Andrew and Mary Miggins were finishing supper, discussing the latest headlines. Andrew looked up from his plate and said:
“I see Statistics Jersey has released the average earnings figures to June 2025. Legal and finance still top the charts. I must admit, when my stepson Peter said he was joining the public sector, I was surprised. He’s always been more money-minded than Lawrence and Helier, who are now doing well in law and finance.”
Mary set down her fork and replied:
“Let me enlighten you. You know I love digging into statistics. They’re a bit like accounting standards—sometimes lacking common sense, but serving a higher purpose. Most people don’t question them, because they’ve got more pressing things to worry about. Though frankly, people don’t question much at all these days.”
“When we hire someone, we look at their total cost to us—not just their take-home pay. Our staff earn a bit more because we don’t offer pensions. But average earnings figures exclude employer pension contributions, focusing only on direct pay trends. Over the 12 months to June 2025, private sector earnings rose by 4.5%, while public sector pay increased by 4.8%. So yes, public sector pay is rising faster.
But here’s the kicker: public sector workers receive a 16% employer pension contribution on top of their salary. That’s taxpayer-funded. Meanwhile, a private sector employee with the same employment cost but no pension arrangement ends up paying more tax, thanks to the pension’s tax efficiency.”
“According to Statistics Jersey, average weekly earnings in finance and legal are £1,320, while the public sector sits at £1,280. But if you factor in pension contributions—say, 6% for private and 16% for public—the picture changes.
Finance and legal jump to £1,399.20 per week (£72,758.74 annually), while public sector earnings rise to £1,484.80 per week (£77,209.60 annually). That’s a 6.1% premium for the public sector. So Peter may have made a savvy move—higher pay, lower risk. And as for Lawrence and Helier, it’s noble they chose lower-paid professions like law and finance to give something back. This is quite an eye-opener – for the first time in my life I’ve used the words law and noble in the same sentence!”
Andrew chuckled: “Mary, I love how your mind works. Like how you were named after the parish you grew up in—and insisted my stepchildren Peter, Lawrence, and Helier were named after where they were conceived.”
Just then, Andrew’s son walked in. “Hello Radisson, how was football training?”, he said.
Of course, this isn’t an official statistic the Government would want you to dwell on. That said, my recent dealings with Statistics Jersey have been excellent—prompt and professional.
I also asked for data on three-bedroom houses, following the Minister’s claim that the Government would build plenty using taxpayers’ money. Their response? Data on under-occupancy, waiting lists, and demographic availability is virtually non-existent. Another “gut feeling” policy, it seems—evidence optional.
Pedantry and Pension Funds and Inappropriate Investments
When writing pieces like this, I’m constrained by word limits and aim to reach a broad audience. So I was irked when Deputy Mezec took to social media to pedantically correct me. I had said the new Government building was purchased by the Social Security Fund, not the Reserve Fund. Technically, it’s the same pot: the Fund is the current account, the Reserve Fund is the investment portfolio. Funds shift between them to manage cash flow. Without access to the accounts, I can’t confirm which pot the £91 million came from—though the asset will sit in the Reserve Fund.
Despite this being our pension portfolio, and despite the public’s right to know how their money is invested, the accounts remain unpublished. Most jurisdictions release them. Why not Jersey? It’s suspicious.
Deputy Mezec also claimed on social media that the old Government offices on La Motte Street were purchased by the fund—so I was wrong to say the new HQ was the only questionable acquisition. I had no idea. The last I saw on the La Motte Street offices was a Government statement from October last year:
“Philip Le Feuvre House / Huegenot House / 38 La Motte Street – development site expressions of interest have been received. Additional detail from interested parties is now being obtained.”
The sale brochure is online. I’d welcome more detail from Deputy Mezec, because I can’t find much. As an investment manager with over 35 years’ experience, I’m concerned our pension pot is being used to prop up Government finances—accounting trickery preferred over cost control. With no buyer in sight, was this asset dumped into the fund to mask the lack of an exit plan for the old offices?
The States Grant Suspension
Between 2020 and 2023, the Government paused its annual payment—the States Grant—into the Social Security Fund. In 2024 and 2025 it paid in £20 million less each year than it should of. This grant normally tops up contributions from workers and employers, ensuring pensions are paid now and in future. If someone can’t pay, the States must step in. During the pause, our pension pot relied on its savings—the Reserve Fund—to keep pensions flowing. That’s less cushion for future generations. And while your pension pot was raided, generous public sector pension funding remained untouched. This creates a perceived imbalance: generous public sector pensions are protected, while the broader population’s retirement security is indirectly weakened. Had the Government kept paying in, your pension might be higher now—and in the future.
It’s increasingly clear the fund has been used in ways that would never be allowed in the private sector. There’s a whiff of Maxwell about it. These policies should concern both the JFSC and the Financial Ombudsman. We appear to be dumping assets into the public’s pension pot to obscure true Government borrowing. The Government is failing to meet its obligations, and conflicts of interest remain unresolved.
The decision to reduce the grant and rely on reserves—without publishing full accounts of the Social Security Funds and Reserve Fund—raises concerns about transparency and governance. Islanders are excluded from oversight of their own pension assets and the lack of published accounts fuels suspicion that the fund is being used to mask broader fiscal pressures, such as government borrowing or asset transfers.
The accounts for the Social Security Fund—and the Reserve Fund’s investment portfolio—must be published for the past five years. If they’re not, the only reasonable conclusion is that something is seriously amiss.
