pension Managers do likewise when their ultimate line manager holds this position? How independent can these key people ultimately be when they are beholding to councillors in the local authority for agreeing budgeting and staffing levels? Would decisions in any way be swayed by these day to day concerns rather than the complete impartiality required on any decision they are taking?

Conflicts of interest are obvious so the key question must therefore be how well are they managed? The 7 principles in public life (‘the Nolan Principles’) require selflessness, integrity, objectivity, accountability, openness, honesty and leadership.

The Pension Regulator’s guidance on conflicts of interest in public service schemes (such as LGPS) focuses on potential conflicts of interest as a member of the pension board. Any such member must not have “a financial or other interest which is likely to prejudice a person’s exercise of functions.” It goes on to confirm that “actual conflicts cannot be managed, only potential conflicts.” Wider examples are given where senior staff may be conflicted.

The test is that the scheme manager must be satisfied. 

Conflicts must be managed in 3 stages, namely identifying, monitoring and managing.

In practice however does this really fully address governance concerns. How seriously are Executives taking these conflicts, fully meeting the relevant Nolan principles and codes of conduct?

How might this impact on non Council participants in the Fund?

Information cannot be available to a Pension Fund Head as part of a negotiation and not to a Council FD if both are the same person! How can a Council FD claim to be detached from the policy in a Fund’s Funding Strategy Statement when they are the individual who has signed and issued it!  How can a Fund be expected to robustly pursue a Council guarantee for an employer when it is the Council FD who is required to agree it and provide sign off? And yet from the schemes perspective it should be doing so to protect other employers.

This does not create an environment for challenge, growth and change but one which favours the status quo. There is little or no motivation to change historic practices and to innovate and this reflects the ponderous pace of change in schemes and their inability to reflect their employer and employee needs. This is also reflected in the myriad of local practices which have evolved in schemes over many years which do not bear close scrutiny. Schemes a short geographical distance apart can adopt wildly differing approaches to managing exactly the same issue.

I am not for a moment suggesting that decisions are deliberately being subject to bias but the potential is there for implicit bias, which is exactly what good governance and the necessary checks and balances are there to resolve.

The model operated by Local Pension Partnership covering a number of regions also provides offers some room for optimism as it has implemented the required additional independent governance tier and their approach has resulted in welcome levels of innovation and flexibility.

One of the options considered as part of the review of local government pension schemes in Scotland could provide a blueprint for change. The formation of a single Scottish LGPS operated independently from local authorities, which could be self-financing and run autonomously by a wholly independent board would provide complete independence and additional comfort that the required governance structure is in place and operating efficiently.

But how close are we to getting something like this more consistently? A long way off I suspect. There aren’t really similar discussions to those in Scotland on-going in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, and those in Scotland are some way from implementation. Why would Funds themselves be the turkeys voting for Christmas and push this change agenda earlier? Any impetus really needs to come from central government and have a reasonable timescale imposed if it is not to be subject to local / regional self-interest. Central government need to grasp the nettle here if financial savings are to be made and a more independent and consistent form of governance is to be achieved.

David Davison

I have highlighted the issue of legacy debt in LGPS in numerous previous bulletins, in numerous publications and at events. The whole issue is often met with some degree of disbelief. Rightly organisations question why should they be made responsible for pension liabilities which belong to someone else and why are public bodies taking the opportunity to avoid costs which are rightfully theirs.

Pension Funds and Councils are just choosing to avoid the issue and Government are just choosing to put it in the too difficult pile and ignore.

At the start of the year I issued an open letter to the Work & Pensions Committee to see if they would be prepared to raise the problem as the number of organisations I’m witnessing who are experiencing difficulties as a result of this issue has increased very significantly over the past number of months, I suspect as membership numbers in LGPS within charities continue to fall having closed schemes to new entrants.

