News RSS Feed Send your news, pictures & videos


North Yorkshire Pension Fund deficit grows

John Moore John Moore

THE North Yorkshire Pension Fund deficit has reached more than half a billion pounds, leading to fears council services could suffer as employer contributions rise.

Figures obtained by The Press show that, as of March 2011, local authority pension funds had liabilities of £2.1billion, and assets worth £1.5billion, leaving a shortfall of £600,000,000.

North Yorkshire County Council (NYCC) has to make up a shortfall of £13.3 million this year, while City of York Council has to find more than £4.9 million, and Selby District Council must make up £659,300.

John Moore, corporate director for finance at NYCC and treasurer of the pension fund, said the shortfall would not affect anyone currently drawing a pension, and increases in employer contribution are factored into authority budgets.

He said: “There is a shortfall in the fund, which the actuary and authorities are aware of. Employer contribution rates are set for three years with the knowledge of that.

“The pension fund has a positive cash flow forecast for the next 15 years, and there is absolutely no problem at all with meeting pension payments for existing members.”

Coun Steve Shaw-Wright, Labour leader at Selby District Council, said: “On a county and district level, I’d like to know why it’s so much.

“It will have to come out of balances and reserves, which will mean more tightening of the belt. NYCC has a large reserve pot, but it is a big hit, and its money that could be spent on services.”

A spokeswoman for Selby District Council said: “We are aware of the council’s liabilities in relation to the pension fund and have factored these into our spending plans along with the other issues we, along with the rest of the public sector, are facing with regards to cuts to public spending.

“Our medium term financial plan requires us to save around £3 million by 2014/15. We are already well on the way to this target through the organisational changes we have implemented this year, changes which are designed to reduce our costs while maintaining essential services.”

Coun James Alexander, leader of City of York Council, said: “In common with many others, the North Yorkshire Pension Fund does have a projected deficit. All councils in North Yorkshire have been facing this problem for some time and now have a planned contribution rate to make up the deficit over a 30-year period.

“The reason for the deficit is that people are living longer, so the pension fund is paying out more for a longer period of time. The situation is not helped by the current global economic downturn in the financial markets, which affects all long-term investments such as pension funds nationally.”

Other employers which contribute to the North Yorkshire Pension Fund include Hambleton and Ryedale District Councils which have to make up shortfalls of £484,500 and £462,600 respectively.

Other employers which have shortfalls to make up are York St John University (£296,200), North Yorkshire Police Authority (£1,444,100), North Yorkshire Fire and Rescue Service (£74,400), Selby College (£30,600), and York College (£185,400).

A spokeswoman for York St John University said the shortfall would not affect services to students: “We have been working very closely with the North Yorkshire Pension Fund for several years over a considered approach to pension management. This means that we have been able to build changes in repayments into our long term processes.”

Comments(16)

petethefeet says...
9:45am Mon 5 Sep 11

The main reasons why our pension funds are twofold. Firstly, Nigel Lawson prohibited funds holding more than 110% of their needs. This caused the funds to take contribution 'holidays' in the Bull markets of the early nineties. Secondly, Blair/Browns first 'stealth tax' was to tax the dividends payable to the pension funds - worth about 6 billion a year. A case of 'double taxation' if I ever saw one.

Elephant says...
10:19am Mon 5 Sep 11

Third reason is the west is living in la-la-land about saving for the future. Most people can't afford their lifestyles at today's rates let alone support 20 years of retirement. It's not helped by the taxpayer funding an extra million civil servants created under the Labour years who all need pensions. Besides, any idea what these million extra people are doing?

Mentos says...
10:20am Mon 5 Sep 11

Agreed. Lawson as well as Brown and Blair. Not mentioned enough

ISeeEverything says...
10:59am Mon 5 Sep 11

Any suggestion that employee contributions have to rise and, as usual, the unions start complaining about the unfairness of the world.

Guy Fawkes says...
11:17am Mon 5 Sep 11

Agreed with all of the above, and in addition to that, pension contributions - both of employers and employees - have not risen in line with life expectancies. When the mathematical models that underpin final salary pension schemes were invented in the 1950s, they made the assumption that people would, on average, live for about ten years in retirement, and set contributions and investment strategies accordingly. Two things happened to derail those sums: firstly, life expectancy increased much faster during the second half of the twentieth century than the first, and secondly, women entered the workplace in significant numbers. Because women both retire earlier and live longer than men, that increased the element of unfunded liability even more.

The only way to make the sums add up again is to work longer and/or contribute more - it's that simple. Saving 8% (typical combined employer + employee contribution) of your salary for 35 years is not enough to provide a decent income for another 20-30 years in retirement, and the expectation that it is is the fundamental cause of the problem.

