| answer text |
<p> </p><p>Earlier this year I met with the Union leadership and agreed to their request
for the Government Actuary's Department to cost alternative pension scheme designs
for them. Emails received from the Union's consulting actuary set out a range of alternative
scheme designs to be costed on behalf of the Union. Each of these alternative scheme
designs concerned variations on the early retirement factors for firefighters who
retired before age 60. In each instance the Department provided the letters from the
Government Actuary's Department to the Union at the earliest possible point in time.
No other proposals were costed by the Government Actuary's Department and the Union
did not request the preparation of any other costings.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>These
costings were conducted during a period of constructive discussion and the Union leadership
knew we were considering these proposals. I had been clear that it was only possible
to consider such proposals during a period when strike action was in abeyance. Rather
than continue and finalise that constructive process the Union leadership chose to
call a halt to them prematurely by announcing further unnecessary strike action.</p><p>
</p><p> </p><p> </p><p>The Fire Brigades Union has launched a correspondence campaign
to release this information, which is odd given that it is information that they already
hold. To provide transparency over the process, I am publishing copies of the relevant
papers on the firefighter pensions webpage at: <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/firefighters-pension-scheme-reforms"
target="_blank">https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/firefighters-pension-scheme-reforms</a>
and will place copies in the Library of the House.</p><p> </p>
|
|
