Forces Redundancy Injustice – Overview
The Issue: A small group of service personnel, with substantial years of service and operational tours, were given notice of compulsorily redundancy in June 2012, close to their entitlement to an immediate pension, some within days. As a consequence they are losing out on immediate pension payments worth thousands of pounds over a lifetime.
How many service personnel does this issue affect in total? The number of service personnel affected is relatively small, approx 55-92 in total. However, these numbers are set to get bigger in the coming cuts, where 8000 – 10000 more troops will be made redundant, many more soldiers and their families could be affected…. if the Government fails to act.
Reasons why the Government needs to address this issue:
This Governemnt has worked hard to enshrine the Armed Forces Covenant into Law. It has vowed to work towards achieving and acting on the observations made by the External Covenant Reference Group in the First Armed Forces Covenant Annual Report, published in Dec 2012. In that report the External Covenant Reference Group made up of respected verterans groups and academics, including: COBSEO, RBL, SSAFA, WWA and Professor Hew Strachan state: Following compulsory redundancy announcements:
“Some personnel have been maderedundant mere days before they would have been entitled to immediate pensions by virtue of length of service. This has understandably ….led to a sense of betrayal of the spirit, if not the precise terms, of the Armed Forces Covenant among those affected…… the government should carefully examine how it can avoid a repeat of such circumstances in future rounds of redundancies …..and review how it can restore pension rights to those who have been disadvantaged so far.” (p16 Armed Forces Covenant Annual Report 2012)
Without acting to solve this issue the Government is failing to uphold the values and standards by which these forces pesonnel have served. Trust is crucial when your job involves putting your life on the line. Furthermore this sends out a negative and demoralising message to the armed forces and their dependants:
a) Operational tours, professional enthusiasm and the oft proclaimed Military Covenant count for nothing.
b) Financial and professional costs – to both soldier and spouse when they assume / resume civilian employment – are no longer off-set
c) Separation and disadvantage are no longer compensated with financial security
d) Personal and professional plans cannot now be founded upon the legitimate expectation of an Immediate Pension
e) The British Army’s morale and reputation is being damaged on a far wider scale than just the small number of redundees affected (see MoD Survey, 23 August 2012 indicating Officers more dispirited than rest of army – almost 2/3 of senior officers rated morale as low, up by 38% to 62% since 2010)
What we are requesting:
1) That the Government acknowledge the problem.
2) That it is unfair to these servicemen and their families, and potentially many others, to leave this issue unchanged.
3) That the Governement fully and fairly compensate those made compulsorily redundant for the loss of their immediate pensions and to take the immediate pension into consideration when making service personnel redundant in future rounds of cuts, thereby restoring morale and safeguarding the reputation and standing of HM Armed Forces.
We believe the government would not deliberately wish to deny its long serving and committed service men and women the immediate pensions they were promised, have earned and deserve. Armed Forces salaries are abated to take into account pension costs, so service personnel have a valid reason to feel they have been contributing towards this payment.
The moral obligation to now honour the promise of an immediate pension – on which these men and women have justifiable expectation, and which they believed was part of their pay and conditions and for which they risked their lives – is a compelling one.
Why we need the public to write to their MPs about this:
The service men and women are unable to speak out as they are still serving. They have no unions to represent them or federation. They rely totally on the Chain of Command and MPs & Minsiters to look after their best interests. Clearly in these cases this has not happened. We believe there has been some kind of mistake or oversight in the way the redundancy scheme and pension scheme interacts. Mistakes can be rectified.
That is why we are calling for a review to ensure all soldiers close to pension point made redundant are fully and fairly compensated for the loss of their pensions. We need your support to help get these redundancies reviewed and a fair and just solution found. Please sign the Parliamentary e-petition and help stop this happening to other servicemen and women and their families.
ONE SERVICEMAN or WOMAN losing out on the pension they have earned and deserve is ONE SERVICEMAN or WOMAN too many.
http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/35949
Parliamentary Defence Debate: 6 Dec 2012
“I feel quite inadequate to follow the speech of the hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart). He and I are both Members of Parliament representing south-east London constituencies. It would probably be fair to say that we have very different political views, but after listening to the speech that he has just made, some of those political views become somewhat irrelevant, given what he said about his own experience in the armed forces, and what he and many others who serve in the Army, the RAF and the Navy see with their own eyes. I feel very honoured and privileged to have listened to the speech that he gave.
I shall make a brief contribution today. We have heard other speakers talk about important global issues relating to our defence forces, ranging from the withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan and their safety during that process to important aspects of the role of our defence forces in light of Britain’s emerging position in the world. I want to raise a specific issue about officers who are currently serving in our armed forces.
One of my constituents, Jayne Bullock, came to visit me a couple of months ago because her brother, who is a serving officer in the Army, had been issued with a redundancy notice earlier this year. He was given his redundancy date, which was only days before his immediate pension point. I understand that he will no longer be eligible to receive his pension immediately upon his redundancy, and that this represents a significant financial loss to him and his family. I understand that of the redundancy notices that were issued this summer, that situation affects about 70 or 80 serving officers.
We heard from the hon. Member for Beckenham the vital job that such officers do in our armed forces. The responsibility that goes with being an officer in our Army cannot be underestimated. They have to deal with situations such as that which the hon. Gentleman described. It is only right that those officers are given the pension that they are due. I believe that the compensation that has been arranged for them in some form of lump sum falls far short of what they would have received, had they got their pension at their immediate pension point.
Will the Minister, in his concluding remarks, explain to hon. Members what he plans to do about this problem in the future? Although it affects a certain number of people who received their redundancy notices this summer, the problem will continue as there will be further tranches of redundancies. Would it be possible not to make redundant those people who are less then 12 months away from their immediate pension point?
We are all here today speaking highly of our armed forces, but we need more than warm words. We need to put our money where our mouth is. Will the Minister look into the issues raised by the Pension Justice for Troops campaign that Jayne Bullock has established, and look at what else might be possible in respect of providing those individuals with appropriate compensation? I hope that if not today, then at some point in the future, he will be able to offer those service personnel some good news.”
Stop this happening to other service personnel!
Please sign the Parliamentary e-petition: http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/35949
The Army Pension Plan – by Martin Rowson
http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/35949
The Issue: A small group of soldiers, with substantial years of service and operational tours, were given notice of compulsorily redundancy in June 2012, close to their entitlement to an immediate pension, some within days. As a consequence they are losing out on immediate pension payments worth thousands of pounds over a lifetime.
How many soldiers does this issue affect in total? The number of soldiers affected is relatively small, approx 70 in total. However, these numbers are set to get bigger in the coming two tranches, where 8000 – 10000 more troops will be made redundant, many more soldiers and their families could be affected…. if the Government fails to act.
Reasons why the Government needs to address this issue: Without acting to solve this issue the Government is in breach of trust and not upholding the values and standards by which these service men and women have served. Trust is crucial when your job involves putting your life on the line. Furthermore this sends out a negative and demoralising message to its armed forces and their dependants:
a) Operational tours, professional enthusiasm and the oft proclaimed Military Covenant count for nothing.
b) Financial and professional costs – to both soldier and spouse when they assume / resume civilian employment – are no longer off-set
c) Separation and disadvantage are no longer compensated with financial security
d) Personal and professional plans cannot now be founded upon the legitimate expectation of an Immediate Pension
e) The British Army’s morale and reputation is being damaged on a far wider scale than just the small number of redundees affected (see MoD Survey, 23 August 2012 indicating Officers more dispirited than rest of army – almost 2/3 of senior officers rated morale as low, up by 38% to 62% since 2010)
What we are requesting:
1) That the Government acknowledge the problem.
2) That it is unfair to these servicemen and their families, and potentially many others, to leave this issue unchanged.
