Introduction 1. This response to the department's proposed voluntary early release scheme is without prejudice to our opposition to the proposed 25,000 civilian job losses within the Ministry of Defence (MOD) and our opposition to the imposed new terms for the Civil Service Compensation Scheme (CSCS), which will be the subject of further legal challenge by PCS nationally. It therefore should not be seen as acceptance either of the proposed reductions or of use of the imposed CSCS terms and definitions.
2. PCS rejects the need for 25,000 civilian jobs to be cut from the MOD. We have proposed clear alternatives to deficit reduction, including closing the £120Billion tax gap and have alternative proposals within the MOD to make significant savings in operating costs without the need to cut civilian jobs, including civilianisation, ending outsourcing and privatisation and the removal of consultants, contractors and agency staff.
We have been seeking to progress these with the department under the Managing Surpluses Agreement (MSS), so far without success. We will also be raising these with the Secretary of State at our long delayed meeting on 28 February and will be campaigning against cuts in jobs and services.
3. PCS does not accept that compulsory redundancies are necessary and will seek the full and proper application of the Cabinet Office protocols for handling surplus staff situations, alongside the Managing Surpluses Agreement in any rundown within the MOD. PCS therefore objects to management’s refusal to engage with the trade unions, as laid down in the MSS agreement, to jointly agree measures to address any potential surplus within the MOD.
4. PCS does not accept that the new compensation scheme is lawful and therefore will not agree to its terms, nor to their being applied in a compulsory redundancy situation.
5. PCS will argue for discretion to be used to make available the best possible scheme terms and will consider advising members not to apply for the VERS at this time.
6. We deplore that fact that, once again, this proposal has not been subject to an equality and diversity impact assessment as required by both departmental policy and legislation before consultation. There is therefore no reference to how the department intends to safeguard the interests of protected groups under the Equality Act, nor how they will ensure that the selection criteria outlined does not discriminate against protected groups.
7. We hope that this consultation response will see the start of a meaningful dialogue with the trade unions, under the auspices of the Managing Surpluses Agreement, on dealing with the potential surplus situation within the MOD and delivering a fit for purpose voluntary early release scheme as part of a range of measures to mitigate against compulsory redundancies. The suggestion that the VERS will launch on 28 February, with applications concluded by 31 March, does not fit with this aspiration and we hope that the department, and if not the department then the Secretary of State, is willing to accept that achieving an agreement on this issue is worth further time and consideration.
General comments
8. In a department that attaches so much importance to the need to plan, the absence of any information on the prospects for staff and their careers; what skills are needed and, more importantly where (given the extent of family commitments nowadays) is appalling. Further the lack of any information for future years leaves staff in an invidious position because they do not have the information that they need to be able to make a decision.
9. The main problem with the scheme is that it perpetuates the problem with the previous schemes in that although many grades/skills are found across the MOD, it will be up to TLBs who agree to release. Too little importance is attached to location, especially as the releases for a particular site which has several TLBs will not be considered alongside each other. One could find that a TLB that is changing its skill requirement could be releasing a particular skill which is in short supply in another TLB.
10. No evidence has been supplied to back up either the assumption that natural wastage and restrictions on external recruitment will ‘deliver’ 4,500 reductions, nor to justify the proposed spread of releases over the three year period. It is also not clear whether all TLBs are expected to contribute proportionately to the reductions targets.
11. Whilst PCS accepts that some refreshment, by external recruitment, may be necessary over the coming period we would wish to see greater control exercised in determining whether posts could be filled by existing staff through retraining or by surplus staff from other government departments through CSVacs.
12. The document talks about the use of MODOPS and planning for retirement courses. We know that these have been overwhelmed by the level of demand and impacted by the department’s travel and subsistence cuts. What guarantees have we that these services will be adequately resourced to deal with the increased level of need; available when people need them and in the locations that people need to access them?