Gyspsy Power says...
11:55am Mon 5 Sep 11

Has John Moore got a hunch back or no neck?

meme says...
1:29pm Mon 5 Sep 11

He looks remarkably cheerful for a man facing a .5 billion deficit!!
I assume his pension will not suffer but those drawing down in future will

Mentos says...
1:43pm Mon 5 Sep 11

Gyspsy Power wrote:
Has John Moore got a hunch back or no neck?
Intelligent contribution to an important debate

PKH says...
2:13pm Mon 5 Sep 11

Did anyone see the article on the BBC where top executives over the last few years have received bonuses of nearly 200% whilst the share value (worth of company) has remained static, if shares had risen by as much as the fat cats bonuses have, pensions would not have the deficits they now have.

Gyspsy Power says...
4:16pm Mon 5 Sep 11

Mentos wrote:
Gyspsy Power wrote: Has John Moore got a hunch back or no neck?
Intelligent contribution to an important debate
Likewise

petethefeet says...
6:11pm Mon 5 Sep 11

PKH wrote:
Did anyone see the article on the BBC where top executives over the last few years have received bonuses of nearly 200% whilst the share value (worth of company) has remained static, if shares had risen by as much as the fat cats bonuses have, pensions would not have the deficits they now have.
Yes I did. It's a sad reflection on the bonus system and the abilities of the non-executive directors who set the targets. The basic problem is that they are always short-term, i.e. 12 months. A better system would be to put a shares in a pension fund that they cannot touch until pension time. Then they would have motivation to put long-term policies and practise in place.

the butler says...
11:01pm Mon 5 Sep 11

From what has been written here, it would seem that john Moore is in the wrong occupation, His lack of fiscal understanding is amazing, To let the debt increase to such a magnitude, is disgraceful also deplorable. When it comes to pension funds; Monthly inspection of accounts is mandatory in order to avoid such squalid accounting.

Guy Fawkes says...
11:32pm Mon 5 Sep 11

Monthly inspection of accounts is mandatory in order to avoid such squalid accounting.


The basic rule of thumb of a defined benefit pension scheme is that order to fund one a pension of two thirds of your final salary, your pension pot needs total contributions of about 1.25% of your income per year of fully funded retirement, assuming historical norms for the growth of long-term investment vehicles. The average life expectancy in Britain is now 77 for men and 82 for women, and will probably continue increasing. Therefore, in very rough terms, you need 15% (men) or 17% (women) of your gross pay going into that pot if you expect to retire at 65 and make it to the average lifespan for your sex. Yet even in the most generous public sector schemes, 7-8% is usually the maximum (and for most private pension contributors it's a lot less than that), taking into account both the employee's and the employer's contribution. Bashing bankers, Lamont, Gordon Brown and John Moore is not going to square that circle.

Mr Trellis says...
8:47am Tue 6 Sep 11

Final salary pension are an unafordable insult to the self employed.
End them now. Please dont respond telling me you have paid your 6% contribution because the benefits you recieve from the tax payers outweigh what you have paid by 300%.

Guy Fawkes says...
9:07am Tue 6 Sep 11

Final salary pension are an unafordable insult to the self employed.
End them now.


I wouldn't go that far, but I would end the practice of taxpayers writing blank cheques to support schemes that can't meet their liabilities. Privately run pension schemes that are funded only by employers' and employees' contributions are not a problem - but if the managers of such schemes get their sums wrong, and/or if the members aren't willing to pay what they actually cost, then they go bust and that's that. What is unacceptable is an open-ended and ongoing bailout for such schemes.

RooBeck says...
10:26am Thu 8 Sep 11

As regards to the public-sector employers, it can only be hoped that councils' are not thinking of hiking-up council-tax, as a means of contributing towards the reduction in these shortfalls. There is a current freeze over increases, but I'm sure the vast majority of people would wish a substantial reduction in this charge, rather than any freeze or future hike!! Already, approximately 23.5% of council-tax goes directly into these pension schemes - an average of about £325 p.a. for each domestic household. It's that old story - in good financial times, no-one looks at these schemes/figures/enti
tlements that are awarded in the public-sector but in chastened times, deeper scrutiny and closer examination, takes your breath away when you consider some of the financial packages and largesse that have been awarded, especially to higher grade/senior public-servants and signed-off by government ministers, usually with a political agenda and rarely in the public-interest. Also, hope that the £1.5 billion assets that are held and invested, are protected as well as can be from the current maelstrom in the financial markets, mainly through those investors concerned with the meltdown of the euro and trading activities within the embattled Eurozone and which is still wiping off billions of pounds worth of assets at worryingly, regular intervals.

click2find

Most popular


About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree