Under this approach, the contractor would not be directly responsible for payments to the LGPS. The default position would be that the fair deal employer would retain the majority of the employer`s responsibility for the system (including, crucially, the obligation to pay dues and manage financing risks), with the contractor responsible for certain “employer decisions” involving costs such as illness, dismissal and early retirement. However, the service contract with the contractor would provide for the reimbursement of costs by the contractor to the fair employer, for example. B by a fixed contribution, as well as any other exceptions requiring additional reimbursement from the contractor, for example. B costs resulting from excessive wage increases or redundancy decisions. The consultation ended on August 20, 2016 and we are awaiting the government`s response. In the meantime, existing and potential contractors involved in public sector outsourcing would do well to verify the details of the proposals, particularly with respect to adaptations to repay a surplus in the event of termination, the risks associated with participating in the GSPA under an accreditation agreement remain unchanged. When an employer restructures or merges with another organization, even if that other organization is already participating in (or plans to participate in) the LGPS, an exit payment may be triggered. If paid, it reduces the assets of the plan`s employer; To avoid payments, the LGPS fund must agree to allocate the debts to the other organization.
The government has accepted that uncertainty about the approval of the LGPS fund, as well as the lengthy process of obtaining this agreement, has the potential to impede these transactions. It therefore proposed an automatic mechanism to transfer the underlying commitments of the employer from the plan to the successor. It should also be noted that a “protected purchaser” will include not only workers of core ESL employers, such as local authorities. B, but also workers from the majority of other PSL employers, including existing licensing agencies (which are not necessarily covered by the New Fair Deal or The Best Value Line). Similarly, any outsourcing of a protected purchaser`s employer will trigger the new provisions. Workers of some LGPS employers who are not covered by the New Fair Deal (including higher education and training institutions and police and criminal police commissioners) are not covered by the new provisions. The proposals define a new category of workers, called “protected purchaser.” If the New Fair Deal applies to the first transfer of protected workers from employment within local communities, the new employer must, in most cases, enter into an approval contract (and this is, as currently, only one possible route that could be used to meet the requirements of the best price orientation). Under Sch 2 Pt 3`s 2013 LGPS (point 1 a) – e), the following agencies are accrediting bodies with which agreements are discussed, we assume that LGPS funds will not heat up to the idea that englassis formulation is included in their licensing agreements when service providers become accrediting bodies. LGPS funds have long strived to make their accreditation agreements as “non-negotiable” as possible and have opposed the inclusion of risk-sharing formulas to reduce costs and avoid having to interfere in a tripartite discussion on an essentially bilateral issue – to what extent the client will assist the contractor in approving the bid. , see previous: accreditation agreement. As part of the 2019 consultation, contractors do not necessarily have to become accrediting bodies within the PSA to participate in the program.