Dear Brother/Sister
The Fire Minister has once again written to all firefighters in England regarding the current situation. Once again, we answer the claims in a commentary on the latest Open Letter.
Penny Mordaunt: I am truly sorry that those of you who are members of the Fire Brigades Union have been asked once again to undertake strike action on the 25th February. This latest action is not about the issues surrounding the pensions' dispute, but introduce, a new and completely artificial complaint.
FBU: Firefighters do not want to take strike action. The responsibility for this lies with the Government which continues to ignore the evidence and plough on with their proposals. In other parts of the UK strikes have been avoided through genuine negotiations but this is simply not been the case with DCLG. The claim that the complaint is new and artificial is simply not the case. We have been raising the No Job No Pension issue for over two years and included it in our trade dispute. The Government initially accused us of scaremongering but then recognised it was a real issue and tried to overcome it with the Parliamentary 'guarantee' which both the FBU and the employers have agreed is not deliverable.
Penny Mordaunt: Working until 60 was part of the 2006 scheme, and no protections were put in place for older workers.
FBU: This is very misleading and inaccurate. The 2006 scheme was imposed with a recognition that if a firefighter could not work until age 60 they could be redeployed. We raised concerns about it at the time and have subsequently proved that these redeployments do not exist.
At the time there were protections for current scheme members in the form of ring-fencing. DCLG have ripped up the ring-fencing agreement and replaced it with a reduced protection which only covers firefighters who were within 10 years of their Normal Pension Age on 1 April 2012. This has removed protection for thousands of firefighters who were protected in 2006.
Penny Mordaunt: What we have done is add to what was agreed then with improved protection and better actuarial reduction rates for those who want to retire earlier.
FBU: to claim that protection has been improved when it has clearly been worsened will anger the thousands of FBU members affected. The actuarial reductions proposed by DCLG are still unacceptable and mean that a firefighter who is forced to retire at 55 will get a reduction of almost a quarter of their pension while in Wales and Scotland a firefighter in the same situation will see a much fairer reduction of around 9%. The FBU has tried to negotiate this for firefighters in England as we did in Wales and Scotland but DCLG simply refused even though it is deliverable ' even within the current cost restrictions imposed.
Penny Mordaunt: Despite Dr Williams finding that there is no reason why all firefighters could not remain operational until 60 and the fact that we already have 1,000 firefighters over 55 and haven't seen a single dismissal on fitness grounds, I decided to introduce further protections for older workers.
FBU: Again, this is inaccurate and misleading. What Dr Williams actually wrote was based on current practices of setting a standard of 42VO2 max but allowing firefighters to remain operational at 35VO2 max would ensure that 100% of firefighters who remain physically active will still be operational at age 60 assuming they remain free from injury and disease.
However the safe recommended standard for firefighting adopted by the majority of FRAs is 42VO2 max and individuals below this are usually selected for remedial training for a short period of time only. A recent report 'Enhancing the Health, fitness and performance of UK firefighters' from the Department for Health, University of Bath, identified that.
The general fitness standards within the UK FRS are a predicted VO2 max of 42 mL.kg-1.min-1, below which an individual may continue work but is advised to improve fitness; and 35 mL.kg-1.min-1, below which an individual is deemed unacceptable for work until they attain a suitable standard from remedial training€¦
The present study indicates that firefighters with an aerobic capacity below an occupational fitness standard of 42.3 mL kg-1.min-1 would not be guaranteed to be safe and effective in their ability to complete necessary roles within their occupation. Although this does not greatly differ from the current fitness standard of 42 mL.kg-1.min-1, it does indicate that the lower VO2 max standard of 35mL.kg-1.min-1 for continuation of work with remedial training amongst operational firefighters is potentially unsafe for the majority of firefighters.
This recent report indicates that allowing firefighters to remain operational below the safe recommended standard is potentially unsafe. The DCLG claim about all firefighters remaining operational until age 60 is based on these potentially unsafe levels. DCLG and the Minister are either unaware of the latest research on fitness issue ' or they deliberately ignore it.
