This Moj report presents findings from the Millennium Cohort Study (MCS) written by Dr Alice Goisis, Dr Berkay Ozcan and Prof. Wendy Sigle from the London School of Economics and Political Science.
It describes variations in contact between children and non-resident parents, and use of court for settling contact or financial arrangements. The report also explores gaps in different child outcomes by their parents’ marital status and whether post-separation contact with non-resident parents is associated with children’s outcomes at age 11.
The executive summary is a good insight into what is an excellent piece of research and key among the findings is how outcomes for children whose parents face difficult times in their relationship are enhanced by a proper process of communication and management between the parties with the support of skilled professionals.
It’s not a new revelation of course, but at a time when Cafcass also report a rise in care applications http://www.solicitorsjournal.com/comment/rising-demand-care-applications it is as good a time as any for politicians to start making the welfare of children a mainstream issue rather than one which occasionally appears on their radar.
Redundancy - As if things were not bad enough
The Treasury recently confirmed that it is seeking further cuts to redundancy pay for civil servants. This comes after the reports late last year that George Osborne was seeking to reduce the maximum payment for voluntary redundancy across the public sector workforce to 15 months' salary from the current 21 months.
The 21-month limit on voluntary pay outs was agreed in 2010 after talks with Civil Service unions in 2010 but the Treasury document the intention to revisit that 15-month limit, saying it was planning to "make public sector exit compensation terms fairer, more modern and more consistent" in a bid to drive down public spending. It will come as no surprise to learn that the Cabinet Office has also launched its own consultation on a wide-ranging shake-up of the Civil Service Compensation Scheme.
According to the consultation, the specific proposals under consideration by the Treasury are to apply to all "current and future public sector employees" they include:
• imposing the 15-month cap on the maximum number of months' salary that can be taken into account when working out an exit payment, a reduction of six months on the current terms;
• reducing the maximum tariff for calculating exit payments to three weeks' pay for every year served. At present, the CS compensation scheme allows those who take voluntary redundancy n entitlement to one month's pay per year of service up to a maximum of 21 months, while the limit for compulsory redundancies is one month's pay per year of service up to 12 months;
• setting a maximum salary for the calculation of redundancy payments, with a limit which the Treasury says "could be set at various levels and could potentially align with the NHS redundancy scheme’s salary cap of £80,000";
• bringing in a "tapering element" to cut the amount of lump sum compensation staff are entitled to as they approach retirement age;
• and "reducing the cost of employer funded pension top ups for early retirement as part of redundancy packages".
The document says the government "will consider providing a form of transitional protection" as the new system is rolled out, with exits previously agreed between employers and staff prior to any changes "paid under the previous terms".
And on the new 15-month limit, it suggests some room for manoeuvre, saying:
"Where employers distinguish between voluntary and compulsory redundancies there may be a case for maintaining a differential by applying a lower limit to the latter. Likewise, where employers offer voluntary exit packages that are not classed as redundancies there may be a case for applying a slightly higher limit to those as part of an overall package."
Make no mistake, this is a blatantly populist move designed to fit the stereotyped public image of thousands of inefficient and wasteful civil servants getting a cosy pay off on the back of the taxpayer.
The Government’s promise of consultation has something of a hollow ring to it given their approach to the Junior Doctors dispute.
Is this is what you get with a 24.5% mandate?
Electoral Reform is one of two big issues (the other being the European in or out referendum) on which Napo has no official policy.
Members will recall that last year, our second motion to the Trades Union Congress supported the call for the TUC to commission independent research into possible alternatives to the UK’s ‘first pass the post’ constituency based system.
In supporting the motion moved by PCS last September, I made it clear that Napo was probably in the same position as many other unions in that we had not (to the best of my knowledge) ever had a debate on the intricacies of Electoral reform. I also agreed with the notion that, irrespective of political preference, it was time that a system whose origins reflected the historical fact that the British electoral system has been dominated by two/three parties for well over a century needs to be questioned. For example it’s a startling fact that over the last 40 years neither of the two ‘main’ parties have got anywhere near securing 50% of the total votes cast.
Over the last few months I have attended a couple of events organised by the Electoral Reform Society and the recent PR Alliance Building conference, both of whom warmly welcomed Napo’s entry into the growing public debate. Here I have been party to some robust debates about the fact that our current system is antiquated, that unless you live in one of the UK’s 120 ‘marginal’ seats your vote is usually just a statistic, and that the seats held by political parties don’t match the votes that they receive.
The most popular argument proffered by defenders of the status quo is that a change to proportional representation would open the back door to extremists, but that in turn raises an equally valid point that if people knew what they were voting for as opposed to being just able to vote against something, would that not produce a different result?
It’s a fascinating issue and one that I obviously cannot allow to distract me too long from other duties, but views from our members on this subject would be very welcome.
Retired or soon to be – then why not join the CSPA?
I have today issued the linked circular Napo and the Civil Service Pensioners' Alliance (BR 14/2016) to Napo branches, alerting you to the developing relationship between Napo and the Civil Service Pensioners Alliance.
The essence to all this is that we welcome the part that our retired members play in the life and fabric of Napo, but I have been aware for some time now that we are not able to offer much in terms of the campaigning issues that especially matter to senior citizens. This is especially relevant in terms of issues such as the provision of health services, residential care, transport, housing and the development of the State Retirement Pension on a basis that is fair and acceptable to pensioners.
Retired members or those contemplating retirement can reach me here at Napo for more information, or alternatively contact Les Priestley, who is an Executive Member of the CSPA (details in the memo) and who will be more than pleased to answer any questions that you may have.
More next week: news on CRC job cuts and the shambolic state of operations in some areas and much more besides.
- ilawrence@napo.org.uk's blog
- Log in or register to post comments