I strongly believe that there is a potential tidal wave facing the charitable sector linked to this issue and the wider cessation debt regulation. Statistics compiled by Scottish Government back in 2014 for their schemes identified that of 422 admission bodies 223 had no guarantor. Of these 102 had fewer than 5 members and so were close to the point where they would have to manage a cessation.

Two LGPS Funds looked at the financial position in their schemes which showed that for organisations with 5 or less members the funding position moved from around £1.93m in surplus on an on-going basis to around £9.4m deficit on a cessation basis. This very much resonates with my experience and I suspect the gap has widened since 2014.

Based on these numbers I would expect that the position in England and Wales would be 8-10 times greater, so these issues could affect in the region of 2000 other charities and account for deficits approaching £80-£100m a material proportion of which relates to liabilities transitioned surreptitiously from local authority to unsuspecting charities.

A small number of LGPS have recognised the issue and made changes to deal with it but they are very much in the minority as the majority continue to stubbornly cling to the inequitable status quo.

Recent changes to the Scottish LGPS Regulations wholly ignored the issue and it was also studiously ignored by the Tier 3 review in England & Wales carried out towards the end of 2018.

The response from the Work & Pensions Committee has been positive and they have referred the matter to the Pensions Minister. I thank them for that. I will publish the letter and any response when it is received.

In the interim I would ask LGPS Funds to review this issue and to decide to ‘do the right thing’.

David Davison

In June 2018 the Scottish Local Government Pension Scheme Advisory Board launched a consultation on the future structure of the Scottish LGPS. The Board’s consultation sets out four options for the future structure of pension funds in Scotland. The review provides excellent background for all LGPS in the UK as the range of scheme sizes provides a microcosm in which to review the options presented more widely.

There are 11 Scottish Funds with total assets of around £42Bn and liabilities of about £55Bn. Scheme sizes range from the largest, Strathclyde Pension Fund, with around £20Bn of assets and 210,000 members to the smallest, Orkney Islands, with only £335m of assets and just over 3,600 members. The four options being explored along with the key considerations are shown below.

  1. Retain the existing structure

Retaining the status quo is likely to mean that inefficiencies will remain as most funds will not achieve the benefits of scale such as improved bargaining power, access to greater resources and reduced duplication of efforts in administration, governance, spending on advisers and fund management. Larger funds are also likely to be able to better access infrastructure investments. Maintain the existing approach is therefore likely to mean that costs per member are likely to be higher than necessary.

A potential negative would be the loss of local input and oversight and the regional diversification of resource such as staff as it may be difficult to access specialist staff in a single location. However the existing structure does potentially also create a key person risk as there is less available resource to cover key roles as well as budgetary and staff risk due to other competing local priorities..

Clearly any savings made or improvements achieved would need to outweigh any initial transition costs but all research to date would tend to support a move away from the status quo.

  1. Promote co-operation in investing and administration

There have already been some examples of collaboration particularly in the investment area and around procurement. This approach would allow the current governance structure to continue, allowing for continued local oversight, although requiring some sharing of control. There would also have to be some adaptation of governance.

Approaches to date seem to have been relatively informal which results in a degree of uncertainty over their future persistence so a more formal structure may be of value to assist with planning as well as the distribution of costs and returns. To date this sort of co-operation has been pretty limited despite its obvious benefits which would suggest that without strong vision and direction it will remain  something of an outlier. I can’t help feeling that greater structure and compulsion is needed to really drive change.

  1. Pool investments

This option would see all assets pooled in one or more asset pools managed centrally on behalf of a number of Funds. Schemes would retain their governance, administration and back office functions and continue to appoint and manage their advisers. This is very similar to the approach currently being adopted in England and Wales.

A single pool would double the asset size to about £42Bn over the largest Fund which has assets of just under £20Bn. At this size it would be of a similar size to 3 of the English pools and larger than the 3 others.

Fund assets and liabilities would still be allocated in the same way to ensure specific employer responsibility for liabilities.

