PPRuNe Forums - View Single Post - AFPS 75 and NEM
Thread: AFPS 75 and NEM
View Single Post
Old 3rd Dec 2014, 18:16
  #96 (permalink)  
Al R
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: @exRAF_Al
Posts: 3,297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
In response to my #79.

I have said for some time that AFPS 15 was/is unsustainable and that the cost cap would be breached far quicker than the promised 25 years, maybe as soon as before the end of the life of the next Parliament. This is the economic reality that no manner or amount of waffling, presentations or campaigning can eclipse. So, it was interesting and depressing to read, on pages 65-68 and hidden within the bowels of the Autumn Statement.

2.13 Public service pensions revaluations – New employer contribution rates will be introduced for the Armed Forces Pension Scheme, the Firefighters’ Pension Scheme, the Judicial Pension Scheme and devolved public service pension schemes in Scotland and Northern Ireland from April 2015.
https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...Accessible.pdf

The table a couple of pages before that shows just how dramatically public sector pensions are going to be chipping in; annually, to the tune of up to £400 millions or so per annum for the next 5 years. That's new money; money, it is claimed, needed to finish the Hutton reforms that lead to the introduction of AFPS 15. If even I saw it coming, it had to be coming. And if the MoD knew it was coming, it shows scant 'corporate' regard for future personal planning.

If the cost cap is going to breached (and the MoD was already operating within tight confines on this due in part, to the very generous accrual rate of AFPS15) then the promised 25 year window of no pension change will be another target that fell when hit.

That will mean either further cuts in service or more changes to the pension. And because SP don't actively chip in, how can that happen? Cuts to AFPS wouldn't have been popular, certainly while Herrick was ongoing, so it might be most likely to assume the accrual rate for AFPS 15 (of 1/47) gets sharply revised, perhaps to something in the region of 1/65 or 1/70, or maybe even adding another year or two the scheme normal retirement age.

Last edited by Al R; 3rd Dec 2014 at 19:48. Reason: Edit: Scant regard, not 'disregard'!
Al R is offline