Tag: scheme

  • UK has “no plans” for EU Youth Mobility Scheme, despite reports

    UK has “no plans” for EU Youth Mobility Scheme, despite reports

    A report in The Times had suggested that the UK is set to table a deal for a reciprocal scheme that will see young EU citizens, aged 18-30, able to live and work in the UK for up to three years.

    However, the government has since insisted it has no plans for such a scheme.

    “We do not have plans for a youth mobility agreement,” a spokesperson told The PIE News on February 21.

    “We are committed to resetting the relationship with the EU to improve the British people’s security, safety and prosperity. We will of course listen to sensible proposals. But we have been clear there will be no return to freedom of movement, the customs union or the single market.”

    The Labour government has previously dismissed proposals for such a scheme, but recent reports had suggested new plans could contain a cap on the number of young people allowed into the UK through the scheme and could therefore alleviate concerns from UK government as it seeks to curb migration.

    The UK government has previously made it clear its preference to do deals with individual member states, but subsequently rejected deals proposed by countries such as Spain.

    The UK already has a Youth Mobility Scheme with a number of countries including Australia, New Zealand, Japan and Canada that allow individuals to study and work in the country for up to two years, with the possibility of extensions for some countries.

    The membership body for English language schools in the UK, English UK, has been campaigning for an EU Youth Mobility Scheme since Brexit.

    “We welcome reports that the government plans to negotiate a youth mobility deal with the EU,” Huan Japes, membership director, English UK, told The PIE.

    “For young people in Europe and the UK to have the opportunity to live, work and study in each others’ countries will have immense benefits – not only for the young people themselves but also for language teaching centres and other educational organisations, the hospitality industry and for the UK’s future relations with the EU.”

    “And this kind of time-limited, mutually beneficial immigration has broad support from the British public,” said Japes, who added that he would like to see a scheme with “a generous allocation of places so that this scheme can really make a difference to young people’s lives.”

    According to advocacy group European Movement UK, mobility for young people could be a gateway to much closer ties with neighbouring European countries.

    European Movement UK CEO, Nick Harvey, said the government’s hostility to the idea “could not be justified” when the benefits of such a scheme are so obvious.

    “After all, the UK has youth mobility schemes with 13 other countries – including Australia and Japan – so it makes sense to have one with our nearest neighbours and closest partners,” said Harvey.

    “Dismissing the idea of reciprocal youth mobility simply meant letting down British young people who face all sorts of economic difficulties, and have seen their horizons curtailed by Brexit. Young people want and deserve the chance to study or work in Europe. The government owes it to them to make sure they get that chance.”

    We need to start pulling this country out of the no-growth quagmire of Brexit and start giving people hope for a better, brighter future
    Mike Galsworthy, chair of European Movement UK

    Similarly, Mike Galsworthy, chair of European Movement UK, is calling for a deal to be made.

    “We need to start pulling this country out of the no-growth quagmire of Brexit and start giving people hope for a better, brighter future,” he said.

    “Liberating our youth and small businesses alike to engage is an important start. Hopefully the government will now see that being bold, hopeful and engaged with Europe brings a sigh of relief from the public and a more positive outlook for the UK.”

    Writing in her column for The PIE last week, outgoing London Higher CEO Diana Beech mused on a refreshed relationship for the UK and the EU and what it might mean for the sector.

    “The process of resetting the UK-EU relationship by the spring is one to watch for the UK’s higher education sector,” she wrote.

    “This is because, while the EU has the power to ease restrictions on UK businesses to improve British trade prospects, the UK also has something that many in the EU want in return: namely the power to reinstate a youth mobility scheme between the UK and the EU.

    “At its most ambitious, such a scheme could allow young people from the UK and Europe the freedom to travel across countries to study and work as was the norm before Brexit.

    “A curtailed version could at least see mobility enacted for shorter, time-limited placements. Either way, UK universities could find themselves becoming an important bargaining chip in any future renegotiations,” wrote Beech.

    Beech considered that previously, the UK higher education sector would have “been first to welcome” the return of a Youth Mobility Scheme such as Erasmus+. But financial woes facing the sector are “likely to dampen university managers’ enthusiasm” for such measures, considering EU students would once again be regarded as ‘home’ students, thereby capping the fees they pay.

