Spence and Partners are delighted to host a perspective of the age discrimination case of Seldon vs Clarkson Wright & Jakes by Burness solicitor Jennifer Skeoch. The case considers the issues of enforcing retirement on employees when they reach the age of 65.

On 25th April 2012, the Supreme Court handed down an eagerly awaited judgment in the case of Seldon -v- Clarkson Wright & Jakes. The headline news is that the Supreme Court dismissed Mr Seldon’s appeal and, in doing so, confirmed that a mandatory retirement age contained in the law firm’s partnership agreement could be objectively justified.

In the past, news of a significant judgment would take a good few days to filter down from the Courts to solicitors (regularly via legal commentators and the press), with solicitors then taking another few days (or in some cases weeks) to report the implications of the judgment to clients in briefing notes or updates. But times are definitely changing, and modern technology (particularly social media) seems to be at the heart of the change.

I knew the Seldon judgment was being handed down because of lawyers I follow on Twitter. Through the same means, I also knew that I could watch the judgment live online – something I did whilst live-tweeting the decision as it was read out by one of the Supreme Court Judges on our Employment Team’s Twitter account.

So in practical terms, what does the decision mean for employers (and partnerships) debating whether or not to maintain (or introduce) mandatory retirement ages? The straight answer to the question is, frustratingly, “it depends”.

It’s clear that “Step 1” in any justification exercise is to identify the aim or aims you are trying to achieve. The decision pulled together some helpful examples of the types of aims that could be relied upon, including the following:-

• Promoting access to employment for younger people;
• Efficient planning of the departure and recruitment of staff;
• Sharing out employment opportunities fairly between generations;
• Rewarding experience;
• Avoiding disputes about the employee’s fitness for work over a certain age; and
• Avoiding the need to dismiss employees on capability grounds which may be humiliating for the employee concerned.

“Step 2” is to be satisfied as an organisation that the aims you have identified count as objectives of a public interest nature and are consistent with UK social policy aims (such as inter-generational fairness and/or dignity). 

Crucially, and as many commentators predicted, a “one size fits all” approach should not be taken when it comes to identifying legitimate aims. An aim that is recognised as being legitimate (both in terms of social policy and specific business sectors) might not apply to the particular employer or partnership in question. So well advised employers and partnerships should think very carefully before relying on mandatory retirement ages. They should also take care to implement them fairly to avoid claims of unfair dismissal claims in addition to complaints of age discrimination.

“Step 3” relates to the question of whether the chosen retirement age is a proportionate means of achieving the aims you’ve identified as an organisation. And this is where the Seldon decision fails to give a complete set of guidance to employers and partnerships. Whilst the Supreme Court confirmed that the aims identified by Clarkson Wright and Jakes were all legitimate (something which the original Employment Tribunal held to be the case when it was first heard), the question of whether 65 (as opposed to another age) is a proportionate means of achieving those aims will be dealt with by an Employment Tribunal. Notably, the Tribunal will be applying the law as it stood in 2006 when the default retirement age of 65 was still in place. I’ll be watching Twitter for details of when the Tribunal are likely to issue a decision on this point, and for other significant cases providing guidance on this last piece of the puzzle…

Jennifer Skeoch
Senior Solicitor

In an amendment to the Reform and Pensions Act 1999 (WRPA 1999), the High Court has ruled on the issue of income payments orders (IPO’s) in a decision that will impact upon bankrupts who have a pension and are over the age of 55. Until now an individual yet to draw their pension was protected from an IPO, which may now no longer be the case. As a result of this amendment, trustees in bankruptcy will have a significantly enhanced ability to influence an individual’s pension rights while, equally, individuals in bankruptcy face losing control of their own pension pot.

For this case, the applicant, a bankrupt, opposed an IPO application from the respondent, his trustee in bankruptcy, on the grounds that his undrawn personal pension scheme benefits could not be regarded as income for the purposes of section 310(7) of the Insolvency Act 1986 (“IA 1986”). Having chosen not to draw his pension benefits given that he was still in employment at the age of 59, the applicant argued the case that his pension should not be subject to IPO’s and that the trustee had no right to interfere. The applicant also argued that any future lump sum payment of his accumulated benefits should also not be subject to IPO’s given that legislation only applies to periodical payments of benefits over time.