3) To find a mutually agreeable solution to this issue and thereby safeguard the reputation and standing of HM Armed Forces.
We believe the government would not deliberately wish to deny its long serving and committed service men and women the pensions they have earned and deserve. The moral obligation to now honour the promise of an immediate pension – on which these men and women have justifiable expectation, and which they believed was part of their pay and conditions for which they risked their lives – is a compelling one.
The service men and women are unable to speak out as they are still serving. They rely totally on the Chain of Command and MPs & Minsiters to look after their best interests. Clearly in these cases this has not happened. We believe there has been some kind of mistake or oversight in the way the redundancy scheme and pension scheme interacts. Mistakes can be rectified.
That is why we are calling for a review to ensure all soldiers close to pension point made redundant are fully and fairly compensated for the loss of their pensions. We need your support to help get these redundancies reviewed and a fair and just solution found. Please sign the Parliamentary e-petition and help stop this happening to other servicemen and women and their families.
http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/35949
A VERY BIG THANK YOU to Martin Rowson for his generous artisitc contribution to our campaign! Political Cartooning doing what it should do….make us smile whilst stabbing us in the eye with a sharp, often uncomfortable thought….
“Rowson likens his political cartooning to voodoo – “doing damage from a distance with a sharp instrument.” His portrayal of Tony Blair became increasingly unpleasant over time. “When I first started to draw Blair he was puppy-like,” Rowson acknowledged, “but he became more raddled with time. I used his teeth as a sort of political barometer.” As Rowson noted in 2012, the recurring figures in his cartoon commentary develop a symbolism of their own, and his cartoons “contain characters involved in an ongoing narrative – just because some of them bear a passing resemblance to real people is very often beside the point”.*
Rowson takes pride in the extent to which visual satirists can “get away with telling power that it’s stupid, it’s got a big nose and it should just bugger off.”
For more books by Martin Rowson :
http://www.amazon.co.uk/s?_encoding=UTF8&search-alias=books-uk&field-author=Martin%20Rowson
* Taken from British Cartoon Archive: http://www.cartoons.ac.uk/artists/martinrowson/biography
The Military Covenant – by Saul David
The Military Covenant
by Saul David
Britain has long acknowledged a ‘duty of care’ to its armed forces that dates back to the reign of Henry VIII. It began as an unspoken pact between society and the military, and was only formally codified by the British Army as a ‘covenant’ in the year 2000. The key passage reads:
“Soldiers will be called upon to make personal sacrifices – including the ultimate sacrifice – in the service of the Nation. In putting the needs of the Nation and the Army before their own, they forego some of the rights enjoyed by those outside the Armed Forces.”
In return, British soldiers must always be able to expect fair treatment, to be valued and respected as individuals, and that they (and their families) will be sustained and rewarded by commensurate terms and conditions of service.”
Noble words, but ones that have not been honoured. In 2007 the Royal British Legion complained that Gordon Brown’s government was not looking after the needs of troops returning from conflict, particularly in terms of injury compensation and healthcare. Earlier this year former army chiefs accused David Cameron of breaking the military covenant, this time over Coalition plans to cap military pay rises at 1 per cent (a real-terms cut). ‘This sends a poor message to those who are fighting on the front line,’ said a former Chief of the Defence Staff. ‘You are asking someone to risk their lives and that puts them into a special category.’
More recently, The Times reported that the Ministry of Defence was considering draconian cuts to army housing for married couples, and that ‘numerous officers and lower ranks – about 80 this year and more next year – are being made redundant mere months’ before the date they would have become eligible for an immediate pension after 16 years of service. ‘This means,’ opined a Times leader (‘The Unpensionables’, 24 August 2012), ‘that families who may have planned their lives around a future with a guaranteed income, albeit a modest one, must re-plan their lives without.’
