Written evidence submitted by Alex L Weir (ENT 36)

I have worked at Dungeness A since leaving school, I am now in my 28th year of service, the was ‘then’ CEGB and ‘now’ Magnox Ltd has been a good employer and I a loyal employee. I am on a moderate salary and what I thought was an excellent pension scheme, which for many years I have paid into on a reduced basis due to my part time working whilst I raised a family.

Magnox as a company are now facing a major downsizing, we are actually working ourselves out of a job, but we carry on never the less? successfully decommissioning our fleet of Magnox Nuclear sites, these are challenging times which requires experienced staff, hence the reason why so many Magnox Employees have such long service, you just can’t pick these skills off the shelf!

I understand where the government are coming from regarding the 95K cap. It is wrong that certain individuals, Fat Cats as they are called receive large sums of money, for relative short term work & failing appallingly at the same time, but those who this should apply to like the BBC and Banks bailed out by the tax payer seemed to have been left out of the enterprise Bill!

Although I will NOT get anywhere near the cash £95k lump sum limit, as the bill stands, the cap will still affect me due to my accrued pension rights, it will reduce my pension provisions by way of deficiency payments, the cap would be used up and likely leave a shortfall due to my length of service reducing my prospective redundancy lump sum payment to zero, leaving me just statutory benefits.

If I was actually getting £95,000 in my hand I would understand, you need to show to the House that the bill will affect many individuals pensions, it’s not just the lump sum to a person.

These proposal are going to be life changing to thousands of people.

I notice that the government have not carried out an Equality Impact Assessment in relation to this part of the bill because it did not affect business. However it will affect long serving female employees pensions in contrast to her male comparator, as the strain on the fund is considerably more for women than men for the same length of service and salary because women are actuarially expected to live longer than their male counterparts, this means that the inclusion of the £95,000 cap on exit payments that include payments to pension funds is discriminatory to women. How is this unfairness and inequality to female staff can be addressed?

Thank you for listening to my concerns.

February 2016


Prepared 18th February 2016