13. We would seek specific assurances that staff on career breaks, long term sickness absence, loans to other government departments, secondments, homeworkers and others covered by the requirements of the Keeping in Touch scheme will be notified of the VERS and have all the information available to them to participate on the same basis as those within the department.
14. We need further details about the team to be set up to manage this process: how many posts, over what timeframe, what knowledge and experience.
15. The department has to ensure, in all its communications, that staff in the redeployment pool do not believe that their only option is to apply for the VERS.
Eligibility
16. Despite in the aftermath of the SDSR announcement suggesting that reductions would be managed with the aid of a departmental early release scheme, this is clearly neither covers all staff in the department nor is managed departmentally with common selection criteria. The result is likely to be that once again the department loses key skills in one area that it has to recruit in another, wasting taxpayers’ money on both redundancy and recruitment costs.17. It is not clear whether all civilian staff are eligible to apply for the scheme, e.g. those on long term sick, those who are suspended, those on inefficiency warnings (Para 14 partially refers to performance).
Terms
18. It is disappointing that the department has not sought to talk to the trade unions about variations to the standard tariff for what is, in the first year at least, a voluntary exit scheme. For example, offering two months pay for every year of service up to the first five years, might make the scheme more attractive to those with limited service, as would waiving the two year qualification period.
19. Clarification is sought that the terms on offer for all the proposed schemes (SCS, USVF, RAF bases, etc.) will be the same. The department already proposes to run a two tier scheme, with military staff working alongside civilians leaving on significantly more generous terms. It is important therefore that the terms on offer for all civil servants are the same.
20. Clarification is also sought that the restrictions on payments to those above ‘normal pension age’ are not discriminatory on grounds of age.
21. There remains huge confusion over whether the proposal is for a voluntary exit scheme or a voluntary release scheme and whether this is a pre redundancy or redundancy avoidance measure. The department must be clear with staff that applications under this first phase will have no effect either on later stages or on possible selection for compulsory redundancy should the department get to the point of declaring compulsory redundancies.
22. PCS believes that as this current proposal is for a voluntary exit scheme, there will be restrictions on staff both applying for unemployment or jobseekers allowance (or the new universal credit when it is introduced) and for payment of mortgage protection insurance. If the department believes otherwise, then they have to demonstrate to all staff how their entitlements to benefits will not be affected by agreeing to a voluntary early exit under this current scheme and guarantee that the Department for work and Pensions will not reject any applications for benefits arising from such a voluntary ending of employment.
Estimates
23. We do not accept that staff should be asked to make life changing decisions, armed only with information secured from the ‘my CSP’ online calculator. As a minimum, comprehensive guidance should be available particularly around qualifying and continuous service and how salaries are quantified to calculate compensation and pension outcomes. We would also encourage the department to set up a helpline within PPPA and to make available access to financial advice.
24. We also question why the department recognises that some staff will not have access to a computer and is therefore providing an offline, paper based application service through PPPA but then expects those same staff to obtain compensation and pensions estimates online!
Application process
25. The window for applications is too short, particularly when individuals will be deciding whether to apply with no qualitative information on what is happening to their post, their business unit, their site or their profession. This is likely therefore to encourage speculative applications, which will either be withdrawn as the process moves forward and further information becomes clear, or will lead to the individuals turning down offers of early release at the end of the process. This will have involved significant nugatory processing effort and raises at least the possibility that the department will not reach its targets and that individuals who wanted to go have been denied that opportunity.
Selection process
26. PCS fundamentally rejects the use of performance, in any form, as a selection criterion (or as any form of ‘check’ against decision making) for the VERS. The subjective nature of performance markings and bonus awards is well known, as is the potential to discriminate against groups protected under the Equality act. To utilise this subjective information for selection for early release would be open to challenge. We also question the legality of releasing performance award information to selection panels, as this may have data protection implications as it goes against the purpose for which the information was originally collected and held by the department.
