Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Pension shake-up after McLeish deal storm

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the The Scotsman site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 30 May 2008
HOLYROOD moved yesterday to scrap the generous pension arrangements for first ministers and presiding officers that gave Henry McLeish a pension of £34,000 a year for life from the day he stood down in 2001.
When the Scottish Parliament was created, many of the rules mirrored those in place at Westminster, one of which was to allow former prime ministers to claim half their final salary every year, for life, from the moment they left No 10.

But the aw
ard of £34,000 a year to Mr McLeish from the day he quit as first minister – particularly as he had been brought down by a financial scandal – caused uproar and brought calls for a re-examination of the pension arrangements for MSPs and ministers.

That started last year and yesterday, the Scottish parliamentary pension scheme committee made its recommendations, which will have to be approved by MSPs before they can be brought into force.

They called for the scrapping of the special pension schemes for first ministers and presiding officers, although not for the present incumbents: Alex Salmond and Alex Fergusson will benefit in the same way as their predecessors.

At the moment, MSPs' pensions are based on 1/50th of their final salary for each year of service and a 6 per cent contribution rate.

The committee suggested that MSPs be given the option of accruing future benefits at either 1/50th or 1/40th of final salary but that the extra cost of the 1/40th option should be met by increasing the contribution rate to 11 per cent.

Rachel Vahey, a pensions expert from Aegon, said: "These changes look like tinkering around the edges to bring the MSP pension in line with other public-sector schemes. Of course, the headline is that a first minister will be entitled to the same pension as his other colleagues. However, he has no reason to feel hard done by. A public-sector final-salary scheme is still something to aspire to and is certainly a lot more generous than many people's pension plans."

She added: "The other changes are a mixture of improvements – making it easier for MSPs to retire early and giving their families more generous death benefits. But all in all, still a very attractive package."

Key points of planned payments cut backs

MSPs and ministers currently have among the most generous pension arrangements in Britain, but some of this is going to change.

The committee looking into the issue has recommended a number of changes. These include:

• Scrapping the special pension arrangements for first ministers and presiding officers which gives them half of their salary every year for life from the moment they stand down from their jobs.

Under the current salary structure, this will give Alex Salmond £38,453 a year and Alex Fergusson £19,948 a year.

In future, said the report, first ministers and presiding officers should receive a one-off resettlement grant of six months of their salary.

• Giving MSPs the option of better pension provision, but only if they pay for it.

At the moment, MSPs' pensions are based on 1/50 of their final salary for each year of services, and a 6 per cent contribution rate.

The committee recommends that MSPs be given the option of accruing future benefits at either 1/50 or 1/40 of final salary. The extra cost of the 1/40 option should be met by increasing the contribution rate to 11 per cent.

• There should be an end to the qualifying period of 15 years for early retirement.

Early retirement should instead be available for all former MSPs aged 55 and over.

• Death-in-service lump sum benefits should be increased from three to four times salary, in line with Westminster and the Welsh Assembly.

• Trustees should be appointed to manage the pension scheme, instead of the present situation where the Scottish Parliament Corporate Body is both employer and trustee.

• There should be a new, two-tier approach to ill-health pensions for serving members and officeholders.

This would be based on the severity of the ill-health. All ill-health pension awards should also be reviewed regularly.

• MSPs should also be able to exchange up to 25 per cent of their pension for a lump sum.



The full article contains 728 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 29 May 2008 10:15 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Related Topics: Pensions
 
1

W U Merchant,

Aberdeen 30/05/2008 07:06:18
Slowly but surely McLeish has crept back into public life - with the avid support of the SNP who covet him as a member. He may switch very soon but it depends what they offer him.
2

sam the god,

30/05/2008 08:14:16
snouts in the trough yet again
3

JayJay,

Right here 30/05/2008 08:16:49
I have banged on for months about public sector pensions. It remains a current and future problem that needs to be tackled and resolved because, quite simply, it is an obligation that the country cannot afford.
At the top of the pile of philanthropy is the MSPs arrangements, but many many middle managers and above have the sort of schemes money just could not buy....and don't even talk about the 30-year rule in the police!!
4

donald,

glasgow 30/05/2008 08:48:03
Keep Henry's pension and dock the useless, anti Scottish Labour MPs wages and perks.
5

Toast,

30/05/2008 09:38:05
Early retirement at 55 WTF,meanwhile in the real world retirement ages are increasing,nobodies pension should be funded from the public purse.
6

Teofilio Cubillas,

30/05/2008 09:38:06
#3 Jay Jay

What 30-year rule in the police?

The one that was scrapped about three years ago and replaced with a 40-year rule?

Or are you referring to the old 30-year rule into which officers paid 11% of their salary for that period? No INEOS style private sector non-contributory pensions there. Nor any private sector golden hellos, golden handshakes, city bonuses, gardening leave payments, share options or free BUPA policies for them.
7

Copper,

Falkirk 30/05/2008 09:41:05

It was not a financial scandal

The Busterd stole £ 38,000

Its the jile he should get !!!
8

Allan(handofgod137),

30/05/2008 11:28:02
#7 Too right, but methinks our greedy theiving politrickians fear such a precedent being set.
9

JohnMcDonald,

London 30/05/2008 14:40:33
I would like to see any First Minister of Scotland being properly rewarded for his or her tenure in office. The arrangements at the moment seem pretty parsimonious and to reduce them further would not be a sensible move in my opinion.

If we honour the position we should honour the person in retirement.
10

Anthony,

Glasgow 30/05/2008 15:21:27
Why is Henry McLeish being singled out?
11

ThePeter,

Glasgae 30/05/2008 20:26:39
# 10 - I like your sense of dry wit...
Because if you are being serious, God help us all...
12

JayJay,

Right here 31/05/2008 09:24:21
#6
Sorry boss, but whatever the contributions made by the officers, it still was not self financing. Only last month, Aberdeen had to divert £50m from its front line budget to top up the police pension pot. The question I, and everyone else in the private sector is left asking is how much would I have to contribute to get such a pension? The answer is most certainly not 11%.
I am not saying that the police don't deserve generous pension payouts, but not - in a few cases I know - when you are around 50, drawing a full pension, and can either enjoy your retirement, or work elsewhere in the public sector. Why should people in the public sector have an entirely different set of pension arrangements from the rest of us? And if you think that its because salaries in the private sector are higher, not so.
You are right about city excess. Disgraceful, especially when you see the utter shambles of the economy due to the behaviour of people in the city.
Regrettably though, the taxes I pay go towards the financing of final salary based schemes across the public sector. The cost of these schemes is not affordable, there are considerable defecits building up across the board, and meanwhile people get diverted into lambasting Henry McLeish. He might sit at the front of the gravy train, but he most certainly is not alone.
13

Jock's Away,

Africa 01/06/2008 08:19:57
A base rate for the job thats it. If they don't like it tough don't go into politics. Yes there will be down sides, but at least the public purse will not continually be raided by corrupt MSP,s. With smiles and crocodile tears, all the while picking your pocket for gravy train perks.
Who in the world can really justify a life long golden hand shake for a few years presence (not work). Even more who can afford it certainly not the Scottish tax payer.

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 

Featured Advertising



Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.