TOP 100 ENGLAND SITES
| |||
|
| |||
| |||
|
| |||
| Public sector pension reforms: how key workers will be affected Five public servants tell Hélène Mulholland how the proposed reforms to pensions outlined by Lord Hutton will affect themThe nurse James Anthony, 25, has worked as a full-time nurse for the past five years in Birmingham. He earns around £25,000 a year. As a new entrant in 2005, he was subject to the pension reforms negotiated five years ago. He sits on Unison's national executive."We increased our staff contributions in the NHS then, and I know it has put some of my colleagues off from paying into the scheme. The increased retirement age was also already in place for new entrants, so a lot of reforms had already happened, which is why our pension scheme is sustainable and affordable. We are already being asked to take a two-year pay freeze, which is already cutting our standard of living."When you go into nursing you accept the pay is not going to be as high as other graduate jobs in the private sector but you understand you will get a good pension, so you will at least be looked after in your old age. As far as retiring later is concerned, staff that can work longer do but the option of retiring at 60 is important because this job is hard physical work. It is not something you can do into your old age if you do not have the physical fitness to do it."It is going to get more difficult because of cuts to public services, because the most stressful thing for nurses is when you can't deliver the service to the patients that you feel they need to get. I don't think any nurse is going to leave the profession because of their pension but it is another thing that makes it less attractive.The litter picker Keith Andrews, a 56-year-old former miner, became a litter picker for Swansea city council 15 years ago after the colliery closures. He earns £227 a week. Andrews points out that local government workers will have had their pay frozen for three years, due to a freeze this year coupled with George Osborne's two-year pay freeze for town hall staff. A promise of a £250 for the next two years for those earning less than £21,000 will not apply to local government staff."I'm a reasonable man with four daughters and a 10-year-old granddaughter but there are certain things that get my goat. I have nine years left to retirement – assuming my health holds up until then. We have always put up with a low wage because we look to a decent pension at retirement. I have worked all my life since the age of 15, and I chose to take this job, but I know for a fact that my standard of living is going to get worse than when Margaret Thatcher was in power in the 1980s. Aside from these changes, VAT is going up, and the rent on my two-bedroom flat hasn't stood still. We are going backwards all the time."I would like to ask David Cameron and George Osborne to get out of their ivory towers and into the real world. I have been following the Conservative party conference and it's clear they have not got a clue what it's really like for the rest of us."The civil servant Sarah Hyde (not her real name), a civil servant for 25 years, works in HM Revenue and Customs. Aged 49, she lives alone and earns a gross salary of £19,500."This is the last straw. Most people think we earn a "gold-plated pension" when your pension is related to your final salary, but prior to these proposals, my pensions statement said I would retire on £8,600. Under a career average calculation, I will be getting less than that because I was on a lower civil service grade for 20 years. If my contributions – currently 3.5% – double, that is effectively a pay cut. I will be paying more for my pension to get less at the end. It is a double hit. I am at the point now where I would consider taking my skills across to the private sector. If you go out to work full time, which I do, I do think that at the end of the day you should be able to do more than just pay your bills and literally just live."The council estates officer Phoebe Watkins has worked in local government for 31 years, the last 11 served as a estates officer for a London borough, which deals with social housing tenancies and issues such as antisocial behaviour. She lives with her partner and three children and earns £30,000 with London weighting."We are going backwards in terms of pay: a three-year pay freeze and now my pension contributions are going to go up, as well a change to the way my pension is determined at the end of my working life. I have always paid in to my pension believing it was going to be a final salary scheme. I have not been working in this job as a career advancement, I do it because I enjoy it. I believe in public services, but I also believe I should be paid a decent wage for doing a hard job."The firefighter Pete Hope, 47, a firefighter at Worcester fire station, has served for 18 years. "I do a very physical, demanding job and I would not be able to do that past the age of 60, let alone 68. I currently contribute 11% into my pension each month, which costs me in the region of £260-£270 a month, and I really would wish that people that come up with this myth of gold-plated pensions understood that is not the case. The reason I pay that money is that it will allow me to retire at an early age of 55 [under changes in place before 2006]."It is foolhardy to say the least to suggest you can increase the retirement age to 68 and expect people to work in heat and smoke, carrying heavy equipment, at that time of life."There are still people in the service who joined up when they were forced to join the pension scheme. Currently, I have £56,000 invested in my scheme. Ultimately, that money belongs to me and I am now being told by a government with a frontbench full of millionaires that I have to wait another 13 years to get my money back. If the man from the Pru did that I would take him to court and sue him for pension misselling. I would certainly consider changing jobs if they change my pension scheme."Public sector payPublic services policyPublic sector pensionsPublic sector careersLocal governmentCivil serviceHélène Mulhollandguardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds guardian.co.uk |
