Pension Dispute

James Cleverly (Chairman, LFEPA):  I do not think that would be reasonable, but that is not the position that we find ourselves in, either in London or nationally.  The proposals that are being put forward for a revised pension plan for firefighters do have a number of elements to it, one of which is the maintenance of the 2006 pension arrangements whereby the normal retirement age for firefighters is 60 and there is an actuarially reduced pension if they retire earlier than that on whatever ground.  That position is no different to the current position for the 2006 pension.  The ‘no job, no pension’ phrase, whilst a good sound-bite, is not reflective of the situation that is currently in place and that is going to be maintained with the 2015 scheme.

 

Fiona Twycross (AM):  The Government’s own views demonstrated that two thirds of firefighters could end up having to retire on grounds of ill-health under the changes and that has been very clear from the review that they commissioned.  I think the public thinks that the proposals are unfair, so I am slightly surprised that you have a different view on that.  I wondered if you could comment on whether you would support us pushing for London’s firefighters, and actually all firefighters, getting a similar deal to that put on the table by the Scottish Government, which has committed to no firefighter facing dismissal in response to failing a fitness test.  Do you think it is fair that north of the border firefighters will be protected the way that firefighters in England and in London will not?

 

James Cleverly (Chairman, LFEPA):  There are a number of points that were brought up during that question.  I will try to address them all in turn.

 

You mentioned about the proposals that would see two thirds of firefighters failing a fitness test from the Williams [Normal Pension Age for Firefighters] Review.  I do not recognise that as a position.  The VO₂ max fitness test, which is the one referenced in that, is not the fitness test that we use in London, so the findings of that are largely irrelevant to London firefighters.  That is not the fitness test that we use.

 

Fitness thresholds are set locally, so the idea that a single measure would see two thirds of firefighters, whether in London or anywhere else, fail is wrong.  In the conversations I have had with my colleagues around the country, there is no expectation of having a single fitness measure which is non-age specific.  My understanding was that the Williams Review fitness threshold was for entrants.  In the same way, the armed forces have fitness tests; they have age‑specific fitness tests.  That, I suspect, would be the case across the country.

 

Indeed, someone who is not able to hit a particular threshold on a locally-defined fitness test would not be let go just because they failed a fitness test.  There would be a period of remedial fitness.  If it is just the case that they have lost their physical fitness, it will be a case of remedial fitness.  If there was an underlying medical condition, then that would be a whole different procedure in terms of medical retirement.  With regard to the line that two thirds of firefighters would lose their jobs for failing a fitness test, again, it is a premise that I do not agree with.

 

Fiona Twycross (AM):  We will have to disagree on that figure because I am very clear that the Government’s own review demonstrates that up to two thirds of firefighters could be adversely affected by this, notwithstanding what you say about local circumstances.  I wondered; have you lobbied the Government to ask them to sit down with the firefighters and negotiate a settlement to this?  Obviously, this is not a dispute between the London Fire Brigade or LFEPA and the Fire Brigades Union (FBU).  This is a dispute between the Government which is trying to reduce the cost of the pensions bill, effectively, and the firefighters who have put their careers into protecting the communities.  By whatever measure, they are facing a reduced pension and reduced pension rights.  Have you lobbied the Government on this?

 

James Cleverly (Chairman, LFEPA):  First of all, you are very right to highlight the fact that this is not a London issue.  This is a national dispute.  I speak regularly with the Government about the implications of the dispute on the London Fire Brigade and the effect that the dispute has on Londoners.  Obviously, I am as keen as everybody else to see this dispute settled and to see it settled in a way which best addresses the concerns of both the Government and firefighters.  I do not imagine that that is a position that is different to anyone else.

 

What I am not necessarily going to do is agree with your interpretation of all the elements of that.  The message that I would take to the Government perhaps might not be the same as the message you would take, but I do make it clear that this industrial action is disruptive to the work of the London Fire Brigade.  It is not good for Londoners.  It is not good for the individual firefighters themselves and I am very keen to see it resolved.