A move of this type would be likely to result in lower cost investing though subject to some initial cost increases to manage a transition. It would also be likely to mean that the asset pool was of a significant enough size that more of the investment and administrative tasks could be undertaken in house.

From a governance perspective each Pension Committee would retain responsibility for asset allocation and managing the legislative structure however day to day investment management would be delegated to the pool. Each Fund would also maintain its Pension Board.

As has been shown in England and Wales this approach is very achievable and its hard to deny the value so would seem to be a minimum required step.

  1. Merge funds in to one or more funds

This option would see the creation of a Scottish ‘superfund’ which would manage all LGPS benefits in Scotland. Such a move would benefit from the asset pooling advantage s in 3 above but also allow for merging of the administrative and governance functions.

Such a move, whilst ultimately desirable from a cost and consistency perspective is not without its challenges. Each of the Schemes is funded at a different level and there would have to be a recognition of this and a mechanism to resolve it to ensure there was not a cross subsidy between different regions and even potentially employers. There would also have to be clarity in terms of governance, priorities and costs. There are also political drivers as well as a need to ensure that the right level of resource is available to the new consolidated scheme.

None of these challenges however are insurmountable and really just need commitment to achieve the objective and a clear plan to do so over a reasonable timescale.

The Funds all provide consistent benefits based upon a single regulatory framework. Consolidation would remove regional variations and inconsistency. Legacy arrangements would have to be clearly documented and honoured but future practice could be implemented on a wholly fair and consistent basis. Undoubtedly given the size distribution of schemes in Scotland a number of them would be likely to benefit from cost savings and improved governance very quickly. Market buying power in terms of services would be improved and greater investment possible in staff, technology and scheme communications.

Conclusion

Research carried out by Deloitte in 2011 suggested that costs per member in Scotland compared favourably with funds in England and Wales and that a single operating model and common administration system may have a greater benefit than formal administration mergers though research by APG concluded that administration costs decline with larger funds and certainly this seems to be the model being employed across UK defined contribution businesses.

It also needs to be considered that the number of employers participating in LGPS in Scotland is falling so less resources are needed and greater consistency of practice can be achieved. In addition with greater employer consolidation there will undoubtedly be increased demand for larger employers to have all benefits consolidated in a single fund rather than across multiple schemes.

In addition the benefits of having a single scheme which is not accountable to a local authority and can operate in an autonomous way based on its agreed priorities should provide greater flexibility in staff terms and conditions and therefore provide the opportunity to attract a much higher calibre of staff.

There are clear benefits which can be achieved through investment pooling and even further benefits through a consolidated single scheme for Scotland – it just needs vision and commitment to achieve them.

David Davison

If you’re one of the lucky admitted bodies who benefit from a council or other guarantee for your LGPS membership then this is likely to mean that you are currently disclosing a much more negative position on your balance sheet than actually should be the case.

In most cases transferee admitted bodies, and community admission bodies with guarantees, benefit from preferential exit terms should they leave the Fund, with the debt payable on exit calculated on an on-going basis (as per that used to calculate Fund contributions) rather than the more stringent cessation basis. This is good news of course as it means the likelihood of having a large debt on exit is much lower.

However, there is no correlation between the assumptions used in the calculation of the on-going funding position and those used when compiling the FRS 102 disclosures for company accounts. Under FRS 102 the discount rate must be set in line with the yield available on high quality corporate bonds. At the moment, corporate bond yields are low and so the discount rate used in the FRS 102 calculations is likely to be much lower than that used for the on-going funding basis, resulting in higher liabilities and a much larger deficit (all other things being equal), which therefore reduces balance sheet value.

I recently witnessed an example of this where, on an on-going basis, the organisation was in surplus but on the FRS 102 basis the organisation had a £100,000 deficit. The organisation had a guarantor and so was able to exit the Fund at any point paying off any on-going funding deficit (which in this case was nil). The FRS 102 deficit cannot be correct in this case as the worst case scenario is the on-going position. This meant that the charities balance sheet was £100,000 worse than it should have been, which, for the charity in question, was very material.