Such shabby treatment of soldiers was ever the case. When the restored King Charles II formed the first professional army in 1660, the full extent of the state’s ‘duty of care’ for soldiers was to make a modest provision for those maimed in battle. For those who lost their place through age, illness, or under pressure from ‘better men’, there was nothing. It was to cater for the ‘succor and relief of veterans broken by war and age’ that Charles II founded the Royal Hospital at Chelsea in 1681; yet when the hospital finally opened its doors in 1692, its maximum capacity of 476 veterans was only a fraction of the number of soldiers who qualified for assistance. To compensate, therefore, James II introduced a scheme in 1685 for pensions to be given to privates and NCOs who had been either disabled on active service or who had served for a minimum of 20 years. The sum given to a private soldier was a miserly 5d a day (3d less than his normal pay, which was modest enough), barely enough to live on. And still nothing was paid to those who fell ill or were dismissed before they had served 20 years.
These regulations were still in place a century and a quarter later at Waterloo, though the daily rate for pensions had risen slightly in line with army pay (which was finally increased from 8d to a shilling a day in 1799, the first rise since the days of the Commonwealth). Small wonder that after every major war from the 17th to the 19th Centuries, the cities were full of disbanded soldiers begging in the streets. Inevitably many turned to crime (as they still do today), particularly ex-cavalrymen who were allowed to keep their horses and became highwaymen. So bad did it become in London after the Nine Years War (1688-97) that a line of guardhouses was built on the road from the City to Kensington to protect travelers from ex-soldiers. Never popular at the best of times, soldiers were now feared and despised in equal measure.
With such poor conditions of service – in addition to the low pay, food was poor and discipline harsh – it was hard to find recruits. During the War of the Spanish Succession (1701-14), the government resorted to sentencing minor criminals to service in the army, and to release others if they volunteered. It also used ‘crimpers’ (the army equivalent of naval press-gangs), increased the signing on bounty from £2 a head in 1703 to £5 in 1708, and passed no fewer than nine recruiting statutes during the war. Small wonder that the author Daniel Defoe noted: ‘In winter, the poor starve, thieve or turn soldier.’
Recruitment was also a problem during the Napoleonic Wars. In 1806, to make soldiering more attractive, the authorities reduced the term of enlistment from twenty-one years to seven, and increased the bounty to £18.12s (over a year’s pay). But the measure failed either to improve enlistment rates or to change the general character of recruits, and from 1808 new soldiers were given the choice of signing on for either seven or twenty-one years, with the vast majority opting for the latter (and an extra £5 5s).
Among the first of the ‘seven years’ men was Thomas Pococke of the 71st Highlanders. The son of ‘poor but respectable parents’, Pococke joined the army in 1807 after failing as an actor. He served through most of the Peninsular War and at Waterloo (having extended his service), and later wrote a graphic account of his experiences in the ranks. It does not make easy reading. ‘I could not associate with the common soldiers,’ he noted of his life as a raw recruit, ‘their habits made me shudder. I feared an oath – they never spoke without one; I could not drink – they loved liquor; they game – I knew nothing of play. Thus was I a solitary individual among hundreds.’
Yet Pococke served his time and, having faced and cheated death on numerous occasions – notably at the battles of Vimeiro, Corunna, Fuentes de Onoro, Vitoria and Waterloo – he was discharged in the winter 1815 without a penny. Having left the army sound of body and without the requisite twenty years’ service, Pococke was not eligible for a pension. He was last heard of working as a road mender ‘with a number of other poor labourers thrown out of general employment’.
Thus did Britain carry out its ‘duty of care’ to veterans of the most famous battle in our island’s history. Of course times have changed and, compared to 200 years ago, today’s army pensions are relatively generous: all soldiers are eligible for an annuity after just two years’ service (and, unlike other public sector workings, without the need to make monthly contributions), while those who stay in for at least 12 years are also entitled to a tax-free resettlement grant. But the debt the state owes its warrior is not just financial. It’s also – as the military covenant stresses – about soldiers and their families receiving ‘fair treatment’ and being ‘valued and respected as individuals’. Which is why, when it accused the government of not keeping its side of the bargain in 2007, the British Legion made a number of recommendations to improve the financial support and health monitoring of soldiers on active service, the speed and amount of injury compensation, the level of access veterans had to healthcare, and the quality of advice, support and representation given to bereaved families.
