Widows and widowers - pension.

[Al R]

I hear the state is to allow the widows and widowers of service personnel to remarry and retain their deceased partner's military pension.

Long overdue. Nice timing too.

[Courtney Mil]

So it should be. It's a pension, not some bloody benefit or divorce settlement.

[Wander00]

Great decision, and long overdue. Much lobbying by RBL and Forces Pension Society and others. Well done.

[Duncan D'Sorderlee]

BBC News - Pensions for life for military spouses who remarry (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-29956894)

Duncs:ok:

[Just This Once...]

Great news but some of the detail leaves me with questions. What happens to those widowed after the stated 2005 cut-off date if their spouse remained on AFPS75, or is this already covered by more sympathetic legislation?

[Voxpop]

This change is to AFPS 75 only - AFPS 05 and RFPS feature spouse/partner pensions for life, as will AFPS 15.

It is those whose spouse dies after the April date who will benefit. Those who lose their spouse before April will have the old rules apply.

[OvertHawk]

Anyone know it it will be retrospectively repaid to those who have had benefits withdrawn?

OH

[Al R]

No, it won't (as things stand). However, Defence Minister Anna Soubry has said she was "quite happy" to have another look at whether the changes should be applied retrospectively. She said;

"I think the argument that would be put forward is that many people will say that this is retrospective pension changes and every Government will tell you that you shouldn't do that and that's why we have been able to apply the covenant we believe and it's the right thing to do. Looking at why people who haven't been able to claim it in the past I think that would be, some would say, a step too far because you are doing retrospection retrospectively. I know that probably doesn't make an awful lot of sense but I can see and understand that argument. But, I'm quite happy to go away and say to people, let's have another look at that as well."

The case might exist whereby a widow or widower subject to 75 rules who has remarried and lost the pension entitlement built up by supporting a spouse or civil partner over 20 years, and who then divorces 'badly', will lose out again. Contrast that to someone who marries next week after a whirlwind romance and who is widowed in April 2015.. they keep everything.

This gesture is not tokenism in the strictest sense, handed down in November, but it still doesn't help where and who really need the help, those widows and widowers who were subject to 75 rules affected by fighting in Iraq and Afghan and who are closer to retirement without independent benefits and who might not benefit as much from new state pension benefits by virtue of their age.

The War Widows association has campaigned actively for years and if I were them, I certainly wouldn't be stepping off the gas. In light of Soubry's comments, pressure must be maintained.

The War Widows' Association of Great Britain (http://www.warwidows.org.uk)

[racedo]

About time, disgusting that it has taken this long.


Just wondering IF Private X marries Miss Wendy Sweethings and rushes off to war, loses life and now Mrs Wendy Sweethings-X get his pension for life.

Then marries Corporal Y who also rushes off to war and bites the dust does Mrs Wendy Sweetthings-X-Y get a second pension ?

[Voxpop]

In AFPS 05 the limit is two spouse (or partner) pension may remain in payment - and they will be the two highest amount. I have no doubt that, in agreeing this change, MOD has thought about limiting the number in AFPS 75 too.

[Onceapilot]

Presumably the greater cost of this move also increases the amount available for AFPS 15 on the basis of "no greater cost"?

OAP

[Typhoon93]

While I fully support this and I agree it's about time, a part of me feels that, assuming the deceased person has children, this pension should go in to a fund for when their children are 21. Obviously, if there are no children, then it should go to the deceased partner.

Just my views, I suspect some may disagree.

[Just This Once...]

Nobody will disagree or or even engage with you in a debate as you have no knowledge of AFPS75 or the provision for dependant children.

You really should restrain yourself from commenting on threads where you have no knowledge. The majority on here are very forgiving of your posts but you may reach a limit at some point.

[Al R]

Typhoon,

For the notional amount in one's pension 'pot' to remain outside an estate of the deceased for Inheritance Tax purposes, it has to be established as a Discretionary Trust.

This gives the scheme trustees ultimate sanction in who the death benefit is paid to. I remember an infanteer who nominated a girl he met on ops, subordinating his wife and three young children, a month or so before he was killed in an accident. Rightly so, the trustees chose to ignore his wishes and instead, used the money to benefit his widow.

They take the view that the survivor uses the money to help raise children when it's needed most ie; during childhood. The law changed recently to protect anyone killed on ops from having their estate crimped by IHT but the principle remains - the money should be deployed where, when and how it's needed, not when it might be wanted.

New highly relaxed legislation allows death benefits of a personal scheme to be paid out free of tax to not only a dependent, but a nominated beneficiary. The Treasury has to be careful it doesn't make transferring out of AFPS too attractive; it can't afford scheme outflows in great numbers and has moved to stop them anyway.

JTO,

I'm one chilled out dude obviously! ;)

[baffman]

The law changed recently to protect anyone killed on ops from having their estate crimped by IHT but the principle remains

Agreed about the IHT exemption but as a matter of interest, this was not a recent change in the law.