A further difficulty from a disclosure perspective are the recent changes to UK wide LGPS Regulation which now permit the return of surplus on exit from schemes. To date where a surplus has existed this has been discounted and a net neutral position assumed as any surplus could not be recovered. This however is no longer the case and the position will vary depending upon whether the organisation has a guarantee and whether their ultimate exit position is based upon an on-going or cessation position.

The disclosure position has therefore become much more complex and employers need to be considering their position well in advance of their company year end to leave enough time to take any remedial steps necessary. So if you have a guarantee or are very well funded on your exit basis, discuss this with your auditor. It may be possible to add a note to the accounts to provide greater clarity or better still, update your accounts with disclosures on a basis more consistent with the value of the liabilities actually owned.

David Davison

In an earlier Bulletin ‘A Landmark Judgement’ I provided some information on the welcome news that the Government had thankfully lost a case in the High Court which would have forced LGPS Funds in England and Wales to invest their assets (£263Bn in 2017) in accordance with UK foreign and defence policy.

Unfortunately my relief that common sense had prevailed on this issue was misplaced as on 6 June the Court of Appeal overturned the High Court ruling forcing schemes to comply with government policy, all this despite numerous warnings from pension experts about the negative impact and increase in pension scheme costs such a decision could have.

This whole saga started back in 2016 with the Government introducing legal guidance as it was concerned pension schemes could be taking actions which might “give mixed messages abroad, undermine community cohesion in the UK, and could negatively impact on the UK defence industry.”

The policy was successfully challenged by the Palestine Solidarity Campaign and an individual scheme member in 2017 when the High Court ruled it unlawful.

The whole approach smacks of state intervention and interferes with the ability of pension schemes to take decisions wholly in the interests of the members of the scheme. The Appeal ruling also seems to contradict proposed policy to require trustees of pension funds with 100 or more members to show how they have considered environmental, social and governance factors in their investment decisions.

The Government has refuted that its objective is to make pension schemes invest in line with government policy and has commented that it is not seeking to direct schemes investment decisions but despite the assurances the legal position seems to contradict this view.

It’s hard to see how the ruling won’t lead to schemes having to review policy resulting in increased complexity and additional costs which will be wholly unwelcome and not adding any value to scheme members.

Watch this space!

David Davison

On Friday 25th May 2018 new LGPS (Scotland) Regulations 2018 were published and came into effect from 1 June 2018. The Regulations are a result of a long and in depth consultation process focused on trying to assist with the difficulties faced by community admitted bodies (‘CAB’s), mostly charities, participating in these schemes. Charities are often trapped in LGPS unable to afford the contributions to stay in or the cessation debt which would be imposed to exit. The current approach offers CAB’s with only a threatening cliff edge and is inflexible, inconsistent and does not reflect the approach adopted across stand-alone or segmented schemes.

The new Regulations do indeed add some flexibility in a couple of key areas:-

  • The addition of the option for the administering authority (‘AA’) and the employer to agree a ‘suspension notice’ which would defer an employers requirement to pay a cessation debt. The employer would still be required to pay on-going contributions to the Fund as set by the AA. There is not really any specific guidance provided how such an agreement can be reached, which is a bit of a double edged sword. It does not therefore restrict the authority in terms of the approach it can take but as a result leaves the way open for a lot of interpretation. It is to be hoped that AA’s apply this flexibility pragmatically to arrive at reasonable outcomes for both parties.
  • The recognition that if an employer is over-funded then on exit they should have the right to the repayment of that surplus in full. The Regulations have therefore added a definition for an ‘exit credit’ which for the small minority of employers in this position will be welcome news and prevent Funds from just pocketing their surplus on exit.

