The devil is in the detail. Gorgeous George has already stated that he intends to introduce this via legislative means, so he accepts that the change could only be implemented if AFPS scheme rules were (effectively) overwritten by legislation. In effect, he is changing the law.. so therefore, how then, can the law be wrong? If FPS presses for a Judicial Review, then good luck to it. I am a member and I have heard nothing yet - I wonder if anything can be done on the basis of the small print in a JSP. I doubt it.
With regards to attacking changes relating to benefits already accrued (and I stand to be corrected here), given the size of AFPS, any change would require trustee approval anyway (S67 of the Pensions Act 1995 refers). It prevents schemes from amending their rules in ways that cut members' benefits retrospectively - such cases would in all likelihood end up in court. I imagine that that is where FPS might be thinking; after all, most of its members are more mature members/ex-members.
However, the Pensions Regulator has already hinted that it won't get involved in any DB scheme change process based on this factor, so it might be that particular exercise is nothing more than a quick nod to process. Although it has powers to penalise an employer who fails to comply with the consultation process, if a change
is made to the scheme rules without the affected members being consulted, then any change affected by the failure to consult alone need not be revised on that basis. So, no mass e-mails to the Trustees then. I'm not sure how the 'Executive Board' of AFPS sits legally alongside the fiduciary responsibility of a normal Trustee anyway; given that they are paid by the piper.
For ex-SP who are already retired the ability to consider options is gone and they
have no options; and thats what makes this tasteless, charmless, immoral if not (exactly) unlawful. Those who are younger can (must) consider other options to mitigate future loss - assuming they have already calculated and quantified a retirement on RPi linked figures. They should at least rethink and reconsider their Investment/spousal Private Pension/AVC strategy for instance and just be a lot smarter about things financial in general.
http://www.official-documents.gov.uk.../0210/0210.pdf
Younger people will now have long realised that not just this particular (pension-linking) rule has changed, but the whole damned set of rules has been wiped clean and rewritten. Future pensions in payment is the least of their worries when entire careers have been put up for auction and career dreams scratched out at the stroke of a pen. Old-ish giffers like me were/are lucky by comparison. I imagine how I would have felt if I were suddenly told that everything I had been aspiring to was turned to dust. Its not just the rules - the entire game has been renamed, rebranded, put in a different box, and the whole bloody price has gone up anyway. If there ever
was any doubt, it really is now all about #1. And thats the dawning, sad realisation - the ethos has always been 'us', not 'me'.
I am at Odiham for the next few days giving FSA 'Making the Most of your Money' presentations; OC PSF has more info if anyone wants to pitch up.