Robert Oxley, campaign director at the TaxPayers’ Alliance says YES: 

Hands off our pensions!” – that’s the slogan adorning placards in school staff rooms, union backrooms and now fire stations.

It’s misleading though, as the Government isn’t raiding public sector pensions for a bit of spare change to cover the UK’s spectacular deficit.

No, the real debate is to what extent should taxpayers be paying for retirement deals for others that they could not afford for themselves.

And with everyone living longer, it’s a question that has to be addressed, whether we like it or not.

The Fire Brigades Union, representing those in receipt of one of the most generous pension schemes in the public sector, has taken firefighters out on a national strike in opposition to the Government’s moderate reforms to the firefighters’ pension scheme in England.

They’re trying to frame the debate simply about whether firefighters should be expected to work until they turn 60 (one in three already do), but there is a bigger issue. Who should pay more because we’re all living longer: those on the scheme, or the taxpayers underwriting it with contributions of half a billion pounds a year?

The FBU needs to answer that question, along with others about their tactics.

The choice to cynically strike during the period around Bonfire Night has certainly not won them any friends.

Whatever side you take on pension reforms, putting lives at risk is not the way to get a deal.

Ministers are absolutely right to be reforming public sector pensions. They have, of course, met stiff opposition from intransigent public sector unions, but that is to be expected: unions are there to get the best deal for their members and their members alone.

The problem is, however, that they are a vested interest whose actions are rarely in the interest of the taxpayers footing the bill for union campaigning.

Firefighters certainly deserve our admiration, respect and a decent retirement deal.

Part of their job means that they may be called upon to enter a burning building in order to save someone’s life.

It takes real courage to put yourself at risk to save another. But their pension deal cannot be a sacred cow that is unreflective of changes in their circumstances, the circumstances of the people footing the lion’s share of the bill for the pension pot or indeed the very nature of our ageing population.

Everyone, thankfully, is living longer and we are capable of doing increasingly more as we get older.

Generous pension deals funded by taxpayers should reflect this and that includes those enjoyed by firefighters.

For every pound that a firefighter currently pays into their pension, taxpayers put in five.

To get that kind of deal in the private sector, a firefighter would need to double their contributions.

And after the reforms they will still receive a more generous deal than the police, as they do currently.

So firefighters should reject the calls for further strike action and agree a deal with ministers.

They do an amazing job and deserve a decent pension, but the realities of that pension deal should reflect current realities, rather than being stuck several decades in the past.

 

Steve Allen, Oxfordshire Brigade Secretary, Fire Brigades Union says NO

WHAT do you do when someone breaks a promise; when this broken promise threatens your future and that of your family?

The Government has broken its promise to thousands of firefighters up and down the UK.

It is ripping up their pension agreements and unilaterally trying to impose a new scheme that is unaffordable, unsustainable and unachievable.

The Fire Brigades Union, (FBU) in Oxfordshire is playing its part in a national dispute with central government over this proposed pension scheme.

The FBU has never been opposed to the design of a new pension scheme to meet the needs of the new generation and is keen to resolve this dispute through negotiation but the Government has walked away from the negotiating table. They are refusing to listen.

The proposed pension scheme could mean firefighters putting themselves at risk and endangering the lives of those they are trying to save.

Firefighters are exposed to stressful, arduous and demanding working conditions, requiring high levels of physical and mental fitness.

Hauling heavy gear up flights of stairs, rescuing unconscious people, working in confined spaces, breaking doors down, and lifting long, hefty ladders are examples of ways in which a firefighter’s strength is tested. And it is essential they have the cardio-endurance to conserve air while searching a smoke-filled building wearing breathing apparatus.

Because of the extreme physical fitness demanded of firefighters, the national pensionable age (NPA) has traditionally been 55; this is when the occupational demands of the profession, combined with increasing age make it extremely difficult to maintain the fitness levels required.

The proposed scheme has the retirement age of 60, which is in line with the Public Sector Pensions Bill.

However, a government review into the NPA and fitness levels in fire and rescue services, showed 66 per cent of firefighters in service today would be unable to stay fit enough to carry out the role past the age of 55 – rising to over 90 per cent at 60.

Would you want 60-year-old firefighters trying to rescue your family from a burning building?

One of the strengths of the fire and rescue service is that everyone is trained to do everything.

In an emergency situation that is essential.

So, what do you do with those firefighters who can no longer keep fit?

The Government says firefighters no longer fit for operational duties would be redeployed into ‘back-office’ roles.

However, decades of cuts and efficiency savings mean there are no non-operational posts available.

With no redeployment, individuals no longer fit enough to do the job would be dismissed from the service because they are no longer capable. Any pension benefits would be deferred until state pension age.

If you are forced into the decision to retire at that time, (at a minimum age of 55), rather than have no pension at all, then the value of your pension would be slashed by 55 to 60 per cent. This is a pension that you may have been paying into for 35 years.

Firefighters already contribute more to their pension scheme than anyone else in the public sector (over 12 per cent of our pay).

In the past, this high contribution rate has enabled firefighters to retire slightly earlier than the rest of the public sector, when the rigours and demands of the job necessitate it.

Contributions to the new scheme would be between 13.6 and 17 per cent, depending on earnings – twice that of any other public sector pension scheme (except the police).

This would be unaffordable for many and they would have no choice but to opt out.

Any shortfall in contributions would have to be met by the scheme’s remaining members, making the pension even less affordable.

Firefighters are not looking for a so called ‘gold-plated’ pension.

What the FBU wants is a pension scheme that takes into account the demands of the job and that it is affordable, sustainable and achievable.

In other words, an occupational pension scheme.

Firefighters in Oxfordshire and all over the UK are outraged. Not only does the Government want to impose a scheme that would see thousands of firefighters sacked with no access to their pension, they seem determined to destroy the scheme by setting sky-high contribution rates.

The Government enticed firefighters into the existing schemes, when they joined the service, saying it was a “guaranteed pension, backed by government”.

This was their promise. This is the promise they are breaking.