Unfortunately however even with these changes the revised Regulations are a bit of an opportunity lost. In January 2018 the Pension Committee at ICAS provided a response to the Scottish Public Pension Agency (‘SPPA’) suggesting some additional items which would make these changes more workable and balanced. These recommendations included:-

  • a recognition that CAB’s should be able to make deficit contributions to Funds on a ‘closed on-going’ basis until the last member’s beneficiaries have ceased to receive payments.
  • A consistent basis for the calculation of these payments.
  • That CAB’s funding position be fully and consistently adjusted to recognise and reflect inherited liabilities from prior public sector employments. It is wholly unreasonable that CAB’s are expected to pay for benefits built up for staff who previously worked for public bodies.
  • It should be compulsory for all LGPS funds to provide CAB’s with a note of their estimated cessation value annually to allow both to better manage their funding position.

Scottish Government is to be commended for at least leading the way in trying to find a resolution to the difficult issues faced. A review of 3rd Tier employers in England & Wales is currently underway and it is to be hoped that the findings of this exercise will lead to similar changes to those implemented in Scotland but hopefully even taking a step further. It will be hugely interesting to see how these new Regulations are enacted in practice.

David Davison

Nearly three years ago I wrote an article praising Lothian Pension Fund in Edinburgh for an enlightened move they announced which protected organisations burdened with legacy LGPS debt. This is a huge problem, as outlined in a previous Bulletin, which unreasonable saddles admitted bodies with past Council liabilities without full compensation and usually without them even being aware. The process adopted is akin to someone buying a car but having to pay for the previous owners lease as well as your own!!

The logical and reasonable approach that Lothian Pension Fund took was to confirm that where participation in their Fund had effectively come about via an outsource from a local government entity that on exit from the Fund the exit debt would be calculated on an on-going basis rather than the much more penal cessation basis and I have been fortunate to witness a number of my 3rd sector clients benefit greatly from this wholly sensible change. Some of these issues are dealt with via transferee admission agreements but not all with many legacy arrangements still in place.

What however has surprised me is that other Funds have steadfastly refused to follow suit, a position highlight by four recent exercises I have been undertaking where all the organisations hold very significant amounts of legacy Council benefits under their membership.

How can it be reasonable for an individual to work for 35 years for the Council and then move to a small 3rd sector organisation with LGPS membership for a couple of years prior to retirement and for that small organisation to inherit the past liability in full. Patently it can’t be!

The Lothian approach recognised this and provided a clear policy statement so that everyone knew exactly where they stood.

Unfortunately, while hugely welcome, even Lothian’s approach doesn’t go quite far enough. I struggle to see the difference between members who transferred across at outset (which the policy covers) and those who transfer across at a later date (who aren’t covered). The historic liability is the same. Indeed the policy also doesn’t reflect transitions from other public sector employers and schemes which results in a similar inequity.

Scottish Government missed a huge opportunity to resolve this issue when they introduced their new 2018 LGPS Regulations but unfortunately it was absent from the revisions. This is an area which could have benefited from some prescription and a clear policy statement that it is unreasonable for public bodies to expect other organisations to pick up their liabilities and that any such liabilities should be excluded in the calculation of contributions and in the settlement of any cessation liability.

With the findings of the Tier 3 review due shortly to the England & Wales Scheme Advisory Board it is to be hoped that they will deal with the issue. In the meantime Funds have the opportunity to behave fairly and responsibly and deal with their own liabilities in full.

David Davison

The Security Obsession

In an earlier bulletin entitled ‘The Cessation Plot thickens’ I highlighted something of an anomaly in LGPS practice around security which I’d like to explore a bit further.

Firstly, I will consider an example of an admitted body looking to close off to accrual to better manage risk. Prior to doing this let’s assume that the organisation has £1m of accrued liabilities and £800,000 of assets covering them so a deficit of £200,000. The organisation is building further liabilities of £50,000 a year. Contributions for these new liabilities are £20,000 a year so each year the net position is worsening by £30,000 (excluding any investment return).

As an active employer the Fund has not taken any security so the Fund and therefore other participating employers are exposed to additional risk as liabilities continue to build.