Rape accused 'freed to kill' demo A murder victim's family stage a protest outside court asking why a man accused of rape was able to kill their daughter while on bail. bbc.co.uk |
JLS and Tinie Tempah top MOBO Awards 15th annual Mobo awards at Liverpool's waterfront Echo Arena. telegraph.co.uk |
Appeal court verdict could open the door for vicarious liability claimants A preliminary ruling in the St Williams's boys school abuse case has ramifications for future legal actions against the care systemThis week, the question of who is potentially liable for the alleged physical and sexual abuse of 150 pupils at St William's boys' school in east Yorkshire between 1960 and 1992 was considered by the court of appeal. In 2004 the main abuser, Brother James Carragher, headmaster during this period, was convicted of abusing boys at the home.A judge in a preliminary hearing last year ruled that, if the claimants succeed in this litigation, the Catholic Child Welfare Society and the Middlesbrough Diocesan Rescue Society will be liable on the basis that they ran, controlled and managed the school. They face an £8m compensation claim.The Middlesbrough defendants (as the court called them) and the claimants appealed against this decision, arguing that the De La Salle Institute, a Catholic order of lay brothers, should also be vicariously liable because it was involved in running the school and provided teaching staff. The court of appeal disagreed, holding that the religious order was not vicariously liable for any acts of abuse carried out by the De La Salle brothers and others.Vicarious liability is sometimes described as "no fault" liability. In abuse cases it allows a victim to recover from a third party, such as a local authority employer, on the basis of that party's relationship with the abuser. This is despite the fact that the abuser's acts were not authorised, allowed by, or even known to the local authority employer. With this in mind, the judgment has ramifications for future abuse cases, particularly within the care system.While vicarious liability was not extended to the De la Salle Institute on the facts of this case, the judgment is good news for claimants generally. The court of appeal confirmed that a deliberate, unauthorised act can attract vicarious liability, and refused to accept that vicarious liability is limited to formal employment relationships.Some may see this as a missed opportunity. A number of examples of the institute's control and discipline were provided during the appeal. The court heard that the brothers took a strict vow of obedience and that their lives were governed by very strict rules, which included directives on how to dress, pray and conduct themselves. The institute frequently nominated particular brothers for teaching positions within the school, and a brother was headmaster throughout the period when the abuse is alleged to have happened. On one occasion, the De La Salle Institute assumed responsibility for investigating and dealing with an allegation of indecent assault, rather than leaving it to the managers of the school.Given the evidence pointing to the degree of control and discipline that the De La Salle Institute exercised over its members, it would not have been an unimaginable leap to impose liability in this case on the basis of fairness. So why did the court rule that they were not liable? The court found that the brotherhood had not undertaken, and then delegated, "a duty of caring" for the pupils, and that they were not teaching on behalf of the other members of the brotherhood "scattered all over the world".This judgment will, however, have wider implications for religious orders. While the fact that a religious order is involved in teaching or caring for children is unlikely to be enough to ensure it is legally responsible for any abuse, vicarious liability of institutions such as religious orders has not been ruled out. The court of appeal said that the task of imposing legal responsibility carries a "high level of fact sensitivity", therefore a future case with slightly different facts might be enough to warrant the imposition of legal responsibility. So religious orders have not found a safe haven in the ongoing storm of historical sexual abuse.The Middlesbrough defendants have indicated a possible appeal to the supreme court in order to establish the legal responsibility of the De La Salle Institute, and this is likely to cause some nervousness among religious orders.Rosalind Coe QC and Patricia Leonard are barristers at 7 Bedford Row. Both are currently representing the claimants in a group action by former pupils who resided at St William's boys' schoolCourt of AppealChildrenChild protectionCatholicismRosalind CoePatricia Leonardguardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds guardian.co.uk |
One in five use birthday as PIN number Nearly one in five card users choose their birthday date as their PIN number, research indicates. telegraph.co.uk |