Proposed changes to the BBC Pension Scheme
Today the BBC has put forward a series of proposals to change the BBC Pension Scheme. If accepted, these would be the most extensive changes to the Scheme in its history. These are tough decisions, and the first major reform of pensions in the public sector. But we believe we have no option if we are to avoid a new burden on the licence fee payer while ensuring that staff, many of whom have paid into their pensions for years, continue to receive what they are due.
Why are we proposing this? The Scheme's assets, like those of many other pension schemes, have been affected by market volatility following the global economic downturn. Although financial markets have improved during 2009/10, the investments in the Scheme have not returned to previously expected levels and the outlook for the future remains uncertain. In addition, with people living longer, the cost of funding their pensions inevitably increases.
An interim valuation by the Scheme's Trustees has put the estimated deficit at nearly £2bn. This does not mean that we are short of money to pay pensions now. But our forecasts show that we need to build up more reserves for the future.
The BBC is not alone in this - pension schemes in both the private and public sector are facing similarly difficult decisions. John Hutton is leading a review of public sector pensions, and last week the Prime Minister warned public sector workers that their pensions would be considerably less generous in the future.
In the private sector, BA has announced measures to reduce their scheme's £3.7bn deficit, and 87% of private sector defined benefit schemes are now closed to new members. Companies such as IBM, Vodafone and Trinity Mirror only offer defined contribution pensions to all employees.
What are we proposing? The changes would affect all active members of the BBC Pension Scheme. The Defined Benefit Scheme would remain open to all existing members. Benefits would, however, be subject to a 1% limit on all future pensionable salary increases.
The Defined Benefit Scheme would be closed to anyone joining the BBC after 1 December 2010. From this point anyone would be able to join a new Defined Contribution Scheme. Under this scheme, contributions are agreed in advance, but the final benefits will vary.
Current Scheme members have the choice of remaining in the Defined Benefit Scheme or moving to the Defined Contribution Plan.
This has not been a sudden decision. When changes were made to the Scheme in 2006, we made it clear we would need to review the Scheme's performance. Our original aim of reviewing it in 2013 has had to be brought forward because of the impact of market performance and growing life expectancy.
We have spent over 18 months working to find the best solution for our staff. For the next 90 days, the BBC will consult fully on these proposals with staff, the unions, musicians unions and Equity.
I believe the solutions we have proposed today will deliver a Pension Scheme that is sustainable, affordable and flexible for BBC staff and the licence fee payer.
Zarin Patel is the BBC's Chief Financial Officer
- Read our press release


Comment number 1.
At 20:03 29th Jun 2010, shafted9 wrote:I feel sick, you've just stolen my pension. At least be honest about it, to say that you've delivered ' a Pension Scheme that is sustainable, affordable and flexible for BBC staff' is not true. You have ended the final salary scheme, all that money I've already paid into it will be eroded by inflation unless I (and thousands like me) join the Defined Contribution Plan. I'm so angry and feel utterly betrayed by the BBC.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 1)
Comment number 2.
At 08:32 30th Jun 2010, edgeoftheunion wrote:The health of a pension scheme is a product of its liabilities as well as its assets. Given that people are living longer did the BBC not make a massive mistake in increasing the Pension scheme liabilities through early retirement of such substantial numbers of relatively young staff? Perhaps what needs reform is not the Pension scheme itself but the way BBC Management use it as a way of avoiding doing their jobs properly.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 2)
Comment number 3.
At 12:14 30th Jun 2010, Andy wrote:I think everyone needs to be going to visit their financial advisor. Unfortunate events will always arise but there are ways to mitigate the effects if you look.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 3)
Comment number 4.
At 16:13 30th Jun 2010, spider wrote:you stoped paying massive amounts to tv presenters and alike. its all
ways the people at the bottom of the ladder who losses out. how much have you spent on all thoughs hundreds you sent to south africa lineker,hanson sheera ect,ect,expences payed for, i bet all these people
think they have won lotto,give the money to those who work hard and deserve it
Complain about this comment (Comment number 4)
Comment number 5.
At 23:41 30th Jun 2010, edgeoftheunion wrote:What does this sentence mean?
"For the next 90 days, the BBC will consult fully on these proposals with staff, the unions, musicians unions and Equity."
Why will you consult with the Musicians Union or Equity about pension arrangements? Do you not understand the types of contracts that actors and musicians have with the BBC? How do you consult with staff other than via the recognised Unions - BECTU, NUJ and Unite?
Complain about this comment (Comment number 5)
Comment number 6.
