Witnesses:
Sally Wilson, Scheme Manager
Key points raised
during the discussion:
- The Scheme Manager
introduced an update report on pensionable pay and highlighted that
following taking of legal advice all those affected had received
communication. Governance processes and
financial implications had been reviewed. Further communications would be sent to members
aligned to their individual circumstances and an email box had been
set up to deal with concerns raised.
- A Member stated that
the last sentence of paragraph 2.2 was incorrect in that the Fire
Brigade Union did consider this to be pensionable pay. The Scheme Manager, although not involved in
historical discussions, explained that legal advice was taken at
the time and this was the national picture.
- A Member stated that
the letter sent out regarding overpayment made no mention of
entitlement to additional pension benefit and had caused
confusion. He requested that a second
letter be sent. The Scheme Manager
explained that the letter was intended to highlight both and that
it had been worked with legal colleagues. She assured the Board that future communications
would be clear and undertook to update the ‘Frequently Asked
Questions’ page.
- A Member asked what
criteria had been applied in determining which members should or
shouldn’t have their entitlement increased because of this or
have all those that have either worked on the variable duty crewing
system or on the day contracts since their inception in 2004 and
2008 been written to. The Scheme
Manager confirmed that they had all been written to.
- A Member asked what
criteria had been applied to determine who would or wouldn’t
have to pay the difference in their pension contributions and how
any underpayments on contributions were to be made. The Scheme Manager explained that this was being
looked at and was part of the next steps to be taken and was happy
to update outside of the Board meeting as well as to the next Board
meeting. The Chairman requested that
both happen.
- A Member questioned
why overpayments could be requested before underpayments had been
paid to members. He also stated that
the statute of limitations gives a limit of six years for
underpayments and the legislation regarding overpayment is separate
and has no limit. Therefore, payments
need to be made quickly to members. The
Scheme Manager explained that this was a complex process and these
questions were being discussed at the project board but action was
being taken as quickly as possible and not waiting until all the
answers were known.
- A Member stated that,
in relation to the risk register, in April 2020 some members pay
had been reduced and the variable crewing contract had
ceased. Members that were working that
contract until April could now be asked to pay overpayments but
receive no pension benefits for that service on a final salary
scheme. He also stated that members
were asking why they were being chased for payments when their
contracts stated it was not pensionable and this influenced their
signing to the contract and that they would receive no benefit for
working that system. The Scheme Manager said that conversations
were ongoing regarding pension implications and that the Council
were obliged to work within the legal landscape which had
changed. The Member was unhappy with
this response and said that action should have started in 2011 and
wants the Council to take this into consideration when asking for
payments as many members were suffering financial
hardship.
- In response to a
Member question the Scheme Manager confirmed that there was no
timescale yet for when benefit payments would be made but work was
being undertaken as quickly as possible. She also confirmed that the Project Board next
meets in December.
Actions/ further
information to be provided:
1.
That the Scheme Manager update the Board outside the Board meeting
as well as to the next Board meeting.
Resolved:
The Board noted the report.