Forum Topic

Anybody else noticed the 44 million missing in the Council pension Fund

Yes 44 Million seems to have gone with out explanation in the accounts, now yes we do know about the markets and no this is not in the quarter for the Black Rock sting and the US house market, nor can do the 2 ivestment firms answer the question in the recent accounts........Is this a case of Tories making a bad choise of where money was invested...So not only do staff get kicked in the teeth and lose thier Jobs but now they can make your retirement a misery...Before you blame Labour upto the point you took over the fund made 77 million...........

Dave Hughes ● 6932d55 Comments

Dave,perhaps you could ask one of your Cllr comrades because as you well know they have four out of the nine places on the Councils Pension Fund Panel?

Paul Fisher ● 6932d

You have the control of it....DUhhhhhhh

Dave Hughes ● 6932d

I have control of it?

Paul Fisher ● 6932d

If these figures are published anywhere that the public can see please direct us to them. In the absence of more information I'd make the following observations. £44 million may sound like a big number but if the fund size is £1bn then this is a relatively small loss during a period when equities and bonds were very volatile. The money hasn't disappear as you suggest in an alarmist fashion but the value of the portfolio has gone down. If the fund is well positioned for the long term this should not be a concern and you will find that most other local authority funds had a negative return over the same period.In addition I presume that very little if any of this fund is managed in house and that professional external managers are used who would have been appointed by the previous administration. The fund trustees do not make investment decisions they look at the future liability of the fund and direct the managers to invest to ensure those liabilities are met.I get the impression you don't really understand this issue and are just trying to scare people.

Mike Hardacre ● 6932d

No LBH  Pension funds are  missing.The suggestion that the fund has lost any money is totally misleading too.An independent assessment (the WM annual performance review), shows that the performance of the Hounslow Pension Fund for 2006/07 was in the top 10% when compared with other local authority funds  - a good result by any measure.  Betweeen 2005 and 2007 /06 the fund increased by £134m.  During 2006/7 the fund as a whole outperformed the local authority average by 1.4%.I together with other Councillors from all political parties are, as members of the Pension Fund Panel,  collectively responsible for the Funds governance. We take our role seriously.Cllr John Todd

John Todd ● 6932d

That's it John. Let's have more good information like that!Too many so called Labour voters are being indoctrinated by ludicrous information fodder..as dished up by the likes of you know who and his comrades!It's very important that the much improved performances now being witnessed in the Council Chamber are relayed to as many people as possible..so that Joe Public is more aware of the issues and the correct decisions being made.

Jim Lawes ● 6932d

Thanks John, it's refreshing to get accurate and clear information without a political spin. Most of the time we are woven an image of the world by politicians, PR, media which only serves those in power to retain power. You can appreciate the authors like George Orwell who slightly exaggerated this aspect of society in highlighting the machinations of certain aspects of government and organisations.Congratulations on your fund's performance.

Duncan Walker ● 6931d

As a future pensioner of the fund and a person who has recieved the accounts I would also like to thank the fund for its performance. During a time of stock market ups and downs the fund has performed very well.

Neil Chippendale ● 6931d

The fund is not a £1B but about 266m which means a loss of 20%

Dave Hughes ● 6931d

Yes it only lost 20% of its value well done indeed. I suppose soon as the the Sub-prime market hits home as well that will congatulations pat on back time.

Dave Hughes ● 6931d

DaveHave you not got it yet?  It has not lost 20% of its value.  Yours is a made up figure, just as Paul Fisher's alleged denial of having met Sarbjit Gill was made up and my alleged reference to "red commies" was made up.  You were given the chance to source these quotes and changed the subject each time.  I am offering you the chance now to substantiate your claims about the Pension Fund and if you change the subject without doing so again then forum users will be able to draw their own conclusions.Have you completely lost the ability to distinguish between fact and your own imagination?  The local New Labour Party must be mad, not to mention a little desperate, to have to use you as its spokesperson.

Phil Andrews ● 6931d

It seems you have you are on the wrong thread, but while we are on the Subjest it seems Sarbjit was ask last week and he seems to be telling people he is memeber of the ICG now doubt as seen from yesterdays paper you would like to change history and then have the cheek to present this person as a candidate at the next election.....As for the commies dont you get when the pee is being taken out of you.....When you had your rant about searchlight what did you do you ask people to visit a another web-site to prove what you said about the group and what where does web-sites yes they where extreme right wing facist web-sites...at the time I pointed this out to Thompson and ask the question are still sure you want this person on your excutive not that I got a reply within 10 days.........nor will he ever reply so he must be happy with you.

