[Skip to content]

Public Finance logo
News and expert comment on public policy and finance
Public Finance Google plus Public Finance Facebook Public Finance Twitter Public Finance YouTube
.

Raising staff pension contributions could lead to mass ‘opt-out’

More information

By David Williams

9 February 2011

Treasury plans to increase employee contributions to public sector pensions risk ‘breaking’ the system by prompting a mass exodus of members, the chief of one of the UK’s major schemes has warned.


Mike Taylor, chief executive of the London Pensions Fund Authority, said today that government plans to increase worker contributions by 3% over the next three years could end up costing the public purse more if staff chose to opt out of their schemes.

The proposals, which are not expected to be detailed in full by the Treasury until the summer, would aim to bring in £1.8bn a year, including £900m from the Local Government Pensions Scheme.

But Taylor said the reforms could result in a ‘mass opt-out’, before Lord Hutton’s review of the pension system is published, expected in early March.

The Treasury estimates the plans would result in take-up dropping by only 1%, but Taylor pointed to GMB union estimates suggesting that up to 40% of employees would leave the LGPS.

Such a stampede would lead to a fall-off in contributions from employees, causing bigger deficits in funds and bringing forward the date when payments exceed contributions.

Taylor said: ‘This would have the effect of breaking the scheme before Lord Hutton gets the chance to fix it.

‘If significant numbers opt out, then not only will the government not get its £900m, but funds will face increasing deficits at a time when they can least afford them.

‘Employers could well end up having to put more money in than they do today, resulting in a net loss to the public purse.

Taylor added that a top civil servant’s pension contributions could rise from 1.5% of pay to 4.5%, while a social worker’s could increase from 6.5% to 11%. ‘Is that fair?’ he asked.

But, he added, because the LGPS is funded, it can raise £900m in more ways than simply increasing employee contributions.

He suggested reducing accrual rates, increasing retirement ages or removing the final salary basis for some schemes could bring about the necessary reduction in employer contributions.

‘A break in the link between service accrued and final salary by protecting previous pension rights via a deferred benefit would cut the deficit and therefore the payments employers are currently making.

‘It has been estimated that such an action could reduce deficits in the LGPS by £20bn.’
Comments
This envisaged shortfall may well be more than offset in the local public purse by the net saving of employer contributions if pension scheme members drop out. On the other hand if many public sector employees stop contributing to a personal pension of any sort then the medium term effect may be increased state support required in older age. lose-win-lose? As mentioned equality of contributions and benefits should be an essential goal as well.

Stephen Glass (10/02/2011 13:25:25)

Indeed I agree with Taylor, why should civil servants pay less? Surely it is time to align these pensions in a similar way to that of the alignment of blue collar and white collar working hours. Whitehall has to change with the times too, why should they escape and the public sector have to subsidise them?

Anon (11/02/2011 14:44:44)