 

Fiona Twycross (AM):  I would be keen for you to actually push for protection for the firefighters as well as just for the resolution of the dispute.

 

James Cleverly (Chairman, LFEPA):  Sorry, there was a point that did bring me on to that, the second half of your previous question about the deal in Scotland.  I think that is a really important point.  There is no additional money going to the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service for the deal that they have put in.  It is a ring-fenced sum of money, so whatever money they allocate to their future pension liability will have to come out of their fire and rescue budget in the here and now.  That is a balance that they have taken in that direction and that is something that would need to be considered with any deal that was put on the table.  There is no additional money to Scotland for the deal they have put on the table.

 

Fiona Twycross (AM):  What they have put on the table is a guarantee.

 

James Cleverly (Chairman, LFEPA):  Yes, but it has come out of a ring‑fenced budget.  Money that they are spending in the future on pensions will ultimately have to come out of the money that they would be spending on the day and now firefighting.

 

Fiona Twycross (AM):  I do not think that is necessarily true.

 

James Cleverly (Chairman, LFEPA):  That is definitely true.

 

Fiona Twycross (AM):  We are not going to agree on that because I think that the Scottish Government has put on the table a guarantee.

 

James Cleverly (Chairman, LFEPA):  Yes, but it has come out of a ring-fenced budget, so there is no additional money for that guarantee, so they are moving money from operational firefighting into paying for pensions.  That is the choice that they have made and I am not going to second-guess that choice, but there is no additional money.

 

Fiona Twycross (AM):  We have had discussions about pots of money before in relation to the fire cuts and the fact that a pot of money can be as big as somebody determines it is, so ultimately at some stage in the future, if the pot of money is not enough to cover both the pensions and the fire service in Scotland, that pot of money by the Scottish Government’s guarantee would be increased.

 

James Cleverly (Chairman, LFEPA):  It might be increased.

 

Fiona Twycross (AM):  It might be?  If they have a guarantee, they have a guarantee.

 

James Cleverly (Chairman, LFEPA):  There is no guarantee.

 

Fiona Twycross (AM):  I would like to move on to the underlying tenor of the pension changes.  I just wondered whether you thought the pension changes are flawed, given that if the opt-out rate is higher than the 1% - which is quite low - that the Government has assumed, the revised system will not actually deliver the expected £33 million that they are anticipating.  There have been surveys carried out that suggest that up to 27% of firefighters would consider opting out of the pension scheme with 12% very likely to opt out of the pension scheme, given the rising contributions and the impact on their income.  Are you concerned that actually these changes might backfire, given the increase in the contributions?

 

James Cleverly (Chairman, LFEPA):  No pension arrangement is absolutely perfect or can give absolute certainty.  If anyone was able to put forward a pension structure that gave absolute certainty, there would not be these periodic reviews because you would have had it right, you would have certainty and you would not need to change it again.  The fact that circumstances change mean that no one pension structure is absolutely perfect in all respects.

 

I would be very surprised if the opt-out rate were anything like double-digit figures.  Taking it in isolation, I can completely understand.  I have a significant degree of sympathy for firefighters or indeed anyone else who is looking at a less generous pension than the one they currently enjoy.  I do not think there is any dispute that the pension offer that is being put forward is not as financially beneficial as the 2006 one.  There is no debate about that.

 

However, I think if those firefighters looking at the 2015 proposal were to then start measuring that against other pension provisions that they might want to buy into, they will find it very difficult - indeed I suspect probably impossible - to get an alternative pension provision as good as the one that is on the table in 2015.  I would be absolutely amazed if the dropout rate were anything like double figures.

 

Fiona Twycross (AM):  Even if it is slightly higher and the 1% figure that the Government is basing these changes on is flawed, given that 143 firefighters opted out of the 2006 scheme in 2011 and 2012, which is 2.8%, obviously a lot less than 27% but significantly more than 1% in the scheme of things, the Government figures are incredibly over-optimistic about the dropout rate.