Both of these arguments were rejected by the Court who ruled that undrawn personal pension scheme benefits as well as lump sum benefits were to be subject to an IPO given that they will be regarded as income for the purposes of s310(7) IA1986. Section 91 of the Pensions Act 1995 continues to protect occupational pensions from this ruling, however, it may now only be a matter of time before trustees in bankruptcy look to further test the limits of section 310 (7) with respect to these schemes. For both the issues now facing occupational pension schemes and the more general issue of increased power for trustees regarding their ability to control individuals’ pensions rights, it could very well be a case of ‘watch this space’ with regard to the knock-on effects.

The ruling itself also appears at odds with WRPA 1999, which had seemingly drawn a line between future pension rights and pensions in payment and, ultimately, a bankrupt’s pension had been considered to be beyond the reach of the bankruptcy trustee as it was not considered income. As of now, this level of protection no longer exists. For those bankrupts over the age of 55, their pension funds can be used to help them to repay their debts, which will have the obvious impact of diminishing their retirement provision.

The lawyer for the bankrupt, Williamson, noted: “The judgment will have a disproportionately adverse impact on more senior citizens who have private pensions whereas younger bankrupts who have not yet reached pensionable age under the scheme will not be subject to such an order depriving them of an element of their pension pot.”

The applicant has been granted time to prepare an appeal against the decision….

No doubt inspired by Madonna at her blondest, Mr Webb has announced something he calls “Defined Ambition” pensions.

I don’t know if you have ever been through one of those branding sessions where you come up with a random series of “inspirational” values which you then cut out and randomly paste together in the hope of accidentally creating a phrase which sums up the essence of your inner being. Sometimes it works, but more often than not, all you come up with is some thing as empty, meaningless and trite as “Defined Ambition”.

Julian Knight exposes the flaws of this latest soundbite in an article in the Independent . Matthew Vincent at the FT wasn’t fooled either

So, basically the idea is that it’s a Defined Benefit scheme, and changing the word “Benefit” to  “Ambition”, doesn’t change that.

The premise is that essentially the employer makes some form of defined benefit promise to the members. Here’s the brilliantly innovative bit. If it turns out for whatever reason that actually, when a member comes to retire, there is not enough money to fund the promised level of benefit, then the employer can change the level of benefit so that it can reflect what the fund can actually provide.

Except it’s not brilliant. And its not innovative. It’s exactly what an employer who established a defined benefit scheme in the 70’s thought they were signing up for. Back then schemes were structured so that if at some point in the future the benefits provided proved to be unaffordable then the employer could close the scheme and the member would be entitled to whatever benefits could be provided by their share of the fund. Successive legislative changes were wheeled out by Governments of all parties which added, priority orders, preservation, revaluation, pension increases, regulation, compliance, culminating with the unilateral imposition by the Government  on employers of a “Guarantee” where once there had been an “Ambition”.

The fact  that the ambitious rather than guaranteed nature of the benefit promise was not properly communicated to members was not justification for the legislative conversion.

In practice it sounds a lot like a cash balance scheme with the scope to fiddle with the benefits once they are in payment.

But previous Governments thought this sort of flexibility, that is the ability to reduce member’s benefits without their consent, was a bad idea and outlawed it,  so why the change of heart? I’m not entirely sure if this latest move represents a belated recognition that successive Governments have destroyed private sector defined benefit pension arrangements in the UK, and would really, really like to turn the clock back, or a failure to understand and learn from pension history. Either way its another poorly thought out stab in the dark, from a Minister we had been led to believe understood pensions.

For some time now I’ve been carrying around an Oscar Wilde quote, and was actually beginning to think I’d never get the chance to wield it in anger. Now, thanks to our Pensions Minister, it can be fully deployed.

“Ambition is the last refuge of failure.”

With the AGM season almost upon us, we will soon see if the nationwide revulsion at boardroom excesses translates into action where it counts.

David Paterson, of the National Association of Pension Funds suspects there may be a backlash over skyrocketing boardroom pay.  “People are talking tough, but we shall have to wait and see if this is translated into a wave of shareholder activism”.  There are, sadly, only a few voices from within the corporate establishment who are prepared to speak out.  Sir Mike Darrington, former Greggs chief executive (pasties again) dismisses claims that top executives can only be retained by the promise of gigantic pay packages, suggesting that payments should be driven as low as possible until, he says, “If you don’t start to lose people you haven’t gone far enough”.