Dave Hughes ● 6931d

Denile is not a river in Egypt...rememeber writting..."Of course, one might be tempted to argue that most of the illegality indulged in by the people at Searchlight has resulted from their anti-fascist activities and can therefore be justified.  If that is the case, it might be an idea to see how this Labour-supporting organisation treats its "friends".  Here's a few links to be getting on with:"

Dave Hughes ● 6931d

Could anybody else help me to decipher this one please?

Phil Andrews ● 6931d

What web-sites did you direct people to when you had your searchlight rant....EXTREME FACIST WEB SITESThe question I posed to Thompson at the time: was he still sure you should be regarded for the executive...If I could be bothered there are pages and pages where you seem to have a thing about the socialist threat 2 months ago you wher going on about the local chronicle newspaper being Labour party paper...I tend mostly to put most of your verbal garbage down to your past in such right wing organisations....I call you a moral coward because there will never be a day when you will take respocibitlty for your actions...Time and time again you make attacks on people with me its normally my dyslexia or you run and try and get people to hide behind....its never you Phill is it...You are a Moral Coward but be happy Hitllers right hand man was also judged to be a moral coward..so you share a thing with someone that possible you admired at one time or another....

Dave Hughes ● 6931d

A question please - Is this a Final Salary Pension Fund?

Steve Taylor ● 6931d

DavidMost of this is unintelligible drivel but I would be grateful if you could direct me to any one of the "pages of pages" in which I have criticised socialism in any way whatsoever - just one.You will note I said socialism, not the New Labour Party.  Please don't try to muddy the issue by pretending when you reply that they are one and the same thing because these days, as well you know, they are poles apart.  My distaste for the New Labour Party and the way in which it conducts its business - as typified by your antics on this forum - is not being disputed.

Phil Andrews ● 6931d

Your a bit of bore....

Dave Hughes ● 6931d

Yet another porkie from the New Labour spin factory then?

Phil Andrews ● 6931d

Come on explain why you tried to get people to visit extreme right wing web-sites...It was commendable you corrected Simon on his rant on locata but then when on to attack him for being him as usual...bullying and cajolling him...but you said nothing of the Housing worker who went on to start agreeing with him which is evan more worrying you do nothing.

Dave Hughes ● 6931d

"Yet another porkie from the New Labour spin factory then?"I guess  he meant you're a bit of a boar and not your a bit of a boreWhy can't people learn to write you're intead of your,have instead of 'of', their instead of there or there instead of their, were instead of was. Gosh!

Steve Taylor ● 6931d

I know I know I tend to type quickly and I have dyslexia which is not a great combination to have, yes I should use a spell checker and write the stuff before I post, but most of the time I get what I want to say out..but its not as bad as Andrews web-site where he use to post his mates stuff for him because he has I suspect the same condition..we would use to get the same deniles from Cllr Andrews that it was not him but the posts where just to much like Phills rants...

Dave Hughes ● 6931d

"The fund trustees do not make investment decisions they look at the future liability of the fund and direct the managers to invest to ensure those liabilities are met."Wrong - under new legislation fund trustees are responsible by virtue of the fact that direct the managers how to invest. The professionals employed to advise the trustees do just that - they advise or guide the Trustees. Ultimate responsibility lies with the Trustees who in law have to justify their decisions. There are plenty of self help websites which trustees are expected to study. However an important question - Is this a Final Salary Pension Scheme?

Steve Taylor ● 6930d

Just reading the Annual Report. It says that all people currently paying into the scheme will be moved onto the new LGPS on 1st April 2008. The report also states taht "First and foremost, the principle of a final salary scheme is maintained", with final pay being based on the best of the last 3 years.

Neil Chippendale ● 6930d

Back to Dave Hughes original question. Looking at the accounts it seems to me that the net assets has increased 2005/6 = 408,276, 2006/7 = 453,648.Have you got access to some other figures or am I reading the accounts wrong?

Neil Chippendale ● 6930d

"Looking at the accounts it seems to me that the net assets has increased 2005/6 = 408,276, 2006/7 = 453,648."And those are in £1000s, so the fund has gone UP by £45 million, not DOWN by £44 million as Dave Hughes claimed.And the fund is valued at over £453M, not "about £266M" as claimed by Dave Hughes.So, do you accept that you made a mistake, Dave?  If not, please provide the source of this "loss" of £44M.  As the readers of this forum may include current or future Hounslow Council pensioners, they should not be left in any doubt about the health of their pension fund.