 

James Cleverly (Chairman, LFEPA):  It is worth bearing in mind that the difference between the 1992 pension deal and the 2006 pension deal was a much more significant change than between the 2006 and the 2015.

 

Fiona Twycross (AM):  This was the dropout rate in 2011 and 2012.  This is not even the dropout rate when the changes were made.  It was 2011 and 2012, so it is a cumulative dropout rate.  Anyway, I am going to leave it at that because I know other people want to come in on this, but I would urge you to push the Government to sit down again and negotiate properly.

 

James Cleverly (Chairman, LFEPA):  I have just been informed they are actually meeting today.  In this regard, amongst any Member of LFEPA in the conversations I have had with people cross-party, or any of the members of senior management, or anyone in Government or indeed the firefighters I have spoken to - whether they are formerly officers of the FBU or current member - I do not feel there is any desire to prolong this industrial action.

 

The tone that has been taken during this industrial action by union members has been noticeably less confrontational than in previous industrial actions, which I take as very much a sign of goodwill.  There is a genuine desire to get a result rather than to have a row.  I take that as a very good signal.  I do think there is a genuine desire to get a result.  I am not suggesting necessarily when that result might come about.  As I say, I am not privy to those negotiations directly, but I do very much get the view that everyone in this situation is trying to get a result.

 

Fiona Twycross (AM):  OK.

 

Andrew Dismore (AM):  I think you said when I was just listening to you, James, that there is going to be age-specific fitness tests that will be set locally.  Was that right?

 

James Cleverly (Chairman, LFEPA):  No, what I said was each fire authority is responsible for whatever fitness arrangement it chooses to put in place and I would be very surprised if there were not some recognition of age in those fitness tests.

 

Andrew Dismore (AM):  Does that mean that a firefighter aged 59 who is operationally on a station would not have to make the same fitness standards as a firefighter aged, say, 45 or 55?

 

James Cleverly (Chairman, LFEPA):  It is not up to me as an individual to decide what those bandings might be and all that kind of stuff, so I am not going to be drawn into whether there would be bandings at 45 or 55.

 

Andrew Dismore (AM):  It may be that that is a question for Ron.

 

Ron Dobson CBE QFSM (Commissioner for Fire and Emergency Planning):  Within the current dispute, there is an issue being discussed ‑‑

 

Andrew Dismore (AM):  It is a straightforward question, Ron.  Does it mean that the fitness standards that would be imposed on an operational firefighter aged 59 are going to be different to those imposed on a younger firefighter?

 

Ron Dobson CBE QFSM (Commissioner for Fire and Emergency Planning):  Unless there is a national fitness standard introduced, which is part of the current discussions that are taking place.  That is the point I was trying to make.  At the moment, there are discussions as part of this dispute about there being a national fitness standard for firefighters.  There is a conversation taking place by the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) around that at the moment.

 

Andrew Dismore (AM):  It is the age-specific thing I am asking about.

 

Ron Dobson CBE QFSM (Commissioner for Fire and Emergency Planning):  That is what I am trying to answer.  In terms of that, the LFEPA response to that is that there should not be a national fitness standard because it discriminates against women.  Whether or not that is going to be the case in terms of whether the Government does introduce that, if there was a national fitness standard, everybody regardless of their role and their age would need to meet that fitness standard.  We do not think that is the right way to go.  We think it should be different dependent on people’s roles and dependent on people’s ages.  That is the way it should be done, I believe.

 

Andrew Dismore (AM):  The question I am getting at is pretty obvious.  Are you going to have two operational firefighters who are on the same pump having to meet different fitness standards?

 

Ron Dobson CBE QFSM (Commissioner for Fire and Emergency Planning):  To some extent, we already do, yes.

 

Andrew Dismore (AM):  The real risk, I suppose, then, to people who are relying on the fire service is that you may end up with firefighters who are less fit for the job because of their age.  That is the logical conclusion.

