Armed Forces Pension Board

[Al R]

AFPB has just published its TOR. Given the fact that Forces personnel have no federated voice, it's a shame and a worry that there's a paucity of genuine industry and political talent, clout and credibility on the new panel. Why should service personnel and their families be represented by a body that virtue signals it only costs £22,000 a year to run?

As we move, undoubtably, towards AFPS 18/19/20/21/22 (take your pick), the last thing service personnel need right now are civil servants, amateurs and retired senior officers (etc) repeating yesterday's mistakes ad nauseum. This system has a record of failure - and right now, military pensioners need their 6 being watched by more than yet another well intentioned, but ultimately, toothless committee with rubber stamp at the ready.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/558825/20160911_Armed_Forces_Pension_Board_Annual_Report_.pdf

[Melchett01]

AFPB has just published its TOR. Given the fact that Forces personnel have no federated voice, it's a shame and a worry that there's a paucity of genuine industry and political talent, clout and credibility on the new panel. Why should service personnel and their families be represented by a body that virtue signals it only costs £22,000 a year to run?

As we move, undoubtably, towards AFPS 18/19/20/21/22 (take your pick), the last thing service personnel need right now are civil servants, amateurs and retired senior officers (etc) repeating yesterday's mistakes ad nauseum. This system has a record of failure - and right now, military pensioners need their 6 being watched by more than yet another well intentioned, but ultimately, toothless committee with rubber stamp at the ready.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/558825/20160911_Armed_Forces_Pension_Board_Annual_Report_.pdf

I saw this during the week and had similar thoughts, mentally wondering whether such low running costs was an indicator of how seriously we take these things. However, in the current environment, it seems about par for the course - cost rather than value or effectiveness is the ultimate arbiter in so many aspects of service life.

And that principle of cost vs value is likely to influence thinking on any future AFPS, even though we were promised 25(?) year stability in the current scheme. Now, if the MOD decides to renage on that promise and further degrades the pension, I suspect they will rapidly find it becomes unaffordable in capability terms; from the shop floor, neither the goodwill nor capacity to cope with the inevitable rush for the door exists to cope with any further decline in 'the offer' to personnel. We keep being told we have one of the largest defence budgets in the world, it's high time some of that investment went towards people rather than management consultants, financial types and 'buy cheap buy twice' bright ideas.

[Al R]

This morning, we learn that Tata is in talks with the PPF over a restructuring deal which would see its (£15bn) British Steel pension scheme absorbed into the lifeboat. There have been hundreds (nay, thousands) of expert man hours spent in thrashing out various deals for South Wales steelworkers and the like. But what do service personnel get? Do any of us genuinely think Tata trustees, or the government, will think twice about saving a few quid here or there when there are commercial or electorate issues at stake? So, why is it, the military has to settle for a few charitable bodies and some well meaning folk on secondary duty terms (and others), looking out for those who put their lives on the line for the country? Why should 'we' be compelled to accept this latest iteration of the same old thing?

Some may argue that one of the reasons we had service personnel being made redundant weeks/months before receiving an immediate pension, was because there was no proper oversight from those who advocated themselves as 'the guardians', of the consequences of the cynical legislative changes in the lead up to the redundancies. More recently, the 25 year proposal for AFOS15 always was pie in the sky, and it should have been challenged hard by the likes of the Forces Pension Society. If the likes of me knew the cost cap had the structural integrity of tissue paper, why did the self appointed body representing pensioners (me included) not call it as such, too?

We all knew it was a nonsense - the troops and their families have been lulled, once more, into a false sense of security and (undoubtably) will experience more cynicism and anger when 15 changes. There is no one, genuinely, fighting for them as AFPS members fight for service personnel. Sure, there are two committee meetings a year, with lots of respectful, compliant harrumphing ("let the minutes reflect that the Colonel harrumphed and stirred his tea with unusually rather more vigour than normal") but they achieve and have achieved, absolutely nothing. As we approach what is going to be a contributory pension, the last thing we need is more of the same. Especially when there will be no legal comeback on the consequences of the decision making by this body.

'Awful' doesn't come close to it, why should the Armed Forces be compelled to accept this gut wrenchingly weak, bureaucratic dreamland, paper tiger nonsense? I'm going to post this now, before I step back and defuse it.

[Wander00]

Branagh's (Chairman's) background? Certainly comes cheap. Any pensions industry experience/weight? Seems to have all the hall marks of a Government box ticking exercise. really not that impressive IMHO

[Melchett01]

Make it contributory and you'll have to bolt the doors to keep people in. Especially as pay is already abated for pensions - isn't it?