The official response was that the government ‘must do more’, but that fulfilling its part of the deal was ‘not always easy and takes both time and money’. The recent furore over the Ministry of Defence’s plans to cut army pay (in real-terms) and housing for married couples, and the scandal of officers being made redundant before they can claim their pensions (costing them as much as £250,000 over a lifetime), suggests that Cameron’s Coalition government is no closer to honouring the Miltary Covenant than its Labour predecessor was.
Saul David is Professor of War Studies at the University of Buckingham and the author of All the King’s Men: The British Soldier from the Restoration to Waterloo and Great British Commanders: Marlborough, Wellington and Slim (e-book only), both published on 2 February 2012
For those interest in reading more by Saul David and purchasing his books please go to: http://www.amazon.com/Saul-David/e/B001JS8PNQ
Please sign the Parliamentary e-petition if you wish to support “The Unpensionables” mentioned in Saul’s essay and all those other soldiers who may be find themselves made redundant close to their Immediate Pension Point in the coming two tranches of army cuts. We can have this situation reviewed by Parliament if we get enough votes on the petition. Please sign and pass on to friends and family.
History doesn’t have to repeat itself! We need to get MPs working to ensure the Military Covenant is upheld!
Thousands of troops face early axe ‘to end uncertainty’
The article below made me gasp with disbelief! I just can’t understand how making people redundant earlier than expected could somehow relieve people of “uncertainty”, which is what the spokesman for the MoD is quoted as suggesting. As if the Minister of Defence is doing the soldiers and their families a favour by moving things forward!
This is clearly not in the soldiers or their families favour. It is clearly in the Government’s favour as it will allow for this painful process to be over and done with before election time. My opinion, and I’m no military expert, but making whole divisions of troops redundant in a time of high unemploment is going to have implications on housing, schools, and society in general. My concern would also be in how well compensated those made redundant close to pension point will be. Will we be seeing more soldiers and their families being denied the pensions they have earned and deserved? I hope not. My appeal to Government and to Army Chiefs is “slow up” don’t “speed up”!!!
The servicemen and women who are going to be made redundant need time to resettle, retrain, rehouse and find schools for their children. They have shown loyalty and committment to the Crown and successive Governments, they and their families deserve a similar show of loyalty and respect.
The Times: 1 October 2012 – Tom Coghlan
Thousands of soldiers could be made redundant a year earlier than planned in a major cull of the Armed Forces. Two rounds of job losses scheduled for 2013 and 2014 could be merged into one to be announced after Christmas. Officials argue that this would “end uncertainty” for service personnel and their families.
Philip Hammond, the Defence Secretary, and General Sir Peter Wall, Chief of the General Staff, are to discuss the proposal this week. The Times understands that the Army prefers two rounds because of the practical challenges of one large cut. In all, nearly 8,000 redundancies are to be made.
Under government plans, the Army must be cut from approximately 102,000 personnel to 82,000 by 2020. Defence sources said that the pace of the reduction was linked to progress in the war in Afghanistan.
“The Defence Secretary is keen to end uncertainty and give clarity so troops and their families can plan for the future,” said one Ministry source. “They will look at options but it is tied very tightly to Afghan force levels.”
Mr Hammond said three weeks ago that ground commanders in Afghanistan now believe an accelerated drawdown in Helmand province will be possible. “I think there is a bit of a rethinking going on about how many troops we do actually need,” he said. “There may be some scope for a little bit more flexibility on the way we draw down, and that is something commanders on the ground are looking at very actively.”
The Government is worried by the continued drip of bad news caused by cuts to service personnel, which would continue close to a 2015 general election on current plans.
The RAF and Navy have both already completed reductions of 5,000 personnel each. While natural wastage and reduced recruitment are expected to produce a large proportion of the required 20,000 cut in numbers, about 8,000 compulsory redundancies are also expected.