Richard Jennings ● 6930d

I think the key to this discussion are the figures on page 8 of the "winds of change" annual report of the pension fund, 2007. The £44 million pound referred to is the difference between the return on investment for 2005/6 and 2006/7 when the Conservative/ICG administration took over the Council. Because the pension fund is managed by a board of members in proportion to the political balance then the Chair and control of it moved from Labour to the present administration. I understand this decrease in investment return has a lot to do with the decline in the value of the dollar and some other investments in Japan and the oil industry that have not performed well, even though the detail of the £44million difference is not mentioned in either of the investment fund reports in the annual report. It is correct that councillors make the decisions on what investments to make or change but this is always with expert advice being offered. The impact of  this poor return on the investments and possibly the future impact of the more recent turbulence in the American house market will be on the amount that the Council taxpayer might have to top up the fund if there is a shortfall. The pensions are guaranteed by statute but any failure to manage the funds in such a way to cover the pensions liability means a levy would have to be made on the council tax to top up the fund. I hope this helps clarify the debate.

Colin Ellar ● 6929d

I think there might be another worry if the risk has not been spread far enought, the sub-prime market problem is bigger than was first thought of this is going to at some point hit somewhere, if di-vestement is not broad enought the new 2 main fund operaters may have hedged bets in now will be un-safe markets in the near future, there seems to be little information as to how the fund has been spread to cover the market and the new problems that we will be seeing soon.

Dave Hughes ● 6929d

Thanks Colin,Just looked again and can see the figures. Interesting though that the net assets have increased when return on investments has decreased. Would like to know what has led to the increase in net assets. Is this increase due to the property portfolio?

Neil Chippendale ● 6929d

I apologise in advance for diverting what has become a sensible discussion on the issue at hand - the Council's pension fund - but David's allegation that I "tried to get people to visit extreme right wing web-sites" intrigued me so much that I felt obligated to revisit the posting in question just to satisfy myself that there was no truth in it.When David made the accusation I had presumed it was simply another untruth of the kind for which he has already made something of a reputation for himself, such as the "Paul Fisher claimed he'd never met Sarbjit Gill" fib, and the equally false allegation that I had made references to people being "red commies".I was surprised and disappointed therefore to discover that there was a tiny element of truth to this latest claim, inasfar as one of the three websites which I directed visitors to does indeed seem to be linked to some kind of right-wing site (organisation unspecified), although the specific link I gave was to an advertisement for a book by Larry O'Hara, who is a green anarchist and an outspoken anti-fascist.The other two "extreme right-wing sites" to which David refers belonged in fact to Anti-Fascist Action and a "liberatarian communist" organisation called Libcom.Anybody who is interested can see the post in question, which was made at 01:24:00 on 10/07/06 under the thread "Today's Chronicle: local Labour Party stoops to lower levels", and judge for themselves whether my purpose was, as David implies, to trick people into visiting extreme right-wing sites.When I posted the link to the O'Hara article I was unaware that it linked to any other site (I found all three articles via Google and had not previously had any knowledge of any of them).  Needless to say it was never my intention to direct anybody to a site which had connections to any extreme right-wing organisation, however I would like to take this opportunity to apologise to anybody who may have visited the site and followed the link to the homepage.Whilst we're on the subject, O'Hara is probably the leading expert on the Searchlight organisation's activities and his writings on the matter are well worth a read.  They say a man is judged by the company he keeps.  If the same applies to political organisations then Searchlight and the New Labour Party would seem to deserve each other.

Phil Andrews ● 6929d

Waht Colin Ellar said was "The £44 million pound referred to is the difference between the return on investment for 2005/6 and 2006/7."  By "return on investment" I think he must mean the increase in the net assets during the year.  It is certainly true that the assets increased by £89M in 2005/6 and by £45M in 2006/7, so the increase in 2006/7 was £44M less than the increase in the previous year.This is just normal market fluctuation, and in fact the Hounslow Pension Fund has outperformed the FT All-Share index for each of the last 3 years.  I've dug the asset figures out of some recent annual reports, and looked up the FTAS index values for 31 March for the last 5 years to enable this comparison to be made:                Value of Pension  Increase  Increase  FT All-Share                Fund (£M)            (£M)            %        Index increase %31 Mar 03    229                      31 Mar 04    281                      52              23%          27%31 Mar 05    319                      39              14%          12%31 Mar 06    408                      89              28%          24%31 Mar 07    454                      45              11%            8%

Richard Jennings ● 6929d

Thanks Richard.

