Teachers’ Pension Scheme (Scotland) Regulations 2014 (SSI 2014/217)
Our next item of business is to consider the Teachers’ Pension Scheme (Scotland) Regulations 2014.
As members will see from the papers, the Scottish Government has indicated its intention to revoke the instrument and replace it with a corrected version. That move is in response to the concerns that the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee highlighted in its report on the instrument.
The process of finalising a replacement instrument has already begun. All the corrections have now been made and a revised instrument will be signed by the relevant Scottish Government minister this week. Following that, the instrument will be issued to Her Majesty’s Treasury for its consideration and signature. The Government expects the revocation date to be 1 January 2015.
However, we are being asked to consider the instrument that is before us today. Two parts—parts 1 and 2—of the instrument come into force on 1 December. Part 1 is interpretative, and no changes are being made to part 2. That means that, on 1 January, an identical part 2 will replace the provision that will by then be in force.
Do members wish to make any comments on the instrument?
Yes. I went back to the evidence session on 18 March, when I asked questions on which I would be very grateful for clarification. I will put them on the record, if I may.
First, in 2011, the Auditor General for Scotland suggested that, where there are differences among schemes in contribution rates and levels of benefits, there should be
“a clear statement of the aims and objectives”.
I would find that helpful.
Secondly, I asked whether the scheme is affordable. In 2011, there was a £240 million deficit in it. The cabinet secretary responded:
“A review and valuation is due later this year.”
Obviously, I would welcome that, looking forward.
Thirdly, the cabinet secretary said that the Government would be able to answer my question about whether we are continuing with a £240 million deficit
“only once we had an actuarial valuation of the scheme over the long term”.—[Official Report, Education and Culture Committee, 18 March 2014; c 3795.]
Obviously, that is a considerable amount, given that it has to be taken from other budgets. How far do the increased contributions go towards addressing that deficit?
Finally, given that I was talking about figures in 2011, it would be helpful if we could get an update.
Okay—thank you. I note that there is a policy note that refers to the financial effects of the instrument and says that it is
“In line with the reform of public sector pensions”.
However, I take on board the points that Mary Scanlon has made.
Obviously, this is a negative instrument, but would the committee be happy for me to write to the cabinet secretary to raise the questions that Mary Scanlon has raised?
Members indicated agreement.
Okay. We will do that.
As there are no other points, given that the Scottish Government intends to correct the instrument, does the committee agree to make no recommendation to the Parliament on it?
Members indicated agreement.
Thank you very much. That concludes our business for today.
Meeting closed at 11:38.