 

Ron Dobson CBE QFSM (Commissioner for Fire and Emergency Planning):  Less fit than somebody who might be 45 and have a high level of fitness, but there would be a standard which people need to achieve regardless of their age.

 

Andrew Dismore (AM):  The logical conclusion of what you are saying is you will have lower expectations of two firefighters on the same pump.

 

Ron Dobson CBE QFSM (Commissioner for Fire and Emergency Planning):  Probably, yes, which we already do.

 

Andrew Dismore (AM):  Do you think that is fair to people out there?  Are they going to be rescued by people who are, frankly, going to be a bit past it?

 

Ron Dobson CBE QFSM (Commissioner for Fire and Emergency Planning):  The answer to that is no because at the moment people do work until they are 60 already and those people meet the fitness standards.  People out there today will in some cases - not very many cases, I have to say - have firefighters who are 60 or approaching 60 and attending fires now.  They are obviously available because they are fit enough.

 

Andrew Dismore (AM):  How many operational firefighters on the fire stations, riding the pumps - as opposed to officers, who obviously have always had a higher retirement age because of the differential between officers and operational firefighters - are aged 60 in London?

 

Ron Dobson CBE QFSM (Commissioner for Fire and Emergency Planning):  I cannot give you a number right now, but I can get that number for you.

 

Andrew Dismore (AM):  Roughly?

 

Ron Dobson CBE QFSM (Commissioner for Fire and Emergency Planning):  It is impossible to say.  Not very many.

 

Andrew Dismore (AM):  It is not very many, is it?

 

Ron Dobson CBE QFSM (Commissioner for Fire and Emergency Planning):  I admit it is not very many.

 

Andrew Dismore (AM):  No, not very many.  It is a bit misleading, is it not, to suggest that that is significant?

 

Ron Dobson CBE QFSM (Commissioner for Fire and Emergency Planning):  No, there are firefighters who are approaching that age.

 

Andrew Dismore (AM):  What estimate have you made of the number of firefighters who are going to have to retire before the age of 60 if this thing goes through on fitness grounds?

 

Ron Dobson CBE QFSM (Commissioner for Fire and Emergency Planning):  I cannot give you what the estimate is because, in our view, people will be able to maintain their fitness.  Some people will not and, as I say, they will be able to --

 

Andrew Dismore (AM):  How many people now retire before the age of 55, then, on fitness grounds?

 

Ron Dobson CBE QFSM (Commissioner for Fire and Emergency Planning):  Most people.

 

Andrew Dismore (AM):  Most people retire before the age of 55 now, so there are going to be even more retiring before age of 60, will there not?

 

Ron Dobson CBE QFSM (Commissioner for Fire and Emergency Planning):  Possibly, yes.

 

Andrew Dismore (AM):  It stands to reason, does it not?  I am not trying to fence with you.  I am just putting simple questions to you.  It stands to reason that there are a lot more people between 55 and 60, does it not?

 

Ron Dobson CBE QFSM (Commissioner for Fire and Emergency Planning):  Yes.

 

Andrew Dismore (AM):  Yes, exactly.  What is going to happen to their pensions under this scheme?  How much will they lose?

 

Ron Dobson CBE QFSM (Commissioner for Fire and Emergency Planning):  Under the current proposals, if they retire on grounds where they cannot meet the fitness standard through no fault of their own, they will be able to take an actuarially reduced pension.

 

Andrew Dismore (AM):  How much will they lose?

 

Ron Dobson CBE QFSM (Commissioner for Fire and Emergency Planning):  It depends on their age.  It ranges from about 40% down to about 24%, depending on what their age is.

 

Andrew Dismore (AM):  A significant chunk of their pension will be lost under these proposals?

 

Ron Dobson CBE QFSM (Commissioner for Fire and Emergency Planning):  If they could not meet the fitness standard, yes.

 

Andrew Dismore (AM):  Exactly.  Of course, if you are an officer, you can go until 60 because the fitness demands of you are going to be less, are they not?

