Superannuation Bill

Memorandum from Lorna Gibbon (SU 71)

My name is Lorna Gibbon and I work for the Scottish Government. I am 57 years old and have nearly 27 years of service. I agree that there needs to be changes to terms and conditions - but I do not agree that the proposed Bill is the way to deal with it and I oppose the proposed Superannuation Bill for the following reasons:

1. It is completely unfair and possibly not legal for my accrued rights to be taken away from me after loyal service for a number of years. My pay has always been lower than I could have got from elsewhere but when taking the whole package into account, the thought of a reasonable pension and the fact that if I were to be made redundant at any point, the compensation would enable me to more easily manage financially; there was a good trade off. I moved in 2004 in the interests of the service in order to take up a new post and as a result I have a much larger mortgage than I would have done if I had stayed living in a cheaper part of the country.

2. I have made financial decisions based on my terms and conditions of service and do not have things like mortgage protection because I didn’t consider I would need them. If the worst were to come to the worst, the current compensation arrangements would have allowed me to keep a roof over my head. This will not be the case under the proposed ‘cap’ and I will lose my home if I am made redundant

2. At 57/58 I will be unlikely to find another job. If I receive a maximum of a year’s salary then I will have to sign on and claim benefits until my pension becomes due. This will cost the state money.

3. My husband is also a civil servant, so we could be faced with a double whammy – and again his chances of finding another job aren’t any better than mine.

4. Those civil servants over 50 have much less time to make alternative arrangements and at the minimum I think that there ought to be transitional arrangements for civil servants over 50 years of age.

September 2010