Frankly we're sick to death of being absolutely thrashed to bits and run into the ground by lies and incompetence. And for what? To send a handful of 40 year old aircraft out, deploy a single destroyer to the Gulf and a Bn of infantry to Poland to deter Putin, all so the politicians can grandstand and talk global influence. They need to wake up sharpish to the fact that we have no confidence in the politicians and very little in the senior leadership to do anything that's effective in capability terms or to look after the troops. And that will bite them, and the country, hard eventually.

[Heathrow Harry]

Now that is a good post!!!

[Pontius Navigator]

Pay Review Body?

[Onceapilot]

Al,
I think your views are correct. However, HMG are not going to give anything away in the present pre-brexit situation, end-of! :uhoh: Myself, I see the best that the next 10 years will bring the UK is general financial decline. The worst,.....?:oh: As for the next big thing on state pensions....means testing. Within 5 years. :\ Sorry

OAP

[Haraka]

"As for the next big thing on state pensions....means testing. Within 5 years. Sorry"
Agreed . Only thing that surprises me is that when some of us looked ahead together in the Service in 1995 for our futures, we reckoned that means testing would have been well in by now and thus took stock accordingly : in my case seeking my own financial security outside of the U.K. (and Europe for that matter) .

[Al R]

Robert Branagh is a busy man with various commercial and NED roles. Whoever the person, and he is experienced, you have to wonder how much capacity someone can have. The reason, of course, that the usual suspects are filling the ranks is that everyone knows 'the rules'. Industry talent would be speechless at how the third (?) biggest public sector pension is being managed. We can criticise the fire fighters, justifiably, but can you imagine Matt Wrack letting this uncertainty crystalise without some serious table thumping?

In respect of SP, it'd be a brave government that compels anyone to pay NIC needlessly, although means testing would, in my opinion, be preceded by fusing PAYE and NIC. Means testing encourages folk not to save, and that's about as far from current government policy as could be imagined right now. It's possible, but the sense is that the direction of travel is more down the route of having a personalised state pension age based on one's location and employment record. Why shouldn't a Glaswegian docker have his state pension before a suburban white collar professional? Of course, we can kiss goodbye to a tenet of the welfare state, and in the bigger picture, we would be sowing the seeds for the demise of the NHS as we know it. The shift in how we think, societally, would be immense. This, from this morning.

Graduates face longer wait for pensions | News | The Times & The Sunday Times (http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/graduates-face-longer-wait-for-pensions-9b2bvx0bd?shareToken=f0fac9c2e45d4521b8ad24dcd09a13b2)

AFPB seems to have pretty much the same remit as its predecessor, the Centrally Advisory Committee on Pensions and Compensation. And a fat lot of good that has done recently, certainly since it allowed though various pension harmonisation measures without a murmur. If we see how impotent AFPRB was, the future's bleak. A few meetings to drag this out, get nowhere, and job's a good 'un - before you know it, recruits will have their own new pension scheme (best case scenario existing SP will retain some Grandfathering rights). Gut instinct? If you're in the Forces Pension Society, make sure they understand how strongly you feel about this. The time for soothing platitudes on the lines of 'well, we tried for you, but..' has long passed. Service personnel need more than those versed in the art of the Main Building two-step, which will always have, as I suspect we all know, only one inevitable outcome.

[Melchett01]

Edited to say apologies, just seen Al's full post inc Times' link - I'm on my phone with a tiny screen, so it's not all visible. Anyway, I've fat fingered it in now and I'm not deleting it ;-)

I have a sneaking but horrible suspicion you may be right. If not means testing, then something else. The Sunday Times had a report on potential pension changes that created a two tier pension scheme with payments tied to NIC contributions rather than based on life expectancy. So by setting the criteria for a full pension at 45 years NICs rather than a fixed SPA, it would mean those typically working classes who join the work force earlier than graduates but also die earlier on average would get their pensions 6-8 years before the average graduate.

Now that is one line of thinking, and it is significantly fairer than making people pay NICs who then have no hope of ever getting a pension. But if they do go down the route of means testing it must be as part of a joined up policy that encourages people to save in the first place. So stop buggering around with policy every year - yes I mean you Chancellor - set a single flat rate of tax relief and scrap the stupid life time limit that just acts as a deterrent and let people plan and save for their futures. In the context of a coherent policy it might, might, just be acceptable. In any other scenario - short term raids to prop up some idiotic failed policy - just no.