    Source link

  • Universities and the Teachers Pension Scheme: the time for change is now

    Universities and the Teachers Pension Scheme: the time for change is now

    Welcome back. The HEPI blog is now up and running again on a daily basis, landing in your inbox at 6:30am. (The pieces we ran over the break are available here.) If you are not already subscribed, you can sign up at the bottom of this page.

    Spaces are still open for our in-person Symposium with CBDU on Thursday 16th January: you can register here.

    Today’s piece is by Jane Embley, Chief People Officer, Northumbria University and Professor Tom Lawson, Deputy Vice-Chancellor and Provost, Northumbria University.

    The end of the Universities Superannuation Scheme (USS) pensions dispute in the summer of 2023 was the source of much relief in the sector. University employees in the scheme saw both their pension benefits restored to the levels they had been before the USS valuation of 2017 and a reduction in their contributions (from January 2024) from 9.8% to 6.1%. Employers could reverse the significant liabilities that had previously been skewing their financial statements and their contributions to USS were reduced from 21.6% to 14.5%. The Financial Times declared that ‘the cost to UK universities of providing pensions for employees is poised to fall by hundreds of millions of pounds after the sector’s main retirement plan swung into surplus after more than a decade of being in deficit’.

    But for many institutions the great pensions crisis was not over: indeed it had only just begun. For at least 80 universities, USS is not their main pension scheme, because those that gained university status through the 1992 Higher Education Act are required to offer Teachers Pension Scheme (TPS) to their academic staff. This includes institutions like Northumbria University, which has significantly developed its research intensity over the last decade and seeks to compete with other research intensives. The disparity in the costs of TPS and USS means that competition is no longer on a level playing field.

    Northumbria has more than 200 staff who are members of USS, but all of those have joined the university as existing members of that scheme. All other academic colleagues must be enrolled in TPS and cannot, at present, voluntarily become members of USS. Indeed those who join as members of USS also retain a right to be enrolled in TPS if they wish. Around 50 modern institutions employ some members of USS however the underlying requirement to make TPS available to university-employed academic staff is the same.

    Since 2023 the cost of TPS to both employees and employers has significantly diverged from USS. While employers’ contributions to the two schemes tracked one another closely until October 2019, they then began to diverge radically when TPS employer contributions rose to 23.68% while USS was at 21.1%. But in April 2024 the gulf between the two schemes became a chasm – TPS contributions rose by 5% to 28.68% as USS employer contributions went down to 14.5%.

    The difference in percentage terms is stark. But when you start to think about the financial cost for institutions it is all the more so. The pension cost (to employers) for a typical academic salary of £57,500 is £8,300 per annum for USS. For a TPS employee, it is £16,500. At an institutional level that means that for every 1000 staff earning this salary in TPS, the annual cost is £8.2 million greater than if those same employees were members of USS. For a professor earning £85,000 the difference is as much as £12,000 per full-time colleague. As Northumbria’s experience shows, these are additional costs being carried in one part of the sector for essentially the same staff.

    The situation is compounded by the nature of TPS as a scheme. Unlike USS, employers have no say in how the TPS is run and have no levers to keep employer (and indeed employee) contributions down. This is simply a cost handed down to universities by the Treasury. But unlike schools, to which the Treasury through the Department for Education provides additional funding to cover TPS cost increases, universities receive no relief and simply have to absorb these costs into their already stretched budgets. And unlike schools in the independent sector, which were permitted to stop offering TPS to new staff, universities are obliged to continue to offer TPS – whatever alternatives they can develop for their staff.

    The impact of this is extraordinary. It essentially means that in one part of the sector, it costs employers the same amount in on-costs to employ 503 staff as it costs to employ 1000 staff elsewhere. Quite apart from the burden this places on institutions, it is deeply anti-competitive.

    What then is to be done? The path forward is beset by problems. Unless there is legislative change, modern universities will be required to continue to make TPS available to all academic colleagues and, it bears repeating, will continue to have no say at all in the running of the scheme.  

    Of course, one option is to do nothing, but the finances of the sector mean the status quo is extraordinarily difficult to justify. Doing nothing embeds an unfairness that makes the government’s stated priorities for university reform more difficult to achieve. To put it crudely, it costs more for some institutions than others to employ academic staff, and as that resource is derived (at least in part) from student fee income then those institutions will require more students to fund the salaries of staff. For every 1000 staff earning £57,500 it would require all of the fees from 859 additional UK undergraduate students just to fund the difference in employer pension contributions.