But will anything really change?  Will there be grumblings of discontent when a motion is moved at Barclays seeking approval for a £17m package for Bob Diamond (sorry Bob, it’s nothing personal)?  But even Bob appears a bit lightweight when compared with Bart Becht, who led Reckitt Benckiser (maker of, among other products, Nurofen).  In the last six years, Bart has been awarded more than £200m in cash and shares and, despite his departure more than six months ago, is in line for another £45m – he might need a jerry can to get that amount home.  I’m not suggesting Bart was anything less than a successful leader, but almost £250m in six years…?  Interestingly, there has been no noticeable change in the share price since Bart’s departure, which seems to confirm the old saying that the graveyard is full of indispensable people.

Vince Cable is suggesting some reforms that would be welcome: making a vote on a firm’s future pay policy binding; a requirement for 75% of shareholders to approve remuneration policies; even a mechanism for clawing back unjustified payments.  Only recently, pension funds, led by the influential Hermes Equity Ownership Services, made a radical call for the scrapping of long-term incentive plans, which usually span only three years.  Colin Melvin, chief executive of Hermes EOS which speaks for the huge BT pension fund and others, wants them replaced by cash bonuses and shares to be held for the longer term, between five and ten years.

The hope now is that investors show they are serious about punishing excessive payouts, as well as punishing rewards for failure.

The Tories were in power, then as now, and believed in individual freedom and individual choice. You could choose to buy your council house, choose to get on your bike and, thanks to a reform introduced that year, choose not to join your employers pension scheme and instead take out a bright new shiny personal pension.

Up until 1988 employers could make it a condition of employment that employees joined the company pension scheme and many employers did just that. The new legislation effectively prohibited this benign compulsion. At a stroke the Government freed people from the collectivist tyranny that was a good company pension scheme.

The problem with choice is that, as we have often observed, if you give people choice they invariably make the wrong one. Where once inertia had worked to ensure that people enjoyed the benefits of a company pension scheme it now worked to ensure they didn’t.

And what of the shiny new personal pensions? Salesmen did what salesmen do when given a new commission generating product. They sold it. And marketing teams produced glossy brochures to explain why if you compounded things up at 20% per annum you got a very big number – a much bigger number than you would ever see from a company pension scheme. The fact that comparing these two numbers was like comparing apples with the least appley thing that you can imagine in the universe, was overlooked.

Obviously I’m simplifying and exaggerating for effect, but the introduction of choice explains in part why we have only 33 per cent of private sector employees who are members of a workplace pension scheme, according to the 2011 Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings. Which is, frankly, a shocking statistic.

Clearly this is a bad thing for society (this assumes that you don’t subscribe to that other view espoused in the 80’s that there is no such thing as society) and something must be done. 

Now, people don’t like pensions, don’t see the value of pensions and don’t trust pension advisers, which may be terribly unfair of them but, given many peoples experience over the past 30 years, we have to concede that it is at least understandable.

But I find most people, if you can engage them in a sensible conversation, agree that saving for retirement is a good idea, if not a priority in the current climate.

The honest approach to this problem would be for politicians to say to people, look, the current level of state pension is rubbish , so we’re going to increase income tax by 4p in the pound and employer National Insurance contributions by 3p in the pound and provide you with a decent level of base income in retirement. Unfortunately honesty and winning elections don’t go hand in hand, so that’s not going to happen.

Instead the pensions tax is being introduced by means of a compulsory pension contribution levied on employees and employers. Except its not. Compulsory, that is. Instead we have created a complex system of qualification, staged implementation and opt-out.

The HR administrative burden on a large employer with a flexible workforce is horrendous. Still, lawyers, consultants and providers will make a decent turn on advising on the inevitable mess caused.  I’m guessing that this policy’s  real objective is part of the stimulus for growth in the wider economy. It certainly can’t be about delivering people a decent income in retirement.

Why is nobody saying what we all know to be true? A total of 8% employee and employer contributions is likely to lead to disappointing outcomes and the 1% employer and 1% employee (including tax relief!) minimum contributions that will apply from 1 October 2012 to 30 September 2016 are just ridiculous and pathetic. And, no, “it’s a start” is not an adequate response to this latter point.