If the admitted body was permitted to close to future accrual of benefits the accrued benefits are no worse pre and post the change (they will likely be lower afterwards if the link to salary on past benefits is removed), so why should security be required when none was previously in place. In addition a proportion of the contributions which were being used to build additional benefits in the Fund could be used to pay down the existing benefits rather than build up new ones. Let’s assume some of the £20,000 is needed to buy replacement benefits in another scheme so only £15,000 is available as a contribution. This will therefore reduce the deficit over time thereby reducing the risk to the Fund. This can only be good for all concerned and further supportive of the view that no security is needed.

So, why is there an obsession for Funds to get access to security on scheme change? It’s probably because they’re using it as an excuse to do so! A bit of a reality check is needed.

It’s potentially reasonable for Funds to look for security if some additional flexibility is being offered, such as access to a higher risk investment fund where the deficit risk could increase but without this the default position should be that additional security should not be necessary.

So if you’re being pushed for security by a Fund you may need to ask a few more questions, especially as any arrangement of this type is likely to be time consuming and expensive to arrange.

In my view there should be clear and consistent guidelines which Funds employ in relation to the provision of security. Some Funds are adopting a more pragmatic and indeed enlightened approach to the issue of security and it can only be hoped that others will begin to follow suit, especially if admitted bodies ask the right questions.

David Davison

As the government announces changes to pensions regulations, David Davison explains what these mean for charities.

They say that good things come to those who wait but I suppose that depends on how long you have to wait. I’m certainly delighted after around 10 years of campaigning that it looks like finally the section 75 regulations relating to multi-employer defined benefit pension schemes (MEDBS), which have so negatively impacted on charities over many years, are to be revised.

The problem which many charities in these schemes faced was that the further build up of benefits could not be stopped without triggering an unaffordable cessation debt, therefore charities were trapped in schemes forced to continue to fund for ever rising liabilities as they couldn’t afford to exit. This was wholly inconsistent with the options available in other UK defined benefit pension schemes.

At the end of February, the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) issued the The Occupational Pension Schemes (Employer Debt and Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2018 with the expectation that these new regulations will be in place from 6 April 2018.

Key proposals

The regulations are a response to consultation carried out In April 2017 and the proposals comment on the findings of the consultation and how the government has chosen to respond.

The key proposal is the introduction of the Deferred Debt Arrangement (DDA). This will allow employers in MEDBS, whose only change is to cease to employ active members in a scheme, to retain an on-going commitment to the scheme rather than a cessation debt automatically being triggered.

It is envisaged that future contributions would be set on an on-going and not cessation basis similar to what would be the position in a standalone scheme or in the event that the scheme as a whole ceased accrual. This should offer charities really significant additional flexibility allowing them to control risk in an affordable way while focusing resource on paying down liabilities already built up rather than building further amounts.

In entering in to a DDA employers would continue to have all the same funding and administration obligations to the scheme as was the case prior to the agreement which will protect member benefits and indeed other employers.

‘The devil will be in the detail’

I don’t for a minute expect this to be the end of the story as we of course need to see how things play out in practice. As is ever the case, the devil will be in the detail, and we need to see how individual schemes react to the new flexibility and whether they seek to embrace it or look to put up barriers to implementing it.

There undoubtedly seems to be widespread consensus that change in this area is long overdue and along with these changes we’ll shortly witness similar changes to Local Government Pension Scheme (LGPS) regulation in Scotland and a review of Tier 3 employers in LGPS in England and Wales which will hopefully result in increased flexibility in these schemes as well.

Undoubtedly however this is a huge step forward and one can only hope the opportunity will be embraced by scheme trustees and employers alike.

If you want to discuss any issue raised in this article please feel free to get in touch. You can email me on david_davison@spenceandpartners.co.uk or give me a call on 0141 331 9942

This article was original publish on Civil Society website. You can read the original article here.

Page 1 of 3123