Letter to Sam Hannis

Points raised in the letter dated 2nd June 2016 from HPA to Sam Hannis, CH2M Hill director (as signatory to the covering letter for the proposed replacement of HPS):

We note that you are persisting with the plan to reduce members' pension benefits despite the reasoned objections and the alternative which we have put to the Trustee and the Pension Regulator. We object strongly to the manner in which members' decisions are being sought.

The request to make a decision by 5 August or be transferred into the PPF leaves far too little time for members to make a life-changing decision. In the Kodak case, which has some similarities, the polling of decisions was carried out by the Electoral Reform Society, not by an interested party.

The letter leaves many important questions in the air and we would like your immediate answers to these points:
1. Has this proposal been presented in open or secret court? If so, when and what was the outcome?
2. What is the name under which the proposed new scheme is registered with the PPF and tPR?
3. What are the rules of the new scheme?
4. Where is the TPR's letter of approval?
5. Where is the PPFs letter of approval, including assurance that the new scheme is covered by the PPF?
6. How much cash is CH2M injecting?
7. What are terms of the CH2M guarantee?
8. What is the funding position of the new scheme?
9. Will the new scheme be in surplus from Day One and if not, how will the deficit be met?
10. Do the discussions about the PPF cap include the easing of the cap included in the 2014 Pensions Act?
11. Will the cash commutation factors at retirement for the new scheme be identical to the generous PPF factors?
12. When comparing the proposed new scheme with PPF compensation, why are members already receiving pensions being given less favourable treatment than those with deferred pensions, given that all of them are governed by the same existing rules?

In addition we have a number of points regarding the legitimacy of your proposals:
1. What evidence do you have that the only way forward is the restructuring of the HPS liabilities given that CH2M undertook to fully fund the HPS and is financially capable of doing this?
2. Can you please confirm that if Halcrow were to be made bankrupt, the great majority of the staff now doing the 4,000 Halcrow jobs that would be lost would be transferred to CH2M to ensure the work in hand was continued by the CH2M group? If not, who would do this work?
3. Where is the analysis showing this is a better alternative for the Pensions Regulator (i.e. generates more cash for the Pension Protection Fund) than placing Halcrow into administration and pursuing CH2M as a connected party?
4. How much money will this save CH2M compared to the undertakings given by CH2M to support the HPS at the time of buying Halcrow?
5. Finally, why, if scheme members are being offered free advice about the options, does not this also include free advice about the legality of the proposed change?

The letter was also copied to the HPS trustee.