    Institutions can employ new colleagues via subsidiary companies in order to give themselves the freedom to offer more affordable pensions to new employees. But this approach has many potential pitfalls. It would not help to reduce the costs in relation to existing staff, so would be slow to have any impact, and in any case it remains unclear what the status of such employees is according to HESA – which could among other things impact the ability of individuals to make a contribution to future REF exercises with the attendant implications for future funding. Employment through a subsidiary, even with all terms and conditions being the same but being out of scope for recognition within the REF, is also likely to be a less attractive prospect for employees.

    It seems likely that until solutions are found, many institutions might find themselves having to rethink their ability to participate in national collective pay bargaining. With higher pension costs and higher National Insurance contributions, it may be necessary, for now at least, for institutions to take control of salary increases to contain the total costs of employment. This is not an attractive option, but it is hard to think of any others that would be as swift and effective in containing cost increases, although of course it would come with its own industrial relations challenges.  

    Ultimately all institutions value their academic staff immensely and we want to provide access to attractive pension schemes. However, the lack of institutional control over which pension scheme can be offered, and the high, fixed nature of the employer contribution to TPS (which is not directly linked to any improvement in benefits for the individual) cannot be sustained. The timing of the current challenge could also not be worse. Institutions are grappling with a whole range of financial pressures, and as a consequence dealing with TPS remains in the ‘too hard’ box for many, not least because we genuinely cannot find the solutions without some form of intervention. But as the sustainability of institutions becomes all the more scrutinised, and as the sector needs to find financial efficiencies to address the concerns expressed by the Secretary of State for Education earlier in 2024, we do urgently need to find a way forward.

    Obliging institutions to continue to offer TPS places greater financial constraints on precisely those universities that might do the most to widen access and give greater opportunity to those from disadvantaged backgrounds as per the government’s priorities. It is an obvious unfairness that some of students will go to institutions where it is substantially more expensive to employ staff than in other institutions that are more traditionally regarded as elite. The time is now to remove this inbuilt, and presumably unintended, unfairness and end the obligation upon modern universities to offer TPS. If that happens individual institutions and the sector as a whole can begin to chart a path to a more sustainable position in the future.

    Source link

  • LAWSUIT: Videographers sue to overturn National Parks Service arbitrary permit scheme

    LAWSUIT: Videographers sue to overturn National Parks Service arbitrary permit scheme

    JACKSON HOLE, Wy. Dec. 18, 2024 — Picture three people standing next to each other in Yellowstone National Park. One’s an ordinary tourist, one’s a news reporter, and the third’s a documentary filmmaker. They’re all filming Old Faithful, using the exact same iPhone, and without disturbing anyone around them.

    Under federal law, the tourist and the reporter are doing nothing wrong. But the documentarian could face heavy fines — even jail time.

    That’s why the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression today filed a lawsuit on behalf of nature and sports photographers and filmmakers Alexander Rienzie and Connor Burkesmith. FIRE’s suit aims to overturn the National Park Service’s onerous, arbitrary, and unconstitutional permit-and-fee scheme that charges Americans for the right to film in public spaces.

    “The national parks belong to the American public,” said FIRE Chief Counsel Bob Corn-Revere. “If you have a right to be there, you have a right to film there. The federal government can’t tax Americans to exercise their constitutional rights.”

    Joining FIRE’s lawsuit as co-counsel and co-plaintiffs is the National Press Photographers Association, which represents thousands of visual journalists, including Alex and Connor. Although the NPS exempts filming for “news-gathering” from its permit scheme, the NPPA has for years argued that the law imposes an unfair burden on photographers and filmographers, who can’t always know ahead of time who they plan to sell their work to, or even if they plan to sell it at all.

    “For decades, the National Press Photographers Association has been working to support the rights of visual journalists and other photographers to document the beauty of our natural resources and the people who visit and care for them in our national parks,” said NPPA President Carey Wagner. “It is unfortunate that the actions and policies of the National Park Service have never fully respected the First Amendment rights of photographers, and it’s even more disappointing that it has become necessary to take the Park Service to court in order to resolve our members’ concerns. NPPA is enormously grateful to FIRE for taking on this case on behalf of all photographers.”

    Alex and Connor wanted to film in Grand Teton National