Civil Partnerships (Jersey) Law 201-: Consequential amendments to States Employees' Pensions

Information about the publication of Ministerial Decisions

A formal published “Ministerial Decision” is required as a record of the decision of a Minister (or an Assistant Minister where they have delegated authority) as they exercise their responsibilities and powers.

Ministers are elected by the States Assembly and have legal responsibilities and powers as “corporation sole” under the States of Jersey Law 2005 by virtue of their office and in their areas of responsibility, including entering into agreements, and under any legislation conferring on them powers.

An accurate record of “Ministerial Decisions” is vital to effective governance, including:

demonstrating that good governance, and clear lines of accountability and authority, are in place around decisions-making – including the reasons and basis on which a decision is made, and the action required to implement a decision
providing a record of decisions and actions that will be available for examination by States Members, and Panels and Committees of the States Assembly; the public, organisations, and the media; and as a historical record and point of reference for the conduct of public affairs

Ministers are individually accountable to the States Assembly, including for the actions of the departments and agencies which discharge their responsibilities.

The Freedom of Information Law (Jersey) Law 2011 is used as a guide when determining what information is be published. While there is a presumption toward publication to support of transparency and accountability, detailed information may not be published if, for example, it would constitute a breach of data protection, or disclosure would prejudice commercial interest.

A decision made 6 February 2012:

Decision Reference: MD-C-2012-0021
Decision Summary Title :	Civil Partnerships Regulations – Consequential Amendments – States Employees’ Pensions		Date of Decision Summary:	3rd February 2012
Decision Summary Author:	Project & Research Officer		Decision Summary: Public or Exempt? (State clauses from Code of Practice booklet)	Public
Type of Report: Oral or Written?	Written		Person Giving Oral Report:	Project & Research Officer
Written Report Title :	Civil Partnerships - Consequential Amendments to States Employees’ Pension Schemes		Date of Written Report:	2nd February 2012
Written Report Author:	Project & Research Officer		Written Report : Public or Exempt? (State clauses from Code of Practice booklet)	Public
Subject: Civil Partnerships Regulations – Consequential Amendments Chief Minister’s Department – States Employees’ Pensions
Decision(s): The Chief Minister agreed that the following list of subordinate legislation should be amended in order to implement the Civil Partnership (Consequential Amendments) (Jersey) Regulations 201-: Public Employees (Contributory Retirement Scheme) (General) (Jersey) Regulations 1989 Public Employees (Contributory Retirement Scheme) (Existing Members) (Jersey) Regulations 1989 Public Employees (Contributory Retirement Scheme) (New Members) (Jersey) Regulations 1989 Public Employees (Retirement) (Jersey) Law 1967 Teachers’ Superannuation (Existing Members) (Jersey) Order 1986 Teachers’ Superannuation (New Members) (Jersey) Order 2007
Reason(s) for Decision: The Chief Minister is to lodge the Civil Partnership (Consequential Amendments) (Jersey) Regulations 201- following adoption of the Civil Partnerships (Jersey) Law 201-. In order for this law to be effective the following legislation needs to be amended to provide for civil partnerships.
Resource Implications: There are no resource implications.
Action required: The Chief Minister’s Department will inform the Law Draftsman when all the consequential amendments relating to the Civil Partnerships Regulations have been agreed by the relevant departments.
Signature:		Position: Senator I.J. Gorst Chief Minister
Date Signed:		Date of Decision (If different from Date Signed):

Civil Partnerships (Jersey) Law 201-: Consequential amendments to States Employees' Pensions

Chief Minister’s Department

Civil Partnerships Consequential Amendments to States

Employees Pension Schemes

The Civil Partnerships(Consequential Amendments) (Jersey) Regulations 201- also include changes to the following occupational pension schemes, in which civil partners will enjoy identical benefits as those enjoyed by spouses and their widows/widowers and dependants:

Public Employees (Contributory Retirement Scheme) (General) (Jersey) Regulations 1989
Public Employees (Contributory Retirement Scheme) (Existing Members) (Jersey) Regulations 1989
Public Employees (Contributory Retirement Scheme) (New Members) (Jersey) Regulations 1989
Public Employees (Retirement) (Jersey) Law 1967
Teachers’ Superannuation (Existing Members) (Jersey) Order 1986
Teachers’ Superannuation (New Members) (Jersey) Order 2007

In relation to two “closed schemes” within the pensions legislation, members who become civil partners will not enjoy the same benefits to those enjoyed by widows. The two “closed’ schemes” are:

Public Employees (Contributory Retirement Scheme) (Jersey) Regulations 1967
Public Employees (Contributory Retirement Scheme) (Former Hospital Scheme) (Jersey) Regulations 1992

In 1987 the members of the scheme contained in the 1967 Regulations, and in 1992 the members of the Former Hospital Scheme contained in the 1992 Regulations, were given the option to remain under those schemes or to transfer into the PECRS Existing Members Scheme or the PECRS New Members Scheme. Some 85% of members chose to move to the newer schemes. Those who opted to remain were given an undertaking by the States that their benefits, under those closed schemes, would ‘never be diminished nor would they be enhanced’. The closed schemes were effectively mothballed and frozen in time.

Benefits enjoyed by members under those closed schemes remain different to the newer schemes. For instance, there are differences in optional and normal retirement ages between men and women, lower “death-in-service” benefits, no medical retirement enhancements, no option for commutation of pension (tax free lump sums) and no dependant’s pension. In addition, these closed schemes do not include “widower’s pensions”. Past legal advice has indicated that the closed schemes would not, today, be considered Human Rights compliant but may be considered as compliant under Human Rights legislation because members were given the option to move to the newer schemes (but many chose not to).

Those members who chose to remain within the closed schemes retained the guarantee of index linking to pensions and an earlier optional and normal retirement age for women.

It would seem anomalous to introduce widower’s pensions into the scheme going forward, which would immediately create a financial liability for the scheme, and might also leave the States open to claims from widower’s who in the past were not eligible for a pension.

It is also anomalous to introduce pensions for civil partners when neither scheme has a provision for widower pensions. In addition if it were decided to introduce pensions for civil partners into these two schemes, either only female civil partners would benefit by a “widow’s” pension, i.e. two males in a civil partnership would never be considered a ‘widow’ so would not be eligible, or alternatively, if one member of any civil partnership were treated as being the equivalent of a widow, and the other the equivalent of a widower (whatever the sex of the partnership), that would result in both male and female civil partners benefiting, but not widowers.

Although these two schemes will not enable civil partners to have the same rights as widows under the schemes, children of civil partners will nevertheless be treated in the same way as children of married couples.

It is considered highly unlikely that the policy not to provide for civil partners to enjoy the benefits of these two closed schemes would result in any civil partner being disadvantaged, given that there are only 102 active members in the 1967 Regulations scheme, and 11 under the 1992 Regulations scheme.