For years we at Spence & Partners have been calling for a proper debate on future national pension provision and I’m afraid the lack of such a proper debate has landed us with the current auto-enrolment proposals. 

Is compulsory pension provision the right way forward? If the answer is yes then lets have proper compulsion for everyone rather than the current misbegotten halfway house. If the answer is no then how do we help people make the transition from agreeing that saving for retirement is a good idea to actually doing something about it?

In one respect 2012 feels a lot like 1988. If a can continue to misquote Dickens, it is the age of wisdom, it is the age of foolishness.

Just as medical check-ups make sense for the human body, occupational pension schemes, both Defined Benefit (DB) and Defined Contribution (DC) also need regular care to ensure that they are serving their members. The common goal is to ensure that all governance issues are addressed.

By installing a good governance framework, you can ensure great value such as increasing performance, identifying and managing risks, getting things done more quickly and improving efficiency. For DB schemes in particular, governance and internal controls are topics which feature high on the agenda at trustee meetings and as the standards of governance have risen within companies we are now seeing those same high standards applied to pension schemes. Some key areas on the agenda include:

• Structure of the Trustee Board
• Conflicts of Interest
• Trustee Knowledge & Understanding
• Secretary to the Trustees
• Business Plan
• Risk Assessment Review & Risk Register
• Documentation Review
• Internal Controls
• TPR Code of practice

Trustees are charged with understanding and monitoring the financial strength and covenant of the employer on behalf of the scheme members. By monitoring the employer covenant, DB scheme trustees are ensuring that they are in a strong position to make appropriate decisions about scheme funding and, if necessary, put in place a recovery plan.

When we consider occupational DC Schemes, the requirements are slightly different, with a need to ensure that there are a range of funds which meet members differing objectives and clear communication explaining the investment risks and benefit choices at retirement.

There is increasing pressure on schemes to be run effectively and efficiently as the cost of providing benefits has increased. It is evident that the Pensions Regulator (“tPR”) wants trustees of pension schemes to run their schemes like a business and this is no surprise when you consider some of tPR’s statutory objectives.

As legislation has intensified around the security of pension scheme benefits, and the accompanying scheme assets, more and more emphasis has been placed on the Trustees’ approach to pension scheme governance with an ever higher expectation on Trustees to possess a sufficient level of knowledge and understanding with which to carry out their role. Furthermore, the Pensions Regulator, amongst others, is concerned that the members of contract based pension schemes get a ‘good outcome’ and recently identified six issues that it believes need to be addressed in order to ensure an adequate income in retirement, namely:

• Appropriate contribution decisions
• Appropriate investment decisions
• Efficient and effective administration
• Protection of assets
• Value for money
• Appropriate decumulation decisions

The biggest difference in this type of arrangement is that ‘members’ have individual policies and hence there is no need for a trustee. While the employer linked to such an arrangement has no legal obligation to deal with governance, best practice should have them establish a governance committee tasked with managing these issues on an ongoing basis.

In December 2011 we saw the publication of the DWP’s consultation on the Section 75 legislation which recognised the problems faced, the ineffectiveness of existing legislation and the need for further consultation.

In February we saw the issue highlighted by Lord Flight in the House of Lords, although unfortunately rejected on behalf of the Government by Baroness Rawlings, off the back of the unfortunate circumstances facing the Wedgwood Museum.

Latest to join the fray is the Charity Finance Directors Group who have issued an open letter to Pensions Minister Steve Webb encouraging him to commit to a fundamental review of the pension issues faced by third sector organisations.This is a timely and welcome intervention which helpfully sets out the extent of the issues.

The problem is that to a great extent the Wedgwood case has muddied the waters as it has highlighted only one of issues – namely last man standing, and the Government response unfortunately reflects this. However, there are a number of issues at play for charities and their pension provision – the inequity and inflexibility of section 75, restructuring complexities, the differences between connected and unconnected employers, the likely worsening of the position as a result of auto-enrolment, ensuring adequate member protection, to name but a few. To just exempt charities from the rules is unfortunately not the answer.

Hopefully the Government will stop dragging it’s heels and get on with the promised consultation as only then can all the issues be identified, their impact assessed and alternative proposals identified. This is a highly pressing issue for the third sector and it needs to be addressed now and hopefully the increased profile will help to achieve this.