 

Ron Dobson CBE QFSM (Commissioner for Fire and Emergency Planning):  You still need to meet fitness demands.  Officers still have to get a full medical.

 

Andrew Dismore (AM):  At the moment, it is one rule for senior officers and another for people in fire stations.  This is just going to make it worse.

 

Ron Dobson CBE QFSM (Commissioner for Fire and Emergency Planning):  No, I do not agree with that.

 

Andrew Dismore (AM):  You do not agree it is one rule for senior officers?

 

Ron Dobson CBE QFSM (Commissioner for Fire and Emergency Planning):  No, I do not.

 

Andrew Dismore (AM):  What about your own position?

 

Ron Dobson CBE QFSM (Commissioner for Fire and Emergency Planning):  I had a medical three months ago and I met the fitness standard, the same fitness standard that firefighters have to meet.

 

Andrew Dismore (AM):  Under the proposals, you are able to retire at the age of 52, are you not?

 

Ron Dobson CBE QFSM (Commissioner for Fire and Emergency Planning):  I am on a different pension scheme.

 

Andrew Dismore (AM):  Exactly.  It is not fair, is it?

 

Ron Dobson CBE QFSM (Commissioner for Fire and Emergency Planning):  We all join at different times, unfortunately.

 

Andrew Dismore (AM):  Yes, but it is not fair on the people under your command that some are going to lose 40% of their pension and you are able to take a big payoff and keep your job.

 

Ron Dobson CBE QFSM (Commissioner for Fire and Emergency Planning):  I do not think it is about me personally, is it?

 

Andrew Dismore (AM):  It is not about you personally.

 

Ron Dobson CBE QFSM (Commissioner for Fire and Emergency Planning):  That is the question you have just asked.

 

Andrew Dismore (AM):  The point I am putting to you is about senior officers having a much more beneficial arrangement than for the guys and girls on the pumps.

 

Ron Dobson CBE QFSM (Commissioner for Fire and Emergency Planning):  No, it is not because the vast majority of firefighters in London are still on the 1992 scheme and will have absolutely no difference made to their pension arrangements.  Nobody will be affected by this until 2022 anyway.

 

Stephen Knight (AM):  As you said, this dispute is entirely really between the Government and firefighters.  The Fire Brigade as an employer is caught in the middle.  Mr Cleverly said that the current dispute has been less confrontational than some previous disputes, no doubt for that very reason.

 

There have nevertheless been some issues that have come up, most notably of course the difference of view over the major incident protocol which occurred around the fire in Dagenham on 1 November during strike action.  I wonder if you can tell us a bit about the circumstances around why that fire was designated as a major incident.

 

Ron Dobson CBE QFSM (Commissioner for Fire and Emergency Planning):  The officer that actually called that as a major incident was a police officer.  The police Silver Command [tactical level of decision making at incidents] about the incident actually designated it as a major incident from a police perspective.  I was not at the command during it or at the Silver meeting, so it is very difficult to double-guess what decisions people made on the incident on the ground and we should be very careful around doing that.  As I understand it, the police officer at the incident had decided to call it as a major incident because of the time of day, the traffic congestion on the A13 and the fact that smoke plume was crossing the A13 and he was very concerned about that causing accidents and people being less safe on the A13.  It was actually crossing the flight path for aircraft coming into the city and some other reasons apparently which were much more local.  The officer in charge of the police at the time called it a major incident, as a result of which we instituted our major incident recall which was previously agreed with the Fire Brigades Union, so it was quite straightforward and it was not the Fire Brigade that called it as a major incident.  It was actually the police.

 

Stephen Knight (AM):  Thank you for that.  Was the impending strike action, do you think, a factor potentially in that decision and the fact that a number of firefighters would be imminently walking off the site?  Was that a factor perhaps in the designation as a major incident?