Which brings me back to my previous comment on lies and incompetence. And a nagging fear I'm soon going to be living in a dystopian nightmare where my salary goes direct to the government who issue tokens each week to spend in an approved manner, before sending my family a bill for recruiting my replacement after I die on the job having been thrashed to death, in the process being deemed to be in breach of contract.

As for the AFPB being a paper tiger, surely that is par for the course? Was it not set up to supervise the mechanics of pensions administration rather than fighting the preceding policy? That would be the remit of an effective representative body ....

[Al R]

Your premise is correct. Lord Hutton's main recommendation created an oversight process that was stillborn. If the current AFPB (only one half of the new set up as you imply, and the supplicant half at that) bears his findings in mind, we can see just how much (little?) protection current workers have. Although the other half, ostensibly, is guided too, by it. His overarching principles were that public service employees and tax payers "should expect public service pensions that are:

a. designed to protect the tax payer from rising costs, through a ‘cost cap’ mechanism;
b. fair and sustainable for future generations,
c. subject to better governance and greater transparency for members."

Translation - we can shaft you (and win the Millennial vote whilst we're at it) but we're going to give you annual statements to make up for it, another website or two, be scrupulous about how we do it and talk you through every step of the process.

[Melchett01]

Translation - we can shaft you (and win the Millennial vote whilst we're at it) but we're going to give you annual statements to make up for it, another website or two, be scrupulous about how we do it and talk you through every step of the process.

But I don't need a website to describe how they're going to bend me over and insert the bat. And neither do I want a statement telling me how many times they've done it!

[Bigbux]

Poems - Tommy (http://www.kiplingsociety.co.uk/poems_tommy.htm)

Trouble is, it's simply not in our nature to strike.

[Al R]

Melch,

Public sector scheme viability is so vulnerable at the moment, not only because yet another committee is a bad move because it has no momentum and starts afresh as the bogeys loiter, but because there's now two - to prevaricate, introduce more insulate and generate obfuscation. Ostensibly, it's to provide objectivity - the daddy of the two is run by a PS who sits unchecked and who makes the recommendation anyway. AFPB makes sure that when you get shafted with the bat, it will have the splinters removed to comply with legislation.

I cannot emphasise this enough. If the military relies on this new set up, the outcome is inevitable. Long after you leave the military and are forgotten, you will be living with the consequences of what the board recommends on your behalf. One part of its remit is to develop positive, co-operative working relationships with all of the stakeholders and provide a forum to receive feedback from them on issues affecting the scheme. I am a stakeholder, I have twice 'reached out' to the chairman and heard nothing back. I submitted a number of questions the other month, but the board has requested an extension. As far as I have seen, one year in, there is still no meaningful engagement with employees and members.

These (below) are the board members. I suggest you all track down who represents you (the volunteer members representative from the chain of command) and start asking questions. If you find out, please let me know. You no longer have to be a member of the Forces Pension Society to approach them about it, too - they represent all members of the scheme, not just members of the society. It's almost terrifying that we will soon be facing having a pension scheme that is going to disproportionately impact on a particularly vulnerable section of society.

Edit: I have tweeted him again, masochism must be in my blood. If you are on Twitter, you can let him know this NED gig means more than just another tick on his CV. Ask him the question too, hold him directly to account. Let him know it's important in more than banal platitudes. Stand up for yourselves and those beneath you in your chains of command. And no, I'm not a socialist.

https://twitter.com/raf_ifa/status/785421439532929024

The board:

Chair - NED

Employer representatives

Director Service Personnel Policy (D SP Pol) - 2* Civil Servant
Head of Armed Forces Remuneration (Hd AF REM) - 1* Military
Director Resources Assistant Head Plans (D Res AHd Plans) - 1* Civil Servant
Reserve Forces & Cadets Assistant Head Capability (RFC AHd Cap) - currently a Gp Capt
RN Pay Colonel - Capt RN o Army Pay Colonel - Col
RAF Pay Colonel - Gp Capt

 Member/Employee Representatives

Forces Pension Society (FPS)
Royal British Legion (RBL)
Single representative from the Forces Families’ Federations
Reservist Members’ Representative; a volunteer from the Chain of Command
Members’ Representative from the RN; a volunteer from the Chain of Command
Members’ Representative from the Army; a volunteer from the Chain of Command
Members’ Representative from the RAF; a volunteer from the Chain of Command

Not Board Members, but in attendance to provide technical, legal and actuarial advice as and when required;

Defence Business Services (DBS) - Service Provider
Command Legal Services (CLS)
Government Actuary’s Department (GAD)
Assistant Head Armed Forces Pension Schemes (AHd AFPS) – Secretary o MOD – Commercial/ Change

[Wander00]

And the "volunteers from the Chain of Command" have what pensions/financial expertise or knowledge?