In this month’s issue of CA Magazine (pg. 56) Alan Collins, head of employer advisory services at pension actuaries Spence & Partners suggests 10 key questions that Finance Directors should be asking themselves about their defined benefit schemes and some guidance on each of these key issues.

I want the pension scheme off the balance sheet – what can I do?
In almost all cases (especially closed schemes), the ultimate goal should be to secure all benefits with an insurance company and wind-up the scheme. This is unlikely to be immediately viable in most cases, but there are steps that can be taken to bring the ultimate goal closer. These include employer led exercises such as early retirement offers, a pension increase exchange exercise, where members give up future pension increases in return for a higher initial pension or offering members an incentivised opportunity to shift their scheme benefits to an alternative.

These exercises can generate significant savings to the employer relative to the ultimate cost of buyout and allow members to shape their benefits in a manner which suits them rather than that dictated by the scheme or to retire early from the scheme.

Schemes can also move towards a lower risk investment strategy, using bonds or LDI type investments, and also consider partial insurance such as buy-ins or staged buyouts. Companies should also consider the potential for non-cash funding such as parental guarantees, contingent assets or asset-sharing with the company, such as the whisky-bond deal completed by Diageo.

What can I do to reduce my FRS 17 deficit?
Medium to long-term interest rates are significantly higher than the rates implied by the standard AA index used for measuring liabilities for accounting purposes. By using a yield curve approach to assumption setting, the discount rate appropriate for FRS 17 will be higher than the index yield, reducing the value placed on your liabilities by around 8 per cent for an average scheme.

Recent pressure from the Pensions Regulator (tPR) means that scheme trustees have also adopted very prudent assumptions for life expectancy, rather than the more realistic ones required under FRS 17. Removing the margin for prudence could reduce disclosed liabilities by a further five per cent.

Do my advisors add value?
There is no doubt that some advisors are charging too much for core services. However, any change has to be weighed up against the value that can be derived from using the right advisors for the right project.

While it is important to challenge and review the work of your advisors, removing them just to save costs can result in a lost opportunity to improve the operation of the scheme.

What can I do to reduce my PPF levy?
Before taking any action to reduce the levy ensure the cost is weighed up against any potential savings the action will generate.

Cash contributions paid into the scheme are allowed for in the levy calculation – beneficial where both the levy and the probability of insolvency – as judged by Dun & Bradstreet (D&B) – are relatively high. However, D&B assessments can be inaccurate, failing to take into account all relevant information on the company. Your advisor can help you with some simple ways to improve the score (increasing number of directors, changing registered address, etc). The use of contingent assets such as parent company guarantees can also help improve matters.

The levy calculation is significantly changing for 2012/13, with underfunded schemes where the sponsoring company is strong potentially being subject to the biggest increases.

Are the company’s pension contributions being put to best use?
Straight cash contributions are fast becoming outdated as far greater value can be created through funding liability management exercises. The use of profit-sharing arrangements between the company and trustees can allow the Company to invest cash in the business and create a win-win for all parties. Non-cash funding mechanisms such as parent company guarantees, charges over properties or limited partnership agreements should also be considered.

Why do pension scheme valuations take so long – surely it’s just a push of a button?
While it should be a fairly straightforward exercise, a lack of compatibility between administration and actuarial systems can often mean a lot of time and resources are required to manipulate the administration data before the actuarial system is ready to run, a process which is invariably repeated each time a valuation is undertaken.

However, there’s no excuse for this. The recent market turmoil clearly illustrates the need to quickly access information. If your advisor can’t deliver results in a timely fashion, you should consider finding one who can.

I am a pension scheme trustee – should I stand down?
Whilst not impossible, it has certainly become more difficult to act as a company director and also to act as a scheme trustee, partly due to legislation introduced in the Companies Act 2006. Adding a professional trustee to the trustee board can help address the conflict that can arise, can improve scheme operation and efficiency and demonstrate an arm’s length independence to both members and tPR.

The scheme is due to have its next valuation soon – what should I be doing?
One thing you should not do is rely solely on the advice of the trustees’ actuary: he or she has a statutory role to act on behalf of the trustees and their advice may not be in the interest of the company. Taking pro-active advice from your bank or other professional services firms can also help set maximum contributions and persuade the trustees that your proposed funding plan is reasonable.

