Minutes:
The Board received information on the Matthews second options exercise including extracts from the Firefighters’ Pensions Schemes Regulations and Guidance website, Home Office, LGA and the approach taken by NFRS/NCC. (A copy was filed with the signed minutes and marked as Item 14).
CG explained that the principle established in the Matthews case. The first options exercise allowed part-time firefighters to be treated equally with full-time firefighters and given the option to access pension benefits as a special member of the FPS 2006 with back dating of service for the period between 1 July 2000 to 5 April 2006. The first options exercise had taken place in 2014/2015 with approximately 300 current and former firefighters (in NFRS) given the opportunity to buy back pension service.
There were 3 cohorts of firefighters and former firefighters who would be in scope for the second options exercise (following the O’Brien case) with a similar number of participants, within NFRS, to the first options exercise:
1. Retained firefighters employed on any date between 7 April 2000 and 30 June 2000 (inclusive);
2. Retained firefighters employed on any date between 7 April 2000 and 30 June 2000 (inclusive) as well as on any date between 1 July 2000 and 5 April 2006 (inclusive);
3. Retained firefighters employed on any date between 1 July 2000 and 5 April 2006 (inclusive) who were eligible to take part in the first options exercise but were not given the opportunity to do so.
It was anticipated that more members would take up the option during the second exercise than the first given that the individuals involved are now older and therefore more pensions aware. Also, as many would now be retired, the lump sum payable could be used to pay the additional contributions due, making the initial outlay much easier to bear.
It had come to light through national discussions that the first options exercise guidance had been misinterpreted by FRAs. If an individual had not responded to requests for an expression of interest and therefore had not been provided with a statement of costs, he/she was classed as (cohort 3) not having been given the opportunity to participate. About half the members contacted in the first exercise (at NFRS) were non-responders, and the LGA’s advice, now, was they would have to be included under cohort 3 in the second exercise.
It was hoped that lessons learned by the HO from the previous Matthews options exercise would be taken into consideration when drafting the proposed regulations, which had not yet been published for consultation.
In answer to a question CG explained that it was acknowledged that problems were expected to arise in contacting former firefighter employees, who may have left as much as 23 years ago. Such individuals were not on the current payroll system, and there may be no data held in Payroll, HR or NFRS to identify and trace them. NCC would follow national guidance regarding the recommended steps to contact former employees. It was hoped that there would be national advertising campaigns, learning from the problems from the first exercise, use of tracing agents and that current firefighters would communicate with former colleagues.
From her involvement in meetings with the HO, HS commented that whilst the consultation on the process had not commenced, the exercise was expected to take place over an 18-month period but unlike the first options exercise, it would never fully close. If individuals contacted their FRAs later and it could be confirmed that they were eligible, but (for example) correspondence had been sent to an incorrect address, they would be offered the benefits of the second options exercise at that point.
The Board members were reassured that the second options exercise would not close, so no eligible member should be excluded, and in turn this should result in fewer IDRP complaints.