[Al R]

I take your point completely, but it is, in many ways, a moot point. The Cridland Report is due for publication on Thursday and will give an idea of government direction of travel. And therein lies the problem which renders the point moot - there is no state retirement income policy at the moment, which takes into account the current multitude of disparate strands.

What Cridland recommends will have a huge impact on how AFPS evolves and although the volunteer members may not have lots of experience in the sector or in the business of retirement (which I think should almost be a separate economical and political macro, anyway) I hope they otherwise have their shooting boots on. They are being handed an onerous responsibility.

http://qna.files.parliament.uk/ws-attachments/456278/original/ToR%20-%20SPa%20Independent%20Review.pdf

[Wander00]

But will the Pensions Board have any more actual clout than the AFBRB?

[Al R]

The question is, did AFPRB have any real clout in the first place?

Aside from that (my italics)..

Breakdown:

Scheme Advisory Board. The Scheme Advisory Board has responsibility for providing advice on the desirability of changes to the scheme when required to do so by the Responsible Authority. Chaired by the Permanent Secretary, the Scheme Advisory Board will only be required to make decisions on major changes to the scheme design, as such, it sits by exception. It has authority to make recommendations to the SofS on major changes to the Scheme rules and is advised by the Pension Board and HM Treasury. The Chair of the Pension Board is a member of the Scheme Advisory Board.

Pension Board. The Pension Board was created following the mandating by the PSPA 13 for a formal Governance structure specifically for Public Service pensions. It is responsible for assisting the Scheme Manager in complying with scheme regulations and other legislation relating to governance and administration, as well as requirements imposed by the Pension Regulator. SofS appointed Robert Branagh as the Non-Executive Chair of the Pension Board. It meets quarterly.

The Scheme Advisory Board has the authority to recommend to SofS changes to scheme rules; the Pension Board ensures that those rules are followed.

There's your answer. Do we think, with the greatest of respect to PB members, they are going to outweigh HMT?

[4everAD]

So if what Al suggests comes to pass we could have serving members who joined up on AFPS75 to then switch to 05 to then be forced onto 15 then forced again onto a new contributory scheme? That won't be complicated at all to manage! I refer you to my previous on pensions where I ascertain that it is kept as complicated as possible so that the masses don't realise they're being shafted and even if they do realise, they can't find where it's written down in plain English.

[Wander00]

I have just removed tongue from cheek.

[Al R]

Wanderoo.. gotcha now, not then. The shame! ;)


4AD,


There is no retirement strategy, that's half the problem. We'll be entering the third iteration shortly. If we think back, a little over one hundred years, retirement was there to remove 48 year olds from hard labour in the fields to give the twelve year olds something to do. We then moved to what we see it as now, a period to play gold and walk on sun kissed sands in linen shirts, and that was only about fifty years ago. Now, we're going to see it morph into something else. The justification; pseudo societal of course, based on the very real premise of dire financial expediency, increased longevity and complete mismanagement.

With AFPS already being as fragmented as it is, chaos, uncertainty and disillusionment will reign even more widely. A two track pension will create division, but let's be honest - does anyone in a position of authority really care? Initially, I'm sure that the new scheme, if it is contributory in the conventional sense, will be for new entrants only, but we all know how these things operate, especially if we look back. It's winning through the incessant dripping of fluid into a fissure on a rock face, and not a demolition charge.

