SUBMISSION

Download in Format

Proposals to amend existing Firefighters’ Pension Scheme
& Government proposals for New Firefighters’ Pension Scheme

Introduction

Whilst considering the proposals for existing and new members in the FPS we must initially review why there is a requirement to consider change in the scheme and how we got to where we are at the present time.

The Firefighters Pension Scheme (referred to as FPS) is statutory government legislation since 1925 with the Fire Brigades Pension Act 1925, further changes since with the Fire Service Act 1947 section 26, Fire Services Act 1959 section 8, Firemen Pension Scheme 1973, 1992 and various amendments including the most recent The Firemen's Pension Scheme (Amendment) Order 2004. Other Government pension legislation has also affected the FPS.

Bodies that advise Government departments over the Firemen’s Pension Scheme; Home Office, DTLR and currently the ODPM and other bodies that directly advise Government Ministers, CFBAC Pension Sub Committee from representative bodies have all had significant influences over decisions and changes that have occurred. Directives from Fire Service Circulars have informed Fire Authorities on changes and/or given clarification on legal precedent.

Changes in the scheme have been implemented over time; increases in contribution rates from an initial 5%, to the current 11%, changes in commutation table rates, widows and child/ren pension introduced, transfer of armed forces pensions and transferable private pensions to FPS, no longer compulsory, personal pension available, death grant introduced are a few notable changes.

Therefore legislation forms the basis for the Firefighters Pension Scheme from very beginning, the Fire Brigades Union as the sole recognised trade union in the fire service has represented its members at all levels in representation at medical appeals, medical interviews, legal cases in Crown Court and High Court arenas. The legal precedent established over many years has been due to the professional approach and dedication of FBU members, officials and legal advisors from Thompsons and Barristers. Their expertise and thoroughness has established precedent in the FPS that has benefited all members against the continuous challenging interpretation by certain Fire Authorities and employer groups.

It has to be remembered the courage of members to endure the legal procedure and the legal pension minefield by our legal representatives that have established the precedent that are now currently set.

Where we are

The pension debate is a higher priority by this Government and higher up the political agenda because of the pending national problems they foresee. Amongst the population there is very little understanding of the pension issue, other than we live longer therefore government basic pensions will not cover the life expectancy of pensioners unless something drastic is done very soon.

Personal pensions were introduced in the late 1980’s with high profile and take-up quickly but misused and abuse by the pension and life insurance companies were highlighted. At that time high interest may have produced high dividends and returns, since interest rates have lowered and maintain low the returns on pensions and endowment mortgages have not delivering the basic returns that the advertisements and pension representatives stated. Proven miss-selling and their fraudulent methods have been countered by introduction of other government legalisation to combat to rectify and assure people of their entitlements.

The FPS concept rather than an investment scheme is a ‘pay-as-you-go’ scheme. In the initial years from 1925 to late 1970’s and/or early 1980’s the FPS payments were relatively low and could be afforded by the approach of those employed at that time paid their pension contributions which paid towards pension claimants with the surplus being used by other Council departments and not held in a pension fund for the specific purpose of future claimants. In that initial period clearly pay was low hence pension entitlements were such, changes only occurred when more employees were in the scheme paying more contributions with the significant surplus eroded into other council requirements. It became apparent when more FPS members were at the retirement stage hence more pension payments were liable turning the pension surplus into a deficit. The deficit is now being subsidised by local tax payers paying more Council tax with current FPS member’s contributions.

It could argued in the initial period of the FPS investment of the pension fund was a more attractive and logical method, we cannot disagree with that assumption but we are where we are, but the mistakes of the past have lead us to the situation of today, however bad those decisions were.

The remedies into the spiralling chaos of the FPS began by increasing the contribution rate from 6.75 – 10.75% without any improvement in pension benefits in 1983 thereby the intent was to curb the pension deficit.

An easy and obvious target when others get it wrong by mismanagement is to blame the very people in the scheme, hence the continuous and unrelenting criticism that is levelled at the public sector for their perceived increases in Ill-Health retirements. Why single out the fire service, probably an easy and vulnerable target. High profile and dubious incidents surrounding Police Officers focused attention on their scheme and the methods of seeking early or ill-health retirements gave officialdom reason to review public sector pension schemes. If individual public sector pensions are compared it will not analyse root causes specific to individual employment which vary considerably. The employment issues differ significantly between the fire service and custom and excise as an example, patterns of work, injury risk, types of equipment, training, etc... Although the analysis of pensions provisions are not as polarised.

