UNITED KINGDOM
Photo: PA
A decision by the UK Government to delay part of its work on the valuation of Public Service pensions has sparked an angry response from unions.
Critics of the move say it is simply a stalling measure to deny improvements to members’ benefits.
Chief Secretary to the Treasury, Liz Truss (pictured) told Parliament that a December judgement from the Court of Appeal on “transactional protection” offered to some scheme members could have a £4 billion (A$7.1 billion) a year impact on public sector pension finances.
She said the decision meant it was “not now possible to assess the value of the current Public Service pension arrangements with any clarity”.
Unions said the move was a delaying tactic to avoid recognising that the costs of operating pension scheme changes introduced by the Coalition Government in 2015 had been less than anticipated, which could lead to member contributions being reduced or their benefits improved.
General Secretary of the PCS union, Mark Serwotka said the announcement was an unnecessary response to the Court of Appeal decision, which followed an action brought by the Fire Brigades Union (FBU).
The FBU had successfully argued that the protection arrangements imposed on younger scheme members as part of the 2015 changes were unlawful on age discrimination grounds.
Mr Serwotka said there was no need for the Treasury to suspend the valuation while it challenged the court decision.
He said the process, including addressing the rectification measures proposed by the relevant scheme advisory boards, could proceed as planned.
“It is outrageous that the Government is delaying and possibly denying pension improvements, when our members have been paying too much for too long, and for pensions which have been dwindling in value,” Mr Serwotka said.
“Our members should not have to bear the brunt of Government decisions to flout equality laws.”
A spokesperson for the FDA union, representing senior public sector staff, questioned whether the Government would have delayed any element of the valuations had it believed that members of the scheme would need to contribute more in future.
London, 1 February 2019