 

Ron Dobson CBE QFSM (Commissioner for Fire and Emergency Planning):  Once again, I cannot say what was in the police officer’s mind specifically, but I am sure that he would have assessed that actually, if the firefighters were going to walk away, the chance was for the fire to get larger and therefore the danger to the people on the A13 and to the air traffic control might be increased, it may have been a factor in his decision-making, yes.

 

Stephen Knight (AM):  As you know, the FBU took a view that the major incident did not meet the criteria under the major incident protocol that they had agreed with you.  I do not know whether you know why they took that view, but I do notice that the protocol which I have in front of me says, “No incident shall be regarded as a major incident unless it would have been regarded as such irrespective of the FBU strike action”.  Your answer may, I suppose, give some idea as to why the FBU took the view that this would not have been deemed a major incident.

 

The issue for Londoners is really that it is not good for there to be a disagreement between the Fire Brigade and staff over what does and does not constitute a major incident and therefore where officers will return to duty during a strike action and where they will not.  What are you doing to sit down with the FBU and thrash out what went wrong in this situation and reassure them that the agreement is working properly and reassure yourselves that actually the agreement is working properly for the protection of Londoners?

 

Darren Johnson (Chair):  Can I ask for a very quick answer on that?  We are straying well away from the pension dispute now and going more into industrial relations generally, which is your question on the order paper.  If we can have a very quick answer to that, it is something we can explore later on in the agenda.

 

Ron Dobson CBE QFSM (Commissioner for Fire and Emergency Planning):  Just very briefly, there is an agreement at national level with the FBU about recalls to duty.  The agreement we had in place in London was based very closely on that and therefore our view was that it was an agreement which was very clear.  There have been meetings with the FBU since then.  We have listened to what they are saying, we have listened to the changes they want to make and we are looking for further meetings with the FBU to try to resolve this matter before there is any further industrial action.

 

Roger Evans (Deputy Chairman):  I want to cover a couple of points for clarity, really.  Commissioner, can you tell us?  If someone does fail the fitness test, what is the procedure that is put in place to get them back on track?  Also, can you tell us how difficult it would be for someone under 60 to actually maintain the level of fitness required?

 

Ron Dobson CBE QFSM (Commissioner for Fire and Emergency Planning):  The process is that people take a fitness assessment.  If they fail that fitness assessment, they are given support by internal fitness advisers, by our medical adviser and by a range of other people to assist them in returning to the level of fitness we need for them to be an operational firefighter.  That is something that routinely takes place in the brigade for people at all ages for various reasons; so people coming back from hospitalisation, from operations and things like that or people just for various reasons whose fitness has dropped off.  We provide that to everybody routinely and that is something we do already.  That would continue.

 

Obviously, as someone gets older, it is more difficult for them to maintain a higher level of fitness.  I think that is a medical fact.  As I said before, we do have people, not only in London but elsewhere, who are 60 or approaching 60 and who do manage to maintain that level of fitness.  There may well be fewer people who can do that at that point, but those people once they get to 55 will be able to take an actuarially‑reduced pension if they want to.

 

The other issue, of course, is the issue of 54 because there is no magic switch at 55 when suddenly you become less fit or it is more difficult.  Actually, my concern more is people at 53 and 54 who, through no fault of their own cannot meet the fitness standard.  They are the ones who may be asked to retire without any pension because they will not be able to take an actuarially‑reduced one.

 

Roger Evans (Deputy Chairman):  That is useful.  Can you tell us to inform the debate, really?  You have contingency measures in place to cover for this particular dispute.  What are those contingency measures costing Londoners?

 

Ron Dobson CBE QFSM (Commissioner for Fire and Emergency Planning):  At the moment, the net cost is about £1.9 million.

 

Roger Evans (Deputy Chairman):  So far?

 

Ron Dobson CBE QFSM (Commissioner for Fire and Emergency Planning):  So far.

 

Darren Johnson (Chair):  Thank you.  We will then move on to the second question on the order paper today, which is in the name of Assembly Member Tracey but Assembly Member Evans will be pursuing the line of questioning.