Parliament's role
139. The
overall annual value of the new schemes has been diminished to
account for new estimates of increased longevity, in a way which
seems to us to be arbitrary and unfair. The MoD refuses to increase
the value of the schemes because it is supposedly committed to
cost neutrality. This decrease in the cost of the schemes should
also have been resisted on the same grounds.
140. In 2002, we
stated our belief that the proposed pension scheme needed to take
best practice as its starting point, rather than 'cost neutrality';
and our conviction that the proposed compensation scheme sacrificed
fairness and justice for simplicity. At the same time neither
scheme did justice to Armed Forces personnel.
141. The schemes remain hamstrung
by 'cost neutrality', and therefore fail to recognise the unique
commitment that the Armed Forces make to their country. There
have been some welcome changes to elements of the schemes, but
these are, and can be, little more than tinkering in the absence
of a broader outlook. We are also unhappy that important aspects
of the schemes have yet to be finalised.
142. When it comes
to negotiating pension and compensation entitlements, it seems
to us that the Armed Forces are disadvantaged, because they have
no-one to negotiate on their behalf as employees. Parliament therefore
has a vital role to play in ensuring that the Armed Forces get
the pension and compensation schemes that they deserve.
