Are you sure about that??
Imagine you put £100 per month into a savings account. After 1 year the account has £1200 + interest earned.
Instead you decide only to pay in £80 per month. After 10 months there is only £800 +some interest (less than if you had paid the full £100).
For the remaining 2 months of the year you therefore have to pay in over £200 per month - enough to cover the missing capital and interest.
This is where I believe NATS is at - they have paid in less than the underlying rate (not to mention the pension holiday).
That means there is less in the pot than there should be and they now come crying to us wanting our support instead of paying in what they should
The underlying rate increases are not due to the decrease in the surplus. The underlying rate is as it is, a calculated figure based on a number of variables. the variables don't include the size of the surplus. The surplus is used after the underlying rate is known to mitigate how much of it has to be paid.
Like it or not, NATS has done nothing wrong by allowing the funding level to reduce to 100%. It's their perogative.
Now... The RPI= 0.5% cap directly addresses the underlying rate problem. Mercer's presentation states that they predict underlying rates (currently 40%+) coming down to 20-25% with the RPI cap and SMART pension changes.
What effect does closing the scheme have on this primary point of concern? Absolutely !!!! all. The closure to new entrants is pure opportunism.
I intend to vote no on that point.
SMART pensions is a no-brainer. There is no down side.
I could live with the RPI+0.5% cap since I don't think there's a chance we'd be getting more than that anyway.
I don't accept there's an urgent need to close the scheme and create a two-tier workforce. If the first two points reduced the underlying rate to 20% and the eventual return to stability of the markets saw a minor improvement in investment performance, NATS has no excuse for not being able to meet those liabilities.
P.S. I can't believe people are still ranting about not being allowed to view a document subject to formal non-disclosure agreements. Have you never signed a legally binding contract before? I doubt it.