The claim that there are 1,000 firefighters above the age of 55 is not relevant to the argument. The Minister does not give any details on the roles of these firefighters, or whether or not they are tested regularly. In fact Government's own figures show that data collected from four Fire Authorities showed that at age 55-60 years, 66% (70 of the 106) were below the recommended safe fitness standard. If this were consistent across the 1,000 firefighters that DCLG claim are working beyond age 55 it would mean that 660 of the 1,000 were actually below the recommended safe standard.
Penny Mordaunt: I did this because without these assurances people might want to leave the Service early for fear that they would not be able to enjoy a full career. I want firefighters to be confident that their employers and the Government will support them to work to their Normal Pension Age.
FBU: Firefighters needed the guarantee that the Minister provided in Parliament. This clear and firm assurance influenced the vote and ensured the legislation was supported. However now it has passed the Minister has altered her position and states that employers still have the ultimate decision.
Penny Mordaunt: We looked at a range of ways of doing this with the FBU. Because there is no one fitness standard common to all Fire Services in England we could not employ exactly the same route used in Scotland - but we could amend the National Framework to require Fire and Rescue Authorities to have regard to the steps of providing support for firefighters to regain fitness, or to consider redeployment or the provision of an unreduced pension. This amendment to the National Framework came into force on 12 January and is now law. Part of the force of the protection is created by this: previously the FRA did not have to go through that process, now they must. The SI states they 'will'. It is not optional.
FBU: We have consistently told Government that the National Framework route would not provide the guarantee firefighters require. This was supported by our legal advice and was also the view of the National Employers. This was confirmed to DCLG on numerous occasions.
The FBU response to the consultation on the amended Framework highlighted this as did the response from the National Employers.
The reality is that a Fire and Rescue Authority must have regard to the National Framework. This is confirmed in a letter from the Minister to coalition MPs dated 26 January 2015. Even if a Fire Authority decides to adhere to the Framework it is worded so that the FRA still has the discretion to award an unreduced pension or not. The National Employers and local employers have confirmed that they are unable to fetter (limit) this discretion and will consider each case on its own merit and will not be able to provide the guarantee suggested by the Fire Minister.
What is legally required is that each FRA must have regard to the Framework and must consider awarding an unreduced pension in the circumstances outlined. This is not the promise that was made by Penny Mordaunt in Parliament and not the guarantee that influenced the vote to support the 2015 pension legislation.
Penny Mordaunt: The fitness principles themselves should ensure that firefighters who do not have an underlying ill-health condition, will remain in work until they are 60 and this should provide firefighters with greater confidence. However, in the unlikely event that a firefighter is not eligible for ill-health retirement and fails a fitness test, with no redeployment opportunities available, then the Secretary of State and I have been crystal clear - they should be offered an unreduced pension
FBU: The word to focus on here is 'should'. It is used to say that firefighters in this situation who do not qualify for ill-health retirements should feel more confident that they should be offered either a redeployment opportunity or an unreduced pension. MPs and firefighters were told in Parliament that they 'will' get an unreduced pension in this situation. The Minister's previous 'will' has become 'should'
Penny Mordaunt: The National Employers with, we expect, union input, need to devise what the process looks like for people in that position, and I am pleased to say that they have agreed to start work on looking at the processes involved. They have seven years before the process needs to be in place, but we have stressed to them that the earlier this can be devised the better - you need to see how this will happen. The National Employers have a meeting with my Department to talk through this in early March and I expect them to make swift progress after that. DCLG will audit compliance with the new fitness principles in the Framework and if we find Fire and Rescue Authorities not complying, the Secretary of State has the powers to intervene. That process and the auditing of compliance completes the protections we have introduced.
FBU: This is a simple case of Government creating a huge problem and expecting someone else to resolve it. They are trying to put off any decision for years.
The Employers have made it clear in writing that they are unable to provide the guarantee that Government have made. Government were made aware of this before the debate and before they made their promise - so they have no excuse.