Scheme data – surely that is the trustees’ problem?
Having incorrect data can affect the efficient operation of schemes and it is definitely a problem for the Company as it will make operating the scheme more costly and store up problems for the future. While it is costly to address the problem it will, in most cases, repay the investment many times over.

Accurate data will improve the certainty of actuarial numbers and reduce the chances of liabilities being under or over-stated. As producing the data set for an actuarial valuation represents a significant proportion of the fee charged, costs could be reduced by thousands of pounds if the data can be derived from a cleansed database.

Verified data will reduce the possibility of errors such as a member being overpaid or underpaid benefits. It will also reduce the likelihood of complaints to the trustees and their accompanying management costs. While difficult to quantify this is a common and costly occurrence.

The Company is facing financial difficulty – what are my options in relation to the scheme?
Difficult economic times combined with the obligations of operating defined benefit pension schemes can often be a toxic combination for companies.

If contributions are becoming unaffordable, approach the trustees for a deferral of payment for a limited period. They will need to justify such a move to the tPR but in most cases trustees will support a genuine cry for help because, in the longer term, a solvent employer is often the only available means of ensuring members receive the full benefits promised by the scheme.

If the debt is proving too much of a burden, threatening the solvency of the business, a number of options are available. If benefits above Pension Protection Fund (PPF) level can be secured, then compromising the company’s full debt will be an option, though the trustees will require some level of compensation. Where a PPF deficit exists, the PPF will seek to secure a cash payment and an equity stake in any ‘phoenix business’ – this will be at least 33 per cent where the company ownership is unchanged and around 10 per cent where wholly new ownership is involved.

It’s certainly worth asking some difficult questions and carefully considering your options.

ISO/IEC 27001 is fast becoming the international touchstone for effective, secure information management practices that protect organisations and ensure their compliance with data protection, privacy and computer misuse regulations. The application and use of this standard primarily ensures business continuity, minimising business damage by preventing and reducing the impact of security incidents while maximising business investments and opportunities.

The security practices adopted within Spence & Partners to comply with the accreditation are essential to protect the interests of the firms’ people and its clients in ensuring the secure and safe deployment of IT systems and services.

Brian Spence, Managing Director at Spence & Partners said: “We are proud to be one of the first pension administration companies to meet ISO 27001 compliance criteria standards.

“IT security is becoming increasingly paramount – given the volume and importance of the data which firms such as ours hold on file and we felt it was essential to obtain this accreditation. We believe the assurance we can offer clients through this high standard of data security will give us a clear advantage against many of our counterparts within the UK pensions industry.”

“This underlines our commitment to setting the standards across our sector and to provide our clients with enhanced levels of service and security.  This commitment spans all levels of Spence & Partners and Dalriada, whether we act as trustees, advisers or are only considering our internal information and processes.”

To help undertake the compliance project in a very tight timescale, Spence & Partners brought in external consultants Cimaomega.

Gillian Esquivel, Director at Cimaomega said: “This project has been completed at an accelerated pace and is a credit to everyone working directly and indirectly on it. This underlines Spence & Partners’ commitment to invest for the benefit of their clients.”
(ENDS)

For further information please contact Bill Shaw on 07974 720669 or bill@billshaw.uk.com

Alas, just as we thought everyone had forgotten about Angela Eagle’s announcement last January, out come the DWP with proposed legislation and methodology for the equalisation of GMP. We could debate as to whether there is a legal requirement under European Law to equalise GMP at all, with some arguments against including GMP merely being a benefit underpin or that it is a quasi state benefit and therefore exempt.

My own opinion would be that there should be no requirement to equalise GMP until the DWP equalises the state benefit it was created to mirror (SERPS).

The powers that be have decided what must be done and into which valley we charge. And charge we must. GMP equalisation will be relatively costly from both the standpoint of calculation expenses and that of increased liabilities. As with all benefit audit and equalisation exercises the costs are greatly reliant on the quality of Scheme data and the length of time they take to complete. It is almost guaranteed that most, if not all, DB schemes that were contracted out pre 1997 will need some assistance from HMRC. Therefore it makes sense for trustees to be identifying their data shortfalls early to allow them to join the HMRC queue as soon as they can.

At Spence & Partners we have a dedicated team who are very experienced with how to deal efficiently with HMRC regarding the reconciliation of GMP and contracting out records, including the data required for GMP equalisation projects.