At 08:55 1st Jul 2010, Laura Editor wrote:Hi and thanks for your comments everyone. I've spoken to Zarin and this is what she said:
"Thanks for your comments, I recognise these proposed changes are difficult for staff but what I have tried to set out is why this is necessary: we need to change the system to reflect the fact that people are living longer and increased volatility in the markets. No change is not an option as it would be unfair on licence fee payers if increasingly higher proportions of their licence fee were spent on BBC pensions rather than on content. We are therefore proposing that BBC staff share some of this burden whilst still benefiting from a scheme that is sustainable, affordable and in which people can make choices to suit their individual circumstances.
BBC pension entitlements have never had a guaranteed link to inflation, they have to date been linked to increases in final or average salary depending on when people joined. Marks & Spencer's, ITV and Lloyds TSB have all capped growth in pensionable salary as they have also faced the need to tackle their pension deficits.
As to early retirement this has always been a personal choice for individual members of staff, and the BBC has taken steps to ensure the scheme's liabilities are not unduly affected.
I know these are really tough decisions, which is why we have thought long and hard before bringing them forward. We will consult with our staff as thoroughly as we can and we will do our utmost to support our people in understanding what these pension changes will mean for them".
Complain about this comment (Comment number 6)
Comment number 7.
At 11:44 2nd Jul 2010, edgeoftheunion wrote:I find it interesting that Zarin used the expression "reform" in connection with the BBC Pension Scheme. Despite the misreporting in several newspapers, which the BBC appears to have done nothing to correct, the BBC actually closed its final salary scheme to new members two years ago.
If there is an area where the public is crying out for reform it is here:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/5750277/Top-BBC-executives-will-enjoy-pensions-costing-26m.html
Did the BBC consider capping benefits at say £100k pa?
Thought not.
It is also notable that the BBC Trust, acting on behalf of the licence payer has ordered the BBC to "reform" BBC senior pay by -8.5% p.a. for two years and to speed up the removal of senior managers.
I do not think that either BBC staff or the Licence payer wish to be lectured on "reform" by people whose own situation is in such dire need of it.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 7)
Comment number 8.
At 02:14 8th Jul 2010, dennisjunior1 wrote:Zarin:
The reforms of the pension scheme needs to be done to keep it solvent...Question: What is the options if the Unions, BBC Staff and other entities don't like that often, what is next?
(d)
Complain about this comment (Comment number 8)
Comment number 9.
At 12:32 9th Jul 2010, Graham wrote:Does anyone know if the BBC will be facilitating independent financial advice for members ? - there are very tricky decisions to be made if these proposals take effect. Getting the right advice is essential and not all advisors thesedays have a good understanding of defined benefit schemes
Complain about this comment (Comment number 9)
Comment number 10.
At 16:41 11th Jul 2010, edgeoftheunion wrote:Perhaps Zarin would have something to say about this quote from Jeff Randall
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/7880312/The-cure-is-painful-work-harder-save-more-and-spend-less.html
That was certainly the case when I worked for the BBC between 2001 and 2005. After two years there, I was invited to join the final-salary pension scheme. As I read the terms and conditions, I could hardly believe my eyes. It was like being offered the chance to play a one-armed bandit that was calibrated to pay out much more than was put in.
Submitting the form to a pensions manager, I pointed out that my contributions to the collective pot would be drained off after only three years of retirement; thereafter, someone else would be bankrolling me. No amount of investment genius by the fund's managers could fill the gap if I lasted until I was 78 (average life expectancy for white males). My observation was met with considerable irritation: "The BBC pension facilities are extremely well run and a fundamental part of contractual benefits."
What more could a boy do? It was a fill-your-boots moment. I went away grateful that I had been allowed into such a generous club, but convinced that it was heading for a stonking deficit. Sure enough, seven years later, the BBC's pension fund has a £2 billion hole and management has finally admitted that the shortfall is not going to be eliminated by wishful thinking.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 10)
Comment number 11.
At 18:20 25th Jul 2010, edgeoftheunion wrote:https://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/7909050/BBC-executives-receive-extra-pension-cash.html
A rapid rebuttal would be a good idea. I'm not holding my breath.
"Mark Thompson, director general of the BBC, along with eight executive board members are understood to have access to a multi-million pound pension fund, while other members are excluded."
Complain about this comment (Comment number 11)
Comment number 12.
At 08:46 28th Jul 2010, Laura Editor wrote:Hello and thanks to everyone for your comments and questions.
I have spoken to Lucy Adams, Director of BBC people and she provided the following response:
"These payments are a historical contractual arrangement in relation to a pensions cap legislation brought in 1989 and are always clearly reported in our Annual Report and Accounts. This is not a ‘secret fund’ as some papers have claimed, and in future new members of the Executive Board will not be offered this arrangement.
In addition to the changes to the Pension Scheme that the BBC is proposing we are also reviewing all aspects of Pension provision including that for Senior Managers. We will announce these together with any other changes to the proposals after the consultation closes".
Laura.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 12)
Comment number 13.