Death as a result of active service - complete exemption from Inheritance Tax (http://www.baff.org.uk/death-as-a-result-of-active-service-complete-exemption-from-inheritance-tax)

[Typhoon93]

Al, I see. Thanks for the detailed explanation. :)

[Al R]

Baffman,

You are absolutely correct, thank you - I was in the final stages of a birthday weekend meltdown. I was referring, in my challenged emotional state, to the recent consultation to extend the existing legislation beyond those killed on ops, to anyone killed in the line of duty in the emergency services. As the availability of tax reliefs appears to be reducing by the day, this introduction would be extremely helpful to the limited number of families that would benefit; to my mind, a RNLI volunteer is just as worthy as a military serviceman or woman.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/335855/140723_IHT_Exemption_Condoc_vFinal.pdf

As an aside, and looking at the editorial comment on your homepage, I hope you are going to continue to campaign to change the widows pension regulation. This is my thought on it, you'll notice that politicians have a fund (for all intents and purposes, a pension scheme) which offers regular and ongoing 'as right grants' to MPs and their widows and widowers who served before their pension scheme changed to allow a survivors annual pension.

I accept completely the generic argument about cost but it seems that MPs continue to apply one rule to themselves and another to the rest of us. Particularly galling is the fact MPs want to relieve themselves of the obligation to contribute £2 per month to it. This injustice will only be consigned to history when retrospective relief is applied. And if the case is ever going to get traction, now's the time for it to happen.

Al Rush | Open letter to Anna Soubry (http://www.alrush.biz/open-letter-to-anna-soubry-afps-widows-and-widowers-and-the-hcmf/)

[baffman]

@ Al R, thank you very much for what you say, much appreciated. In all fairness, this has not been "our" campaign but I note your updates and the FPS statement that they accept the situation.

Baffman

[Al R]

I think the War Widows Association is closing its campaign for this now, and the briefing note from the RBL and FPS from September referred only to fighting for changes from next April onwards, and not retrospective ones. That doesn't inspire much hope, it looks like it was already a done deal. I have some corporate actuaries looking into the figures offered by the state, and they seem to think, initially at least, the case that the bill is (overall) too expensive doesn't stand much scrutiny.

The likes of Chugalug served and never accrued any pension rights, so the fact that Westminster places more importance on its own patch, than the patch at Warminster (see what I did there?) is particularly galling. I can't plonk pics here, but if you go to my twitter account (RAF_IFA) you'll see some grabs of the Westminster Members Fund bill that Peter Lilley is trying to get through the House at the moment.

The trustees will have less scrutiny and all will be MPs, they want to be able to dish out money on an ongoing, regular and annual basis (that's a pension to you and me) to anyone who may have once been dependent. And even if they do, the public, which is coughing up for this, doesn't even have the right to know which Member's basta.. love child is benefiting from our largesse.

This bill, once again, is to help anyone who worked as a politician before the MPs pension scheme allowed such measures by right, in other words, retrospective help. But military widows and widowers can't have the same access to retrospective assistance. Dreadful - especially in this day and age. The conceit and arrogance is almost beyond belief.

Eta:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/2014-2015/0091/15091.pdf

[Al R]

Having just received my FPS newsletter, it seems the battle is over. I would take issue with the statement that the cost of retrospective action would have been difficult to quantify. With FPS, the War Widows Association and RBL applying a measure of realpolitik which sees matters still largely unresolved, new impetus is needed.

[handsfree]

This explains the situation rather well -

https://forcespensionsociety.org/news/justice-widows-solution/

[skydiver69]

It is pleasing to see military widows getting better treatment, but police widows have been campaigning for a similar arrangement to that offered to the armed forces, however they have been turned down due to the cost and difficulty in changing the relevant legislation.

[Al R]

Skydiver,

I'm putting the finishing touches to some FOI requests to the MoD and Government Actuary's Dept to check the validity of the alleged precise underlying costings to AFPS, and also including the scenario if the principle of retrospective awards were extended across the public sector. To say costings are difficult to establish isn't good enough. They're already there, I just a) don't believe them, and b) think they should be put into context.

In its various handouts, the Treasury (HMT) has estimated that retrospective pension awarding would cost AFPS £120 millions over 40 years. To put matters into perspective, HMT estimates that it will cost £100 - £150 millions a year to abolish the 55% charge on unused personal pensions at death. Either way, I suspect it would welcome the challenge, it's doing all it can to make the cost of public sector pensions unaffordable.

If it was down to me, I would make the case that widows/ers of service personnel were different to teachers etc anyway, especially those affected by Banner, Granby, Grapple, Corporate deaths etc.. ie; those in most need.

[Al R]

What an Autumn statement.

The writing on the wall for AFPS is ever more clear. If you die pre 75 and if your pension is in drawdown or has been annuitised, your pot is bequeathed free of tax. AFPS income by contrast, is either taxed or lost - if ever there was a statement of intent to undermine the principle of Defined Benefit pensions.

Options? Member contributions, later payments, lower annual incremental increase rates with CARE AFPS15?