Labour warned yesterday that the proposed acceleration would have human consequences. “There is a human and military impact to redundancies on this scale,” said Jim Murphy, the Shadow Defence Secretary. “Each job lost is a family potentially struggling and also impacts on the role the UK can play in the world.”
In a statement the MoD said: “There are no plans to make any further reductions beyond the changes announced last year. The size and timing of any future redundancies has yet to be determined.
“However we aim to remove uncertainty for Army personnel and their families as soon as possible. Difficult decisions have had to be taken to deal with the multibillion-pound black hole in the defence budget.”
Michael Clarke, the director-general of the Royal United Services Institute, a British security think-tank, said he believed Mr Hammond was considering the move “because it would save money”, and the Chief of the General Staff “because it would help end uncertainty among the troops”.
Please sign the Parliamentary epetition – and help uphold the Military Covenant:
“Yes Please Minister!”
“I intend to do everything I can to support you and your families.”
Should the MoD be buying up land in Scotland or paying soldiers their pensions?
An article in today’s Sunday Times suggests the MoD is looking to purchase a controversial piece of land in the Highlands of Scotland, against, it would appear, the will of local people.
In my opinion, the MoD would do well to use any extra pennies they seem to have now found stashed down the back of the MoD sofa to pay those troops made compulsorily redundant within a year of their pension point the pensions they have earned and deserve, rather than buying up real estate in controversial areas of natural beauty in Scotland, where local people are clearly opposed.
In the last tranche of cuts in June, some 50 service personnel were made redundant within a year of reaching their pension point. My brother included. He will be 82 days short of his pension point having served nearly 16 years and three long tours on the front line.
These men and women are losing out on 80% of their pensions. The governemnt line is that they are receiving a “significantly increased redundancy package” but this is worth only 20% of the pension they have accrued to date and were promised. Is the MoD unable to add up? Or think the soldiers and their families can’t add up?
The treasury is saving thousands of pounds on the backs of “the warrior generation”, as the Chief of General Staff , has described this cohort of soldiers who have seen more active service than any since World War II.
The question is, Is this a deliberate policy by the treasury to save thousands of pounds off the backs of these soldiers? Or just an oversight in the way the redundancy and pension schemes interact? Not enough modelling done prior to these announcements?
Probably the later, as Mr Hammond admitted to me personally in a letter in July that he had been badly briefed prior to a defence committee meeting regarding the redundancy issue and had made a “mistake” in his statement and was therefore forced to issue a “corrected statement” to the defence committee. Other mistakes and oversights may also have been made.
That is why we are calling for a review of these cases and the redundancy scheme to ensure these soldiers and their families and future soldiers in the coming two tranches of cuts don’t suffer the same financial turmoil.
So please, step away from the estate agents in Scotland Mr Hammond. Concentrate on finding a solution for the families of these men and women who have planned their financial lives on the promises of these pensions. To do less is to break the spirit of the Military Covenant.
Surely the government should be honouring it’s promises and committment first to the men and women who have risked their lives to uphold government policies rather than any committment to material procurements or any pieces of land in the highlands of Scotland?
Please sign the epetiton and pass on to friends if you can.
http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/35949
Battle to save Cape Wrath from MoD
Mark Macaskill Published: 16 September 2012
CAMERON McNEISH, the celebrated walker and one of the SNP’s most high-profile supporters, has vowed to fight Ministry of Defence plans to buy a remote tract of land on the Cape Wrath peninsula.
McNeish, who recently devised Scotland’s first national walking trail — which ends at Cape Wrath, the most northwesterly point of mainland Britain — fears the final leg of the 470-mile route will have to be changed if the MoD is successful.
He accused the Westminster government of mounting a landgrab that could seal off one of Scotland’s most famous wildernesses from the public.
