The 2015 Remedy (McCloud) and the Armed Forces Unfair? You might well think so.
A vital challenge for this Government’s new leadership
Since our foundation, the Forces Pension Society has championed Armed Forces Pensions, calling governments to account whenever we find injustice or unfairness in the system. Equally, we give credit where it’s due, as we did in this publication following the Government’s announcement that it had chosen the “deferred choice underpin” option to deal with the age discrimination issue linked to the introduction of the 2015 Public Service Pension Schemes known as McCloud. But that has not been the end of this particular controversy.
Here’s the problem: the costs associated with the Remedy are estimated at £17Bn and the Government has decided the Pension Scheme members should pay.
When the 2015 pension schemes were introduced, a cost-control mechanism (CCM) was established, ensuring Public Services Pensions were maintained within a fixed range (+/-2%) to protect taxpayers and scheme members alike. The last calculation found that the cost of Member benefits had fallen by 4.1% of pay and, for the Armed Forces, an improvement to the 2015 Scheme accrual rate was agreed. But the process was suspended by government in early 2019 whilst it considered the consequences of the costs associated with the 2015 Remedy. The Government then decided late last year, to include these costs
(all £17Bn) within the CCM calculations, effectively denying scheme members the agreed improvements to their benefits. This means that those serving our country will have smaller pensions in order to pay for the Government’s mistake. The Fire Brigades Union has secured a judicial review to determine whether the Government acted lawfully (never mind morally), the outcome of which could lead to the Government being compelled to pay the improvements in pension benefits for the period 2019-2023. There should be no need for this review since the Government had already pledged that no-one would be worse off, before reneging on the promise. So it’s a matter of regret that this action appears to be the only way to hold the Government to account.
Both the letter and the spirit of the 2015 agreement means this Government should do the right thing now and absorb the costs of the 2015 Remedy instead of making the pension scheme members pay. Neither the Armed Forces, nor the other Public Services affected, deserve to be treated this way.
swi ly wrote to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural A airs. We sought assurances about the supply of CO2 for the food supply chain, and that domestic fertiliser production would continue.
Another focus for my commi ee in the coming months will be the rollout of the new system of support for farmers – the Environmental Land Management Scheme (ELMS), which is replacing the European Union’s Common Agricultural Policy (CAP).
e government’s aims for ELMS are signi cantly di erent from
CAP. All payments will be focused on landowners and land managers supplying “public goods” such as planting trees or protection against
ooding – rather than, as under the CAP, making payments largely based on food production. Taking land out of agriculture for rewilding, solar farms or forestry is contentious in many locations – particularly if this involves high grade land.
ELMS is a hugely complex and challenging project. Our inquiry will look at what progress the government is making and how it is supporting farmers and others through these changes. It will also ask whether the aims and timescales of ELMS need to change. Should those aims, we will ask, respond to the current pressures those who work the land are facing in the areas of energy prices, fertiliser costs and labour availability – all of which ultimately a ect the price we pay for our food?
How do we produce more food while delivering for the environment? Where should the balance lie?
ese were big questions before Vladimir Putin invaded Ukraine.
When his tanks rolled over the border, they got bigger.
“Taking land out of agriculture for rewilding, solar farms or forestry is contentious”