Neil Chippendale ● 6928d

Richard's explanation certainly makes more sense.  I am a trustee of a pension fund and these figures would seem to be more or less in line with how our fund performed. Based on the performance  of our fund, and advice from our financial advisors,  we took the decision in June this year to reduce employees contributions by 3% and the employers contribution by 2%.  The employers were happy with the decision and employees were over the moon. In effect they received a mid year 3% pay rise!!If the Council were to do similar, Council Workers should be happy and the employer, in this case Joe Public, would make a huge saving. More zero Council Tax increases?? What I find quite amazing is that the Council still offers a Final Salary Pension Scheme. This is almost unheard of these days in the Private Sector as FSPS are very expensive to run. Most smaller private sector employers have been forced to opt out over the last three or four years and the larger funds e.g. Tescos, Boots, Corus, Maersk etc, etc have all reviewed the situation and most have opted out of Final Salary schemes altogether and some  for new employees.

Steve Taylor ● 6928d

For local authority schemes the employee contribution is a fixed percentage of salary while the employer contribution is variable in both directions. Reductions in employer contribution have been adopted by many companies following good years in the stock markets. Employees of British Airways locally will be well aware of what can happen if this is done to improve short term profit without taking account of the long term. I believe the current deficit in their pension scheme is around £2 billion, resulting in their business sometimes being referred to as a pension scheme that owns commercial aircraft. Much of the strife at Heathrow in recent years has been caused by the company trying to retrieve the position at the expense of staff conditions, and shareholders have gone without a dividend for years as a result of the mismanagement of the pension fund.

John Connelly ● 6925d

Labour's Dave Hughes has, yet again, shown himself to possess a flawed sense of reality, a woolly grasp of factual information and an inability to make sound judgements.It seems obvious that he should be the new England Manager.Leo

Leo Newman ● 6925d

"For local authority schemes the employee contribution is a fixed percentage of salary while the employer contribution is variable in both directions"I believe its a big mistake to have employee contribution as a fixed percentage.  If funds don't perform, Trustees are accountable and would have to justify their decisions and if necessary increase employee contributions. If funds 'over-perform' there is no reason why both employee and employer contributions can't be reduced. This is something that needs to be addressed by the Administration as it may well mean a reduction in Council Tax is appropriate

Steve Taylor ● 6925d

Nice to note that the Local Chronicle newspaper covered the report of the meeting.No doubt we will have Cllr Phil shouting its a new labour conspiracy.

Dave Hughes ● 6921d

LBH have  recently been notified that they have won an award for the performance of their pension fund during 2006-2007.

John Todd ● 6897d

Well done John to you and the rest of the committee and this shows how ridiculous David Hughes claims are yet again.

Paul Fisher ● 6897d

This is good news. I am a trustee of a pension fund and this  would seem to be more or less in line with how our fund performed. Based on the performance  of our fund, and advice from our financial advisors,  we took the decision in June this year to reduce employees contributions by 3% and the employers contribution by 2%.  The employers were happy with the decision and employees were over the moon. In effect they received a mid year 3% pay rise!!If the Council were to do similar, Council Workers should be happy and the employer, in this case Joe Public, would make a huge saving.  Will the Council do similar? More zero Council Tax increases??

Steve Taylor ● 6897d

Like Cllr Todd as a trustee of the fund I am delighted we have received an award.Dave - I really hope that if you have concerns like this in future you will approach fund trustees and/or the Council’s Director of Finance for clarification before putting misinformation like this in the public domain.  Trustees have no issue with being held to account publicly for fund performance, which is why we reintroduced the annual report and general meeting this year, but it would be helpful if we didn’t have to waste time correcting inaccurate statements that could cause people unnecessary concern.One fund member misread the fund accounts in the same way as you in the Q&A session at the AGM.  At the end of the meeting, the Acting Director of Finance and I were able to help the individual concerned read the accounts correctly.  I can only imagine this individual’s question at the AGM is what led to your posting.The fund panel is politically proportional, but has not been political in its investment strategy decisions in my experience.  The employer contributions is perhaps the one aspect of the fund that the Executive does control, and to some extent might be considered politically influenced.  Having said that, the fund actuaries must be satisfied that the contributions are sufficient, so the opportunity for political influence is limited.Richard - Thank you for correcting the inaccurate reading of the fund performance.Steve - Unfortunately (in my view) the flexibility you suggested in an earlier post - as far as I am aware - is not allowed by central gov't.  The same unfortunately goes for a broader ethical investment strategy (which I was recently asked about by the local press), or giving fund members the choice of a conventional versus an ethical fund.Andrew DakersMember of the Hounslow Pension Fund Panel

Andrew Dakers ● 6895d

AndrewMany thanks for that explanation..and also for pointing the finger at David Hughes for misinforming everyone.The problem is that his regular faulty outpourings probably find their way into local Labour Party literature, and into the local Press..and that is a concern.It's a shame that uninformed individuals in our Community are having their minds corrupted by unqualified people like ex Labour Councillor David Hughes.. and that is bad news for us all.