The Cridland Report (publication bought forward to accommodate the Autumn statement?) may offer insight. I think I'm right in saying too, that AFPS15 allows for changes only via secondary legislation to amend certain aspects anyway. As an aside, check too, that you have your state pension squared away. Don't dilly dally.

http://www.royallondon.com/Global/documents/GoodWithYourMoney/TOPPING-UP-YOUR-STATE-PENSION-GUIDE.pdf

https://www.ftadviser.com/state-pension/2016/10/10/webb-recommends-cashing-in-by-topping-up-new-state-pension/

Voluntary NICs could help top up state pensions for 500,000 - Royal London (http://www.professionaladviser.com/professional-adviser/news/2473471/voluntary-nics-could-help-top-up-state-pensions-for-500-000-royal-london)

[Voxpop]

I post the following on behalf of the General Secretary of the Forces Pension Society:

It is wrong to suggest that the Armed Forces Pension Board has no employees’ voice - The Forces Pension Society, along with the Royal British Legion and others, sits on that Board specifically to represent the interests of scheme members, i.e. those in receipt of pensions and those who will one day receive pensions. I attend meetings of the Board myself in this role. It is important work - the Board receives detailed reports from DBS about accuracy and speed of pensions payments and forecasts, the number of official complaints that have been received, and many other issues. I can assure you that in all this the FPS provides a voice which is expert and sometimes critical.

It is wrong to make a link between low running costs and effectiveness. There would be more cause for concern if the administrative costs were high! I myself charge nothing for attendance on the Board - I deliberately do not ask for subsidy from the MoD, and my costs are therefore met by Forces Pension Society members, which I think is right. Nor is the charge of amateurism appropriate - the Chairman of the Board Robert Branagh - who gives his time for very little - is a hugely experienced pensions professional (Google him!) and is absolutely not in the MoD's pocket.

Of course you have a point about whether there is a new pension scheme around the corner, and how the details of that scheme will fit into assurances given about 25 year stability. In the Forces Pension Society we have heard rumour and speculation about this (see our magazine Pennant). We have heard nothing specific but we are ready to respond vigorously and with forensic precision if and when the MoD shows its hand.

[Tinribs]

I will never come to terms with the way we paid NI conts for so many years not knowing we would lack a state pension in return because of the serps issue.

I only discovered this twenty years after leaving the RAF and requesting a pension forecast. Even then the pension office stated I would get a full state pension because I had worked for suficent years. By then it was too late to make up the extra and we both suffered because contributions can only be made from earned income

I think serving people both now and in future need to be told very loudly that they must note changes to the pension scheme in the knowledge that the purpose of those arranging it is to reduce the cost irrespective of the contractual nature of the precious deal

[Voxpop]

Your NICs have been going towards the Old Age Pension. What you have not been paying (until April 16) is the extra 1.4% of pay which would qualify you for the Second State Pension.


The system changed from April 16 there is only the Single Tier Pension for people under state pension age to contribute to. Service personnel (and, indeed, all other members of formerly 'contracted out' schemes) saw their NI contributions increase by 1.4% of pay from April and the qualifying period to achieve a full state pension increase from 30 to 35 yrs.

[Red Line Entry]

Curious, the gov.uk website says I have 34 years of full contributions and then says (on another page) that I must contribute for another 9 years to get the full pension (£155.65). That will make 43 years, not 35. Anyone any ideas why?

[Onceapilot]

RLE,
The confusion you quote is simply HMG failing to run it's pensions information correctly. You, like most with a few years to run to the revised (x3, x4, x?...) state pension age(s), have been downgraded in your entitlement. This is a result of the revisions to pension entitlement not recognising the "earned" status of those who had previously qualified for the full pension but, not yet reached state pension age.:mad:
Worse things have happened to female pension rights!:uhoh: Going by the way that the Government is now willing to play fast and loose with pension rights, I suspect that the state pension will be subject to means testing within 5 years!
Just my opinion.

OAP

[Red Line Entry]

OAP,

Many thanks - time to give them a call methinks!

[Al R]

Lots of good stuff.

Voxpop, how are you? Well I hope. Let me address John's very valid points in reverse order.

Having just read today's Cridland Report, page 88 gives an indicator as to possible AFPS direction of travel. I can't post my screengrab, so a link to my tweet will have to do (sorry, it's banal in the extreme). If early access to the state pension may be bought forward for carers and others (including mil pers and trawlermen etc), but if increasing the default state pension age is accelerated, then the viability of allowing default 'burnout' (a retirement phrase which does not reflect medical condition, but simply 'early' access to an occupational pension) by nothing more than the existence of a default clause has to be reconsidered. Clearly, Cridland is suggesting that the means of supporting a Flight Sergeant who leaves at aged 45, other than paying out a pension should be questioned.

https://twitter.com/raf_ifa/status/786517167890165760

A contributory pension for new entrants is, I would hazard, a done deal. It will create division, but who in authority will care? It is the thin end of the wedge, there will come a time, in quite short order I imagine, when all will be contributing. This threat and the reaction to it can only be telegraphed if those on the hanger floor are aware of it, if they are allowed and encouraged to react accordingly and if those who make the decisions and who influence them, are aware. Currently, there is no scope to even gauge that, let alone transmit it. Twelve months in, and twelve months closer to more undoubted changes, there has been no movement on it. Cridland touches on the importance of good communications on page 11; referencing, of course, WASPI, but there are undeniably parallels with those made redundant just before their IPP. Let's learn from the WASPI lessons. Let's not make the same mistakes again.

