So how much of a pension would a states member get if only serving one term?
Also would it be on the bases as states employees?
80ths which is what all new states employees are on meaning a full 40 years you get half of your last salary and cannot draw it until you are 60. You may still pay into it until you are 60 which other members have done but the states do not put their two pennies worth in. So by this i take it that members are looking at using the states pension fund as a private investment for old age.
At their meeting on 23rd May, the current PPC indicated that their preferred pension arrangement was 'option 3'
, which had also been the preferred option of the previous PPC in 2009, as evidenced by R.132/2009 (see page 3 of the link below):http://www.statesassembly.gov.je/AssemblyReports/2009/23701-31715-30112009.pdf
Basically, the States, acting as the 'employer'
, would make matched contributions on a pound-for-pound basis to individual States Members' private
pension schemes. There would be "no direct involvement in the operation of the scheme either from the States or any external scheme provider."
It is worth reminding ourselves that this pension talk all started in early 2009 with a public consultation by the States Members' Remuneration Review Body (SMRRB), which I consider to be another one of those sham consultations designed, in this particular case, to give the SMRRB the green light to recommend the introduction of pensions and other things that States Members had been lobbying for. Many of the respondents were actually serving or past States Members, or known associates of States Members. One of the responses quoted in the SMRRB's subsequent 2009 report was that the island should have "... half as many States Members but pay them twice as much."
We don't know if it was a States Member who made that comment, but I think it is quite revealing because the issue being discussed was whether the number of States Members should be reduced. Now it is three years later and we have another sham consultation under the guise of constitutional reform, which we are told we need, and guess what? Many of the people who responded in 2009 are also now responding to the Electoral Commission and recommending that they cut the number of States Members! Almost inevitable, in my opinion, that the Electoral Commission will recommend cutting the number of States Members and that this will act as the green light for the PPC to introduce pension contributions for States Members. You can see the names of those who responded to the SMRRB in 2009 on page 13 of this report:http://www.statesassembly.gov.je/AssemblyReports/2009/36090-18765-1262009.pdf
Also interesting that SMRRB member Brian Bullock
has made a submission to the Electoral Commission in which he recommends cutting the number of States Members to 44
(more or less what Sir Phil wants!):http://www.electoralcommission.je/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Bullock-Brian.pdf
Going back to their 2009 report, the SMRRB also made it patently clear that they wanted the States to consider amending article 44 of the States of Jersey Law 2005, which currently prevents States Members from being able to receive different levels of pay (actually it is article 43
- the SMRRB appear to have got their articles mixed up!). A successful amendment would finally allow Ministers and Assistant Ministers to be paid substantially more than back-benchers. I am convinced that the amending or repeal of article 43, as called for by the SMRRB, will be one of the other things of direct benefit to States Members which will emerge out of this sham reform process. Within three years, I predict a Minister will probably be receiving in excess of £70K per year and all States Members will be pocketing matched contributions from the States towards their private pensions.