The national trail will be opened by Alex Salmond next month. A guidebook is going on sale and a BBC documentary about the route, which starts at Kirk Yetholm in the Borders, has been filmed.
The MoD owns most of the land at Cape Wrath, the only place in Europe where 1,000lb bombs are allowed to be dropped. It wants to buy 58 acres of headland around a lighthouse — designed by Robert Louis Stevenson’s grandfather — that is being sold by the Northern Lighthouse Board.Artillery and mortar positions, and barracks could be built on the land.
McNeish is backing a community buyout to thwart the MoD and plans to meet Scottish ministers. “I would suggest the only reason they want to buy the lighthouse land is to force a complete closure on the whole of the peninsula,” he said.
“With the question of an independence referendum on everyone’s lips, this is perhaps a good time to ask if this is another scenario of Westminster forcing a landgrab on the Scottish people — particularly on a small and isolated community in the north of Scotland whose only income comes from a very short tourist season.
“And for what reason? So the MoD can play some war games? If Westminster and the MoD get their way then precious jobs will be lost and one of Scotland’s most iconic landmarks will become private.”
About 2,000 tourists visit Cape Wrath each year, mainly in the summer, for birdwatching and walking trips.
John and Kay Ure run the Ozone — Britain’s most remote cafe — from a former lighthouse keeper’s cottage on Cape Wrath, and say they could shut it if the military closes off the peninsula to the public.
“We have nine years left on our lease. We will be surrounded by the Ministry of Defence,” they said.
The Ures have support from residents of nearby Durness, who have a petition calling on the Scottish government to support a community buyout. The sell-off by Northern Lighthouse Board came to light when the Durness Development Group, a community body, applied to renew its right-to-buy interest.
The MoD said: “The Ministry of Defence has shown an interest in the site at Cape Wrath and is aware a community right-to-buy application is currently under consideration with the Scottish government. No action will be taken ahead of the decision on the community right-to-buy application.”
Early withdrawal from Afghanistan? Early redundancy for soldiers?
Why won’t the MoD do the right thing?
Why won’t the MOD do the right thing and change the policy that sees war hardened, experienced soldiers, discharged from the Army days before their immediate pension points?
The ‘unpensionables’, who are all being made compulsory redundant within 1 year of their immediate pension points, are being denied the financial security on which they have risked their lives and planned their futures and the MOD is content to let this happen.
Instead of demonstrating loyalty and courage the MOD keeps on hiding behind the statement that the ‘unpensionables’ will all receive significantly enhanced payment packages and preserved pensions when they are discharged. This is correct, but what the MOD are not then saying is that this significantly enhanced package does not even total 25% of the total entitlement these soldiers would get if they were allowed to serve as little, in some cases, as an additional 79 days.
The ‘unpensionables’ have served loyally for 15 years, deployed on numerous operational tours to Northern Ireland, Kosovo, Bosnia, Iraq and Afghanistan and have made countless family sacrifices upon the expectation that they would receive their pensions. To deny them within a matter of days is immoral, deceitful and goes against every single value and standard on which the Army prides itself.
Rules could be changed to allow these soldiers to serve their additional days yet the MOD instead believes the redundancy is a job well done as only 1.2% (less than 50) people are affected by this situation. Whilst it may only be 1.2% now what will it be on Tranche 3 and 4 when up to 15,000 soldiers will be made redundant?
The ‘unpensionables’ are not after extortionate additional payments or reversal of redundancy decisions but simply the opportunity to gain what they have worked for during the last 15 years. They believe they are an anomaly in the system due to their small number and simply ask that they get what they have legitimately risked their lives for. A small change for the MOD but a massive change for those affected.
Please sign the Parliamentary e-petition if you agree and help get these cases reviewed.
http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/35949
British Broadcasting Services- Call for rethink over officer pensions
Please see below link for BFBS report on pensions issue broadcast for first time, 6th September 2012
http://www.bfbs.com/news/navy/call-rethink-over-officer-pensions-60225.html
6 September 2012 | UK By James Hirst