At 12:37 2nd Aug 2010, edgeoftheunion wrote:Hi Laura
Thanks for the relatively swift reply. However in the interests of clarity would you please be specific about where these exceptional payments are 'clearly' reported in the Annual Accounts. Directing me to the overall document is hardly helpful in the context of a BBC attempting to show that it is open and transparent.
Regards
Willis
Complain about this comment (Comment number 13)
Comment number 14.
At 13:42 2nd Aug 2010, Laura Editor wrote:Hi Willis,
sorry for not providing a specific link for you. If you have a look at the Full Financial and Governance Statements 2009/10, and scroll down to f24, there is a section entitled Notes to the Group Financial Statements which covers pensions.
I hope that helps.
Laura.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 14)
Comment number 15.
At 17:22 2nd Aug 2010, edgeoftheunion wrote:Hi Laura
I appreciate that you are probably just another ordinary BBC member of staff doing their job but the page you directed me to has no specific information about contractual payments to augment the pensions of Senior staff.
If this information is as clearly signposted as Lucy Adams says, and I bear her no ill will either, she is only doing her job, then the information would be easy for you or I to find.
I have done a cut and past of the text on F24:
NOTES TO THE GROUP FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
CONTINUED
F24
EMPLOYEE BENEFITS
Defined contribution plans
The amounts charged as expenditure for the defined contribution plans represent the contributions payable by the BBC for the accounting periods.
Defined benefit plans
The defined benefit plans, of which the majority of staff are members, provide benefits based on final, or career average, pensionable pay. The assets of the BBC’s main pension scheme are held separately from those of the Group.
On retirement, members of the BBC’s main pension scheme are paid their pensions from a fund which is kept separate from the group. The BBC makes cash contributions to that fund in advance of members’ retirement.
Pension scheme assets are measured using current market bid values. Pension scheme liabilities are measured using a projected unit credit method and discounted at the current rate of return on a high quality corporate bond of equivalent term and currency to the liability.
The difference between the value of the pension scheme assets and pension scheme liabilities is a surplus or a deficit. A pension scheme surplus is recognised to the extent that it is recoverable and a pension scheme deficit is recognised in full. The movement in the scheme surplus/deficit is split between operating charges, finance items and, in the statement of total comprehensive income, actuarial gains and losses. Generally, amounts are charged to operating expenditure on the basis of the current service cost of the present employees that are members of the BBC Pension Scheme.
Termination benefits
Termination benefits are a component of restructuring provisions and are recognised as an expense in accordance with the accounting policy for provisions.
Other employee benefits
Other short and long term employee benefits, including holiday pay and long service leave, are recognised as an expense over the period in which they accrue.
RESERVES
The operating reserve is the accumulated surplus to date.
Other reserves represent the value of a put option exercisable by minority shareholders.
The hedging reserve is used to record the effective portion of the cumulative net change in the fair value of cash flow hedging instruments related to hedged transactions that have not yet occurred (net of tax). The translation reserve is used to record exchange differences arising from the retranslation of the net assets and results of overseas subsidiaries.
SERVICE LICENCE REPORTING
Service licences are used by the BBC Trust to regulate the BBC’s services and ensure that each aims to provide public value and contribute to delivering the BBC’s public purposes. Note 2 provides more detail on how costs are allocated to individual services.
USE OF ESTIMATES AND JUDGEMENTS
The preparation of financial statements in conformity with IFRS requires the use of certain critical accounting estimates. It also requires the Executive Board to exercise judgement in applying the Group’s accounting policies. The areas involving a higher degree of judgement or complexity, or areas where assumptions or estimates are significant to the consolidated financial statements are disclosed below:
Regards
Willis
Complain about this comment (Comment number 15)
Comment number 16.
At 17:51 2nd Aug 2010, edgeoftheunion wrote:Hi Laura
I am not easily shocked but the information (especially the footnotes) printed on page F98 tells a very different story from the one Lucy gave.
See what you think.
Regards
Willis
Complain about this comment (Comment number 16)
Comment number 17.
At 21:07 2nd Aug 2010, Laura Editor wrote:Willis, I'm looking into this for you.
Laura.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 17)
Comment number 18.
At 16:46 4th Aug 2010, edgeoftheunion wrote:Hi Laura
I don't expect you to get a decent answer any time soon. I will post an analysis in a couple of days.
Regards
Willis
Complain about this comment (Comment number 18)
Comment number 19.
At 07:05 5th Aug 2010, edgeoftheunion wrote:From Page F96
"For those who joined the Pension Scheme after 31 May 1989 earnings are subject to the maximum annual limit (£123,600 per annum for 2009/10). No maximum annual limit is applied to those who joined on or before 31 May 1989. The Pension Scheme provides for early retirement on medical grounds
and life assurance of four times pensionable pay up to a
prescribed limit.
