An open letter to Eric Ollernshaw OBE MP
Dear Eric
Thank you for your letter of 20th September regarding the coalition governments plans to destroy the Civil Service Compensation Scheme (CSCS).
I am glad to have your assurance that the Government values the professionalism and contribution that civil servants make to deliver excellent public services. However, I think it is a shame that you do not demonstrate such qualities in the factual accuracy of your response.
Firstly, whilst the nations debt is, as you say, running at £155 billion, it is not immediately an answer to start attacking the long established terms and conditions of your employees. As your esteemed parliamentary and party colleague Andrew Robathan, the Minister for Veterans stated when visiting us recently, it is as wrong to attack OUR terms and conditions, as it was wrong for the attacks on the T&Cs of Members of Parliament, and he understood from this the ‘pain’ such an injustice has and would continue to cause. That said, there are other areas that could be focused upon; for one the £120 billion a year lost in uncollected, avoided or evaded taxes that you seemingly fail to recognise.
Secondly, you point out that PCS was the only union to stand against the previous Governments proposed changes (in point of fact there were at least two other unions that rejected the changes), and that the other unions such as GMB, Prospect, Unite, the Prison Officers Association and FDA all agreed the changes. However, it should be understood that FDA members were the authors of the proposals, and so they can hardly count, but even if one does include them, together these other bodies represent at most only 20% of the civil servants affected by the proposals, whereas PCS represents 80% of all civil servants. PCS members rightly rejected the proposals and took industrial action against them. Our actions were later vindicated in the courts when the proposed changes to the scheme were deemed to be illegal. It is your Government that is now changing a law to make an illegal action retrospectively legal. That is nothing short of shameful.
Third, you state that the CSCS is too expensive, with it in some cases being worth up to six and two thirds years of salary! I am sorry, but this is entirely inaccurate. The only part of the a civil servants T&C’s that refers to 6 and 2/3rds years is in some cases where Agreed Early Retirement (AER) is offered on enhanced terms, but then this refers not to years of salary but to years added to service for purposes of calculating the retirement pension. It requires 40 years to obtain a ‘full’ CS pension. However, in the event of an enhanced AER, someone aged 53 might be 7 years or more shy of qualifying for a full pension. However, the added years are offered as an incentive but only in some cases. To conflate a term that applies in exceptional cases of retirement with conditions applying to mass redundancies is very careless. To then use that as a justification for reducing general conditions is nothing short of misleading.
If you truly believe that it is ‘entirely fair and necessary to seek reform of’ the CSCS, I would hope as your constituent that you would at least first get your facts right.
