Superannuation Bill

Memorandum submitted by Ann Marshall (SU 36)

Summary of Evidence:

The Bill is unfair and inequitable, and impacts unreasonably on some public servants by arbitrarily changing their terms and conditions to mask a short term shortfall in funds.

Evidence in full:

1. I am 54 years old, and a chartered Civil Engineer. I currently lead a team working on the Department for Transport agenda within Government Office for the North East (GONE), using my specialist training and skills to the benefit of the Department. Despite the fact that greater financial rewards can be secured in the Private Sector, I have chosen to spend my entire working life in the public service, partly because I believe it has a key role in delivering quality services in the UK, and partly in view of the security it offered. I have worked in four different local authorities in the North East, and subsequently in a number of different roles in the civil service.

2. I joined the Northern Regional Office of the (then) Department of Transport in 1990 and have been transferred through various governmental reorganisations into the Highways Agency and subsequently into GONE, although I have continued throughout to be a DfT citizen. The Government has now made the decision in principle to close the Government Offices network including GONE, and as a consequence my employment will cease, probably in the current financial year, but certainly within the next twelve months. The likelihood of me securing equivalent employment in the North East of England is extremely remote, as all sectors here are currently laying off staff, and my family circumstances make it difficult for me to move elsewhere to seek work.

3. I currently have reckonable service of 29 ½ years, and had planned to work to the normal retirement age for women of 65 which would have given me a pension of half pay. However, because of the imminent closure of the GO Network, I will through no fault of my own become surplus in the near future. Under my existing terms and conditions of employment, I am entitled (as an over-50) to take early retirement, with my pension enhanced to retirement age, giving me the equivalent of 35 years service by age 60. I would also receive an annual compensation payment equivalent to my pension up to my 60th birthday. In real terms the compensation payment would be equivalent to approximately 2½ years salary (to age 60) and a pension of 35/80 of salary for the remainder of my life.

4. Clause 1 of the Superannuation Bill would cap compensation payable under the Civil Service Compensation Scheme at a maximum of 12 months’ pay for compulsory redundancy and 15 months’ for voluntary exits. Clause 2 provides for clause 1 to expire after 12 months, unless repealed, extended or revived using order-making powers.

5. Under the terms of the Bill I would receive a maximum of 15 months pay in compensation on closure of the Government Office – a reduction of 50% of my current entitlement. Additionally, my pension would be reduced in perpetuity by between 6% and 12.5%.

6. The implications of this for me and my family are extremely significant. I am currently supporting two children through university, and my 95 year old father has Alzheimer’s disease, and is self-funding his place in a care home with financial support from me. Under the terms proposed, I will be unable to continue to provide support for these three people.

7. The Superannuation Bill appears to be designed to remove long standing rights in the short term, to reduce the cost of civil service cuts. As such it is inequitable and unfair. Colleagues in the Department for Transport who are not in a closure situation have only last month been offered superior terms and conditions, but today I received written confirmation that I am not eligible to be considered for that scheme. Colleagues in Government Office for London have similarly been offered much better terms than those being rushed through Parliament in the Superannuation Bill.

8. This clearly raises the question of equity of treatment under human rights for those individuals like myself who are made redundant whilst the Bill is in force. Whilst my preference would be to remain in employment until the normal retirement age of 65, I am asking you to reject this bill, to ensure that I and my colleagues receive fair treatment in the unfortunate position in which we currently find ourselves.

September 2010