The fire service had up until the 1980’s no coherent policy on Occupational Health for existing members, fitness and medical standards were relaxed and differing throughout fire brigades, health and safety procedures were only in initial stages, thereby medical issues and preventative health, safety and welfare measures were only in its early development. The fire service has moved forward hence with each fire brigade having an Occupational health unit, distinct operational procedures and the high profile of health and safety preventing serious injury.

The higher profile of pension within County Council or perceptive Fire and Rescue Service budgets is now a taxing and controversial subject for politicians to grapple with whether at the local or national level. Higher pension entitlements to meet the demands of the FPS and the increase in expected retirements mean less finances for the service to the public.

It has been extremely frustrating awaiting the fire service pension explosion, we know it’s about to happen but when, developments from central government have been slow, a snail would have been quicker. No action has meant no concern and no political will, like all politicians and civil servants they talk-the-talk but that’s all, a good ploy when nothings wants to be done. When they do set their will and mind to it they juggle up the type of proposals we are facing. Hence the current and new FPS members are left to pick the pieces of ill-fated decisions by past-administrators, previous-Politicians, previous-civil servants, Government Dept’s, County Councils and Fire Services on miss-spent pension funds, maladministration without the forethought to anticipate the eventuality we currently face.

Stark reality faces existing and new FPS members with the proposals that are no different from those faced by our predecessors;

- Work longer - pay more – get less -

What sort of reality is that when Firefighters have only just fought to achieve a well deserved pay increase?

It is interesting whilst we are subjected to these proposals other public sector workers are receiving different revisions of their scheme;

Police Pension – being ring fenced, no change,

MP’s – increase in their entitlements, increase in contributions to reflect,

Judges – tax avoidance on lump sum entitlement, Lord Faulkner, Constitutional Affairs Minister reviewing under the pressure from Judges of mass resignation.

If we are being subjected to revision of the FPS proposals treat us with the respect we deserve as professional people and with the same respect given to other public sector workers pension schemes.

In 1998 the then Home Secretary Jack Straw introduced the Fire Service pensions review: consultation paper which relatively ‘ring-fenced’ the pension provisions for existing FPS members. It has to be questioned why the government have dramatically changed the intent from 1998 to 2004?

Proposals to amend existing Firefighters’ Pension Scheme

Government Proposals for a NEW Firefighters’ Pension Scheme

Conclusions

The Government proposals for existing and new members of the FPS under the current format should be totally and utterly rejected. They form the basis of alienating Firefighters and Emergency Fire Control Staff within the public sector by slashing their pension entitlements and conditions whilst other such pension reviews are relatively untouched.

The change in direction from Jack Straw in 1998 of a ‘ring-fenced’ position for existing members to 2004 where the devastating and drastic proposals actual mean FPS members have to work longer, pay more and get less entitlements.

The proposals contained in this consultative document are simply another devastating blow to Firefighters and their families. They work in the community and for the public, they are highly praised for their dedication in the face of adversity and greatly appreciation throughout the world for their courage and heroism, politicians hypocritical approach of praise for heroic deeds but propose these stark and devastating changes to the FPS whilst MP’s benefit from their own pension increases in pension entitlement.

The proposals are simply to address the mismanagement of the past, pensions is high on the current political agenda, government are stating that workers can work longer, the retirement age is increased to reflect this social change, why then penalise existing and new FPS members for the misdemeanors of others.

The attitude by some within the service that Operational Firefighters can work past 55 years is a mystery, as an ADO or above perhaps if they meet the required fitness standards, but to crew operational appliances past their 55th birthday is nonsensical and endangering others and themselves. The proposals reflect this factor which is quite illogical within the modern day fire and rescue procedures and mental and fitness standards.

The illusion that FRS’s will have endless amounts of civilian posts to be filled by ill-health firefighters is simply unrealistic, therefore ill-health retirement will have to be treated as they have done before.

The FPS proposals are startling and drastic it dismantles one of the best pension schemes by the best performing government department. Pensions are the corner-stone of a modern civilised society, pensions to emergency service workers paying 11% contributions should be rewarded by a decent scheme with benefits, those benefits have been eroded over time, STOP THE EROSION and STOP the attempt on SLASHING OUR PENSION ENTITLEMENTS.


Peter Miller
Regional Secretary
Southern Region
1.12.4/PEM

Download in Format