• Some Thoughts;

• The Legislation Drafters;

• The Actuaries;

•  The Barristers;

First some general thoughts on Pension Schemes after the Bugler spent some early day times investigating this subject in depth.

In the case of the 1992 Firefighters Pension Scheme we know from the outstanding skill and support of the House of Commons Librarian Ms. Jean Fessey that when this ’92 Scheme was at the Bill stage it was not debated in Committee, nor was it debated on the floor of the House, indeed very unusually it was not even challenged in the Lords it was simply placed on the table of the HoCommons reading room for Members to puruse if so minded. None did.

Thus in effect it was simply rubber stamped and placed on

the Statute Book.

When a Pension Scheme like the ’92 Scheme is created the skills of three specialists are usually required Legislative Drafters, Actuaries, with overseeing Barristers.

Usually these are all civil servants specialising in pension law.

There is a clear hierarchical system in which one profession defers to another’s skills,  with barristers clearly being the penultimate authority, though with Judges (authors of case law), the  Courts, and Parliament being the ultimate arbiters.

Most drafters are academically trained and qualified and it is essential that this is so.

In providing drafts of Bills which will ultimately become Statute Law through the Parliamentary process, which has been highlighted above when the ’92 Scheme was created, every single word and its legal ‘intent’, its meaning, will be pored over by politicians in the Commons and Lords who will have advisors and lobbying groups which they must respond to.

Because every single word and comma is drafted with the intent to convey its final meaning ultimately to the Courts.

It is therefore critical that the correct word is literally inserted in the correct place in the draft legislation.

It is not an Apocalyptic tale that on the strength of any errors that persons have, in the past, been hanged or murderers set free.

Every word such as ‘shall’, ‘must’, ‘and’ or ‘or’ has its functional meaning and legal intent and thus must be correct. A fact we will see when studying the small detail of the ’92 Scheme.

Actuaries are commonly described as ‘number crunchers’ or ‘bean counters’. They are much more than that.

They come from the world of mathematics described today as Actuarial Science.

From whence will come, increasingly, properly trained and University academically qualified practitioners unlike some in practice today who have not that background though they may have been in ‘practice’ for 30 years or more performing to a  greater or lower standard in actualite and legal understanding.

Actuaries are not lawyers and surprisingly know little of the ‘intent’ or ‘meaning’ of the accomplished Statute Law which is left to the legislation drafters, barristers, the Court and Parliament.

However, this is still an extremely complex subject which the next generation of Firefighters, attempting to provide for their pension futures, will need to understand, at least to some degree.

Actuaries use mathematics to posit how a Pension Scheme will deliver to Scheme members over the many decades which lie ahead in retirement. A posit which may cross decades in time.

From a Firefighters’ standpoint there exists this ‘fact of life’ which ought not to be ignored.

Almost without exception Actuaries are employed either by the government, universities, or in private practice where their complete purpose is to work for companies creating pension schemes and thus their mind-set is not geared to guarding the rights of the employees, the Members of its Schemes, but rather in the reality  to  protect  the  interests

of  their employers’ investments which ironically are provided by their own employees.

It all comes down to money in the end.

The Bugler has yet to hear of an Actuary employed by a Trade Union in pursuit of the well-being of its members’ pensions.

In other words there are plenty of gamekeepers but no poachers a situation which in the decades ahead with pension ‘freedoms’ now guaranteed will need to be addressed sooner rather than later.

Currently the ‘cowboys’ are arriving by the busload with their wonderful schemes which many would be wise to avoid at all costs until these opportunists are legislated against.

Presently it is sufficient to understand what Actuaries in the context of the FRS do by briefly studying the formulae which they have created contained in the Statutory Instrument No:129 Pages 44-45; formulae which those checking their own pensions will most certainly use. Go Here.

In use these formulae are quite simple to use. They use the substitution of data principle.

In plain words a Firefighter takes his accurate and accumulated data (s/he hopes) and then simply substitutes his/her data, using the formulae as a template, and thus produces an accurate result of their pension calculation.

Until, we now know, the pension clerk ‘experts’ come along without a single qualification and say, ‘no’, this is actually what the law meant…and they will because the can!

There are Barristers and then again there are Barristers.

Most specialise in a particular discipline, or two, and those with specialist pension law knowledge are the extraordinary  few; the hens’ teeth.

A barrister in this ‘game’ should have spent at least 2 years in tutelage[apprenticeship] learning the ‘meanings of words’ nothing less will suffice.

Occasions may arise after checking a pension when it may be necessary to call on a proper pension law Expert to advise on a point of law [a word] which is unclear, or what the particular function and intent, of mathematical formulae used in the calculation of a pension might mean. 

Now whilst it may well be argued by an Actuary and Barrister in defence of their employer’s Scheme that one or more of his Actuarial colleagues in constructing this or that formula may have made an error, or errors, the plain fact remains that all through the Parliamentary process such an error ought to have been picked up, if indeed it was an error, and not simply the correct legal ‘intent’.

This all means little when the matter arrives in Court where even the ‘intent’ argued between the Barristers and the Judge has no effect in practice because, error or intent …the law, is the law, is the law…and Judges are to be bound by it also unless they are partial which is not unknown.

They cannot change the law to suit what they ‘think’ the ‘intent’ might be they must ultimately refer the issue back to Parliament for debate and rectification if required.

If, Dear Reader, you wish to explore a specific pension issue which has arisen as a consequence of checking your own pension(s) and a point has arisen which is unclear to you in pension legal or actuarial terms the Bugler has already facilitated such access to specialist advice.

This is quite simply that ‘advice’ is more usually given in the form of a Barrister’s Opinion by publishing repeated positive Opinions on the matter of the underpayment of pensions which is the raison d’etre for The Morning Bugler.

Unfortunately in selecting a Barrister it matters little whether or not that person has specialist pension knowledge though it helps, what matters is that the Barrister has a recognised reputation as a case ‘winner’ by their high professional standards of advocacy.

As ever professional fees will be involved but this has to be balanced against the substantial weight an Opinion from either groups of Expert specialists will carry when it comes to the point of challenging a Fire & Rescue.

Practice indicates that it would be wise to use both in conjunction when making your case to a Fire Authority, and particularly the new Pensions Ombudsman(Solicitor) who ought to be professionally qualified in law.

Should you wish to proceed further and independently on a specific personal pension issue then of course that is a matter of choice for each Reader but perhaps it would be wise to contact the Bugler first, currently there are more sharks than water…