The most accurate part of this whole letter is contained in this paragraph and is a point that we have been stressing for a considerable length of time. It is that firefighters need to be assured that the guarantee will be delivered now when many are making a decision for the future. Firefighters need to know if there is a guarantee or not and if they are facing an uncertain future. Government are dodging the issue and saying that the Employers and the union need to devise a remedy. This is totally inappropriate. Government are imposing the scheme, have been made aware from both the Employers and the FBU that their assurances are undeliverable but they are just offloading the responsibility and attempting to confuse the issue completely. What is absolutely clear is that the Government guarantee of using the Framework does not provide the assurance necessary to firefighters. This has been confirmed to them by us and by the Employers but still they refuse to accept the inevitable.
The audit is completely inadequate as all any FRA has to do to comply with the Framework is to say that it considered awarding an unreduced pension in these circumstances but decided not to. The Secretary of State cannot enforce them awarding one in these circumstances so the only losers will be the firefighters involved as we have always maintained.
Penny Mordaunt: The work of the fitness group itself, facilitated by the Chief Fire and Rescue Adviser, will also open up further avenues for consideration, including the fitness required for specific roles, as well as exploring the appetite amongst Fire and Rescue Authorities for a national fitness standard. In advance of that work we have no other option to create something different. If there were something further we could do now, we would have done it.
FBU: The Government is imposing a scheme that is unworkable with a sham guarantee that depends on the appetite of local Fire and Rescue Authorities for any national fitness standard. It depends on them being good employers and the fact that they should consider awarding an unreduced pension if firefighters age 55 cannot maintain operational fitness or be redeployed. They are trying to offload the responsibility by claiming that if they could do more they would. Well there is more they can do and we are constantly reminding them of this. Lord Hutton did not say impose an NPA of 60 he said 'consider' an NPA of 60. Government have been provided with a copious amount of evidence that shows why it was unworkable but they ignored it and pressed on regardless. Now they are saying: It's not our fault; we would like to do more but we can't. In contrast to this the Northern Ireland Government did - they set an NPA of 55. The Scottish Government have mitigated the impact of the NPA 60. The Welsh Government have mitigated the impact of the NPA 60. English Government have not and have refused to accept any of our suggested remedies. They can act even at this late stage. Their actions are a result of their decisions.
Penny Mordaunt: It is vital that the whole of the fire family: the professional service, the authorities, industry and the unions are focused on the challenges that lie ahead in continuing to deliver a world class service and the adaptations that will require in the forthcoming years. We need serious engagement on these fundamentally important issues.
Instead the FBU have created an artificial row, deliberately misrepresenting the facts, campaigning against an improvement to firefighter protections to a pension age with which they were content with 2006.
FBU: This is not an artificial row, it is a genuine concern of firefighters. It is a concern we have been raising for a number of years and it still has not been addressed. We are confident to stand by our facts and we have challenged Government to counter any of our claims. The Government is currently refusing to meet us to discuss our concerns. We have demonstrated how Government has misled Parliament in relation to this issue. We have always opposed the NPA of 60 but have shown ways that it could be mitigated.
Penny Mordaunt: There has been plenty of debate and improvement over more than two years and the scheme comes into force in less than six weeks. The pension regulations were not revoked following the vote in December and there is no opportunity now to change it before it other than causing disruption for the general public. The further strike action you have been asked to embark upon will serve no useful purpose. I am disappointed that the leadership of the Fire Brigades Union appears not to recognise this, nor the predicament facing individual firefighters as they are once again asked to compromise their dedication to their communities and lose pay.
I will continue to do all I can to avoid such action, and to keep you informed.
FBU: The legislation was supported following a guarantee given by the Minister that a firefighter facing a decline in fitness would be guaranteed an unreduced pension or a redeployed role. The Government can amend the legislation at any time. Indeed this happens regularly (for example changes in relation to temporary promotions, pensionable pay and other issues). This will not cause any disruption to the general public and to claim so is disingenuous.
It is absolutely clear that the current situation is entirely the responsibility of the Westminster Government. The Executive Council will review the situation following our most recent strike action and advise members of plans, particularly with the approach of the General Election.
Best wishes.
Yours fraternally
Matt Wrack
General Secretary
Circular ref
2015HOC0163MW