27. Clarification is needed on other factors which may be taken into account. Recruitment and retention allowances and market skills supplements (if any are currently in payment) should not automatically disbar recipients from early release. These allowances are reviewable and renewable and a review of continued applicability should be made before using their payment as a means of ruling out applicants for early release. Clarity is also needed on professional training – what happens to someone who is part way through such training, or who did not qualify?
28. Lessons have clearly not been learned from the 2008 early release scheme, where selection by TLB stovepipe (with TLBs also allowed to determine their own selection criteria and weightings) led to alarmingly varied outcomes. In particular, many TLBs managed to let staff go on ERS whose skills they desperately needed, so ended up bringing back those same individuals as contractors or agency staff on massively inflated day rates.
29. There is a worrying lack of clarity over the role of independent members in selection panels and also the potential for conflicts of interest if managers in the line management chain make up selection panels. Will all selection panels have mandatory criteria and how will compliance be audited?
30. It is clear that some skills champions, such as in the finance area as recently notified to the trade unions, have been unable to develop skills profiles and requirements for their specialisms. What confidence can we therefore have that Annex A represents anything other than a back of an envelope assessment?
31. In addition, Annex A makes no reference to the relevance and currency of certain skills, i.e. when the qualification was obtained, what continuous professional development and refreshment has been undertaken, is the skill still used by the individual and the department on a regular basis, can the individual be redeployed to areas which have shortages.
32. Annex A is also predominantly weighted towards higher grades. Does this suggest that the department has little further need for support and admin grades, or sees little need to retain them, train or develop them to become the seed corn for the higher grades of the future? Many of the protected groups under the Equality Act are contained in the lower grades and this perceived failure to value them is worrying.
33. Will skills criteria be consistent with those from previous early release schemes, such that people who were rejected in 2008 on the grounds of skills be discouraged from applying again?
34. PCS would like to see some element of ‘knock for knock’ releases, allowing individuals to leave to create opportunities for those in the redeployment pool (or those made surplus from other government departments) to secure permanent posts. Some element of vacancy matching, of skills in the RDP and skills in the TLBs would enable sensible workforce planning and avoid the potential for compulsory redundancies later.
35. It is not clear how the selection criteria in Para 12 are scored or weighted. Are all five points scored equally (i.e. count for 20% of the overall score)? PCS would prefer to see cost used only to determine releases where all other factors are equal, as otherwise cost will negate all the other criteria. If the in year cost of an individual’s release is high, what safeguards are there to avoid that individual being retained when their skills profile and location have minimal prospect of meeting future Departmental needs.
Notification and acceptance
36. Little is said in the consultation document about appeals. Again a lesson that should have been learned from the 2008 ERS exercise is that aggrieved individuals will pursue their grievance to the limit of departmental procedures. Efforts should therefore be made to secure a robust, timely and independent appeals process to demonstrate fairness, including oversight from DCP. Staff should have access to all material used by the selection panel to reach their decision, including weighted scores and skills assessments.
37. Greater clarity is needed about how individuals will be notified of the result of their application. Will this be via PPPA direct or through their line manager and will there be a common result date? How will individuals outside of the department (i.e. on the keeping in touch scheme) be notified?
38. We believe that individuals should be able to choose their departure date to best suit their financial circumstances and that payment of compensation in lieu of notice should be available as a default option. This would at least have the advantage of making for most people an unattractive package slightly more attractive. Individuals should also be able to minimise any tax implications by choosing a departure date which mitigates against their compensation payment taking them into a higher tax bracket.
Further consultation
39. The CD makes clear that there will be further consultation on future phases of the VERS proposal, on the development of frequently asked questions and guidance relating to the VERS and on proposals relating to specific sites and locations (Kinloss, USVF bases, etc.). We would wish to see such future consultation take place under the auspices of the Managing Staff Surpluses agreement and to be governed by a formal engagement plan with the trade unions.