Jim Lawes ● 6895d

Andrew wrote "Steve - Unfortunately (in my view) the flexibility you suggested in an earlier post - as far as I am aware - is not allowed by central gov't.  The same unfortunately goes for a broader ethical investment strategy (which I was recently asked about by the local press), or giving fund members the choice of a conventional versus an ethical fund."Andrew,  as a trustee I follow stringent government regulations and am guided by our fund financial advisors so I am unclear why a Council fund isn't allowed by central gov't the same flexibility as I am. Are you saying central gov't has one set of rules for Council funds and one set for 'private' funds?

Steve Taylor ● 6895d

"Are you saying central gov't has one set of rules for Council funds and one set for 'private' funds?"Yes.  Whilst many of the same principles apply (for example Myners), it is a different legislative framework.For example we are quasi-trustees ...not trustees in the conventional sense.  Crucially this is a final salary scheme and if we dont maximise the performance of the fund, the state (and in part local council tax payers) will bear the brunt of the poor performance over the medium term.Andrew

Andrew Dakers ● 6894d

"Yes.  Whilst many of the same principles apply (for example Myners), it is a different legislative framework.For example we are quasi-trustees ...not trustees in the conventional sense.  Crucially this is a final salary scheme and if we dont maximise the performance of the fund, the state (and in part local council tax payers) will bear the brunt of the poor performance over the medium term."This then begs the repeated question - Can local council tax payers afford (or should they be expected) to finance a final salary scheme when so many employers in the private sector have been forced to close their schemes?  We all heard the latest on BAA also being forced to close their scheme for new employees! 

Steve Taylor ● 6894d

"Can local council tax payers afford (or should they be expected) to finance a final salary scheme when so many employers in the private sector have been forced to close their schemes?"The argument goes that public sector/ council staff generally earn less that in the private sector and the pension security makes up for it.  I think the danger is with this that it can lead to a very passive fund membership as the pension is guaranteed - so then the fund trustees are only held to account at the AGM (and Hounslow is unusually transparent for a local authority fund in having an AGM!)...and on this forum!  At the moment - unfortunately - we don't have a staff/ member rep on the fund panel.I would like us to be able to offer staff a choice of investing their pension in an alternative 'ethical' fund - but central government doesnt allow it (and I'm sure the unions would object).  For this to take effect we would have to end the final salary scheme and introduce a choice of fund, with the risk for staff that one fund might have substantially different performance to another.Andrew

Andrew Dakers ● 6894d

You had plenty of time to explain what happened you failed in doing so, now you want a pat on the back...you still have not explained the downturn. Normally with these awards they are given for work in the past and its more than likley the award is for the past achievements for running the pension fund.

Dave Hughes ● 6893d

(and in part local council tax payers) will bear the brunt of the poor performance over the medium term.From The Lib Dems mouthsand they still cant tell us what the down turn in performance was about....and these people run the trust fund

Dave Hughes ● 6893d

Mr. D.Hughes irresponsible and inaccurate  post on the 15th November was responded to in detail later that day. He now, many weeks later, challenges unspecified matters.I ask forum readers to form their own conclusion.

John Todd ● 6893d

DavidDo you ever read the business pages of the papers. If yes you would know what has caused the downturn in the markets.For the fund to have held up so well in a very turbulant period shows that it has been well managed by both past and presnt panel members.

Neil Chippendale ● 6893d

There was no downturn in performance of the pension fund.As Richard Jennings stated there has been an INCREASE in the net assets of the fund 2005/6 = £408m2006/7 = £453mSo the fund has gone UP by £45 million, not DOWN by £44 million.  The growth in the fund has slowed on the previous year (I think this is where you get the £44m figure from).  Both of the years in question, growth was broadly inline with the market and other pension funds.  Our recent award is reflective of the fact that despite this slowing of growth across ALL pension funds, the Hounslow Fund is still performing very well against the local authority pension fund benchmark.Andrew

Andrew Dakers ● 6890d

....and misinformed all of us for political gain. Is that playing the game? Perhaps, it's the Labour Party way!!