A variety of arrangements were put in place, for members of the Executive Board who joined on or after 1 June 1989, and whose pensionable pay exceeds the maximum annual limit, including funded and unfunded arrangements outside of the Pension Scheme. Since 1 April 2006 these arrangements have been replaced by a cash supplement paid to each Director on pensionable salary above the maximum annual limit. See
Table 4."
The information does not appear on Table 4. It appears on Table 3 with a confusing footnote(5) which seems to imply that these payments are related to salary sacrifice.
The statement on page F96 gives the impression that these 'other remunerations' only apply to members of the Executive Committee whereas in fact they are much more widespread. Some reports claim that another 30 executives receive these payments.
I understand that the BBC is not speaking to the press on this matter, which rather limits what can be discussed on a blog like this.
The problem is that mistakes have been made in the reporting of these payments in the Annual Report which make the BBC look either shifty or incompetent.
Best regards
Willis
Complain about this comment (Comment number 19)
Comment number 20.
At 19:54 5th Aug 2010, U14532624 wrote:Best thing to do is start with the bosses then go lower
Complain about this comment (Comment number 20)
Comment number 21.
At 09:47 6th Aug 2010, Laura Editor wrote:Hi Willis,
I've spoken to the finance team and they have given me the following information in response to your question:
The section you are referring to is part of a specific report on Executive Board Remuneration so naturally it is written in that context. Footnote 5 in Table 3 refers to these arrangements because they are listed as 'Other Remuneration' for each Board member, whereas specific defined benefit entitlements are in Table 4.
Laura.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 21)
Comment number 22.
At 14:44 6th Aug 2010, Bridget Middleton wrote:Hi Willis,
In further response to your comment 19, you are indeed right to point out that the reference on F96 should have been to Table 3, not Table 4. We've removed the reference and should be able to add the correct reference next week. Thanks for letting us know.
Bridget, Editor - About the BBC website
Complain about this comment (Comment number 22)
Comment number 23.
At 23:49 6th Aug 2010, edgeoftheunion wrote:Hi Laura / Bridget
Ok, I'm not quite sure what you are committing to do but I will await developments. Thank goodness this is all electronic and you do not rely on paper copies any more.
Regards
Willis
Complain about this comment (Comment number 23)
Comment number 24.
At 00:05 15th Aug 2010, edgeoftheunion wrote:So here we are, a week on, and the Annual Report still gives the impression that the FURBs were something to do with Salary Sacrifice.
And now this:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/bbc/7943138/BBC-threatens-pensions-refuseniks-with-pay-freeze-for-ever.html
Complain about this comment (Comment number 24)
Comment number 25.
At 12:36 16th Aug 2010, Bridget Middleton wrote:This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 25)
Comment number 26.
At 19:48 17th Aug 2010, edgeoftheunion wrote:Well obv. deeply impressed with comment 25. [Personal details removed by Moderator]
Complain about this comment (Comment number 26)
Comment number 27.
At 20:25 17th Aug 2010, edgeoftheunion wrote:Lets try again.
Sorry Bridget I have no idea why a comment from a web editor would fall foul of the moderation rules. Clearly this blog is being moderated by a machine. I believe that a number of members of ExCo could be similarly substituted with a massive gain to the common weal.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 27)
Comment number 28.
At 08:16 18th Aug 2010, Bridget Middleton wrote:Hello Willis.
I removed the comment myself because I had posted it on the wrong thread. If you want to see what I said you can find it here. It went up the next day because it took me a while to realise my mistake.
Bridget
Complain about this comment (Comment number 28)
Comment number 29.
At 10:54 18th Aug 2010, edgeoftheunion wrote:Hi Bridget
Aha! Glad that's cleared up. Any progress on the FURBs?
Willis
Complain about this comment (Comment number 29)
Comment number 30.
At 21:56 24th Aug 2010, edgeoftheunion wrote:No wonder the BBC value of openness is getting a bye ball here.
https://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance/neilmidgley/100007405/whod-want-to-be-a-trustee-of-the-bbc-pension-fund-not-me/
"If I were a trustee of a pension scheme, and my principal obligation were to protect the benefits of its members, and the scheme’s employer threatened to slash those benefits for decades to come, I think I might do more than take legal advice. To be fair to Peat, he went on to say that he was also seeking a QC’s opinion. Hmm. My recollection of the law of trustees’ obligations is dim at best, but I think I might be looking for a declaration from a judge that I’m doing the right thing."
So Ms Patel - not looking good.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 30)
Comment number 31.
At 14:40 30th Aug 2010, edgeoftheunion wrote:Not so much selling off the family silver as taking out a big mortgage on it.
https://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/dab950ba-b3ad-11df-81aa-00144feabdc0.html
Complain about this comment (Comment number 31)