Agenda item

The Chair invited Gill Gittins (Senior Adviser, Workforce & Negotiations) and Claire Hey (Senior Fire Pensions Adviser) to introduce the update.

Gill and Claire stated they had nothing to add to the report but were happy to take members’ questions.

Members’ comments and questions:

·       An update on the immediate detriment withdrawal of Home Office guidance issue was requested. Gill reported that as set out in the Workforce report HM Treasury had issued a note setting out their assessment of the advisability of processing immediate detriment cases before new legislation to enact the McCloud remedy is put in place. The Home Office had withdrawn its guidance on processing immediate detriment cases and made a statement about potential funding of such cases. Gill said this did not entirely alter the position with regards funding as there had never been a guarantee that costs arising from the Sargeant judgment in general would be covered by government. The LGA would therefore continue on behalf of all FRAs to seek funding for all the costs arising out of the Sargeant claims, under New Burdens or otherwise. Officers were working with specialist QCs on the implications of the recent HMT note and would be providing information to FRAs as soon as possible.

·       Two members felt that FSMC had not been fully engaged or consulted when the Framework and Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with the FBU had been drawn up, and that it had therefore come as a surprise. Gill explained that development of the MoU and Framework had been entered into as sought by UK-wide FRAs to identify a mutually agreeable settlement of the High Court cases already actioned by the FBU involving London and Nottinghamshire and because they did not wish to be subject to High Court claims as well (as intended by the FBU), mindful of the cost and also that affected firefighters had already been awaiting action since the judgment in 2018. It was a legal negotiation and not an FSMC policy matter. The Framework then provided all FRAs with a route to avoid/settle such legal action if an FRA wished to do so. FSMC had been informed of this work in previous reports as had the person nominated by each service to receive information (given confidentiality and risk to legal privilege issues). It had been developed in conjunction with legal representatives and specialists, and in light of the direction of travel of the PSPJO Bill, discussion with government on its intentions. It had been approved by the Steering Committee specifically set up with the agreement of FRAs to handle such matters. It was recognised that risk could only ever be minimised, not removed completely and guidance issued to FRAs alongside the Framework had covered this. Work was now being undertaken with legal and pension specialists to consider this latest government position and a note would be issued to FRAs as soon as possible. Gill said that workforce and pension team officers would be happy to discuss further with the two members concerned outside of the meeting, which offer they accepted.

Decision:

FSMC noted the update.