Jim Lawes ● 6886d

Cllr Dakers wrote:"The argument goes that public sector/ council staff generally earn less that in the private sector and the pension security makes up for it.""I think the danger is with this that it can lead to a very passive fund membership as the pension is guaranteed - so then the fund trustees are only held to account at the AGM (and Hounslow is unusually transparent for a local authority fund in having an AGM!)...and on this forum!  At the moment - unfortunately - we don't have a staff/ member rep on the fund panel."Andrew,  I think you'll agree (as stated  in various threads on this forum) that it is a myth that the private secure generally earn more than the public sector. I think even today there was a comment that many private sector employees are looking to go back to the public sector due to better packages, conditions etc. The point still remains - can the public sector still afford to offer Final Salary Pension Schemes when the general consensus amongst the private sector employers and the huge PLC's is that these schemes are no longer affordable or an option for employers. However this thread ( or can of worms opened by Dave Hughes) has certainly raised some important issues which require addressing.Although Mr Hughes got it all wrong, and it is great news that he did and the Fund received an award, one wonders what would have happened had Mr Hughes been right.  (a) fund does well so award issued (b) fund does badly so........??? Who is accountable??? I also find it difficult to understand how the fund management can be transparent if no staff member is allowed to be elected to the fund panel as a trustee. Is this legal? Since the Robert Maxwell debacle legislation was tightened up considerably so why is central government immune to this legislation?  In the private sector if funds do badly. both employers and employees have to cough up on higher contributions. In the public sector it seems it would all be covered by the employer i.e. Joe Public taxpayer.

Steve Taylor ● 6883d

"...Final Salary Pension Schemes when the general consensus amongst the private sector employers and the huge PLC's is that these schemes are no longer affordable or an option for employers. "I increasingly have my doubts as to the affordability of final salary schemes, although they are clearly preferable from a benefits perspective."Although Mr Hughes got it all wrong, and it is great news that he did and the Fund received an award, one wonders what would have happened had Mr Hughes been right.  (a) fund does well so award issued (b) fund does badly so........??? Who is accountable???"The Council as a whole/administration is ultimately accountable.  If the fund had particularly poor performance I think this would end up in the local press, it would impact council tax or services and ultimately the administration could be impacted at the ballot box."I also find it difficult to understand how the fund management can be transparent if no staff member is allowed to be elected to the fund panel as a trustee. Is this legal? "Sorry if I wasnt clear.  The problem is not one of permission, but no member of staff has taken up the opportunity to sit on the panel after the previous staff member stood down, despite it being advertised.  I think there is a huge amount that can be learnt from the position and it should help with career progression."In the private sector if funds do badly. both employers and employees have to cough up on higher contributions. In the public sector it seems it would all be covered by the employer i.e. Joe Public taxpayer."If there was poor stock market/ fund asset performance across all public sector funds I think the employee contribution would end up being negotiated upwards by central gov't.Andrew

Andrew Dakers ● 6881d

"I increasingly have my doubts as to the affordability of final salary schemes, although they are clearly preferable from a benefits perspective"I don't - in the private sector very few Companies can afford it and those that that are continuing with Final Salary Pension Schemes are selling the scheme to prospective employees as a 'major perk' as they are clearly beneficial from a benefits perspective. The question is why should new  employees of say BAA, who can't have it, have to fund the public sector?  "The problem is not one of permission, but no member of staff has taken up the opportunity to sit on the panel after the previous staff member stood down, despite it being advertised."Again - I find it difficult to comprehend why a FSPS should be offered and financed by taxpayers if not one of the thousands of members of the scheme are prepared to sit on the panel and be 'accountable' and have a say in the fund management"If there was poor stock market/ fund asset performance across all public sector funds I think the employee contribution would end up being negotiated upwards by central gov't."Yes, but if there wasn't a poor stock market/fund asset performance across all public sector funds (as Dave Hughes implied at the start of this thread) there is no ways central government would or could influence employee contribution. i.e.  If Dave Hughes had been right, and the fund had done badly, whilst during the same period my fund in the private sector had fared well, what you are saying is that nobody is 'really' accountable  and the best the local taxpayer could hope for is that the story would end up in the local press and the 'administration'  would have to offer some sort of statement or apology! 

Steve Taylor ● 6880d