I'm aware of the breadth and depth of Robert's work, I have contacted him three times thus far; I have heard nothing back (yet, admittedly).

My comment on the minimal spend was not automatically one of reflecting quality, rather, the means to do its work. I have not spoken to a single client in the past two/three years who has anything good to say about how pension 'policy' is being formulated. The fact that there is such ignorance and uncertainty is bad enough. But no one can plan in a vacuum, and I have to say, clients who I meet with in various messes and SFA and homes simply want the truth in order to be able to plan properly.. not the constant flow of soapy platitudes they seem to get. We all knew AFPS15 was a stop gap, so why was the dreary myth that it was good for 25 years rolled out and played out?

Cridland offers just two months to submit a return, page 88 in itself is probably worthy of it. If you wish, I would be delighted to assist and look forward to meeting with you to discuss that, and of course, the still unfolding business of the redundancy unfairness. Please don't hesitate to get in touch if I might be of help.

Edit: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/559943/independent-review-of-the-state-pension-age-interim-report.pdf

[Melchett01]

Having just read today's Cridland Report, page 88 gives an indicator as to possible AFPS direction of travel

Just been reading the latest edition of the FPS journal, and the editorial seems to point towards changes to AFPS far sooner rather than later

So far we are still waiting for the white smoke, but I have to say that no one is denying that work is going on to develop a new scheme, nor that the government will show its hand fairly soon.

So given the other recent threads on PVR and retention rates, what's the thinking? Will it be another wholesale change for all concerned, in a clear reversal of the previous promise that AFPS 15 would be good for 25 years; or leave existing schemes as they are and introduce a scheme going forward for new joiners? And would any move to a contributory scheme be offset by an increase in pay to take into account the current salary abatement or would our salaries continue to be abated for a 'non-contributory' scheme we may no longer even get? (I know, I know ... consider it a rhetorical question!)

To be honest, I don't trust them one little bit. I can tell when they are lying because I can see their lips moving. Hope I'm proved wrong, but my money is on yet another wholesale change that will do nothing to stop the panic about T&C free fall.

[Onceapilot]

would any move to a contributory scheme be offset by an increase in pay to take into account the current salary abatement or would our salaries continue to be abated for a 'non-contributory' scheme we may no longer even get? (I know, I know ... consider it a rhetorical question!)

To be honest, I don't trust them one little bit. I can tell when they are lying because I can see their lips moving.Melchy
You are quite right. TBH, I think that HMGov are now trying to squeeze public services pensions as hard as they possibly can. They have done a hell of a lot of cutting back on the state pension, actions which would be admired by many a "wide-boy" asset stripper!

OAP

[Voxpop]

Melchett01 wrote: So given the other recent threads on PVR and retention rates, what's the thinking? Will it be another wholesale change for all concerned, in a clear reversal of the previous promise that AFPS 15 would be good for 25 years; or leave existing schemes as they are and introduce a scheme going forward for new joiners?



We at FPS suspect that the change will apply to new entrants but we have nothing official.

[Al R]

When you see the direction of travel, and the intent with other public sector pensions, you know there's no escape. Even at the time, the 25 year announcement was absurd and preposterous, and nothing short of propaganda which should have been ridiculed with the contempt it deserved. One reason why servicemen and women, and their families, need proper representation. There's no point in having an X Factor if it's tied in to being unable to resist disadvantageous change of a much higher magnitude. I'm not sure if trustee legislation applies, but those on the new pension board have a duty to scheme members to tell them the truth so that they can start financial planning properly. Deceit and soft soap undermines and disadvantages scheme members as much as the constant erosion of scheme benefits does.

http://www.pprune.org/military-aviation/512820-afps-75-nem-5.html#post8768372

http://www.pprune.org/military-aviation/536280-pensions-bill-amendments-2014-a-3.html#post8577633

http://www.pprune.org/military-aviation/550840-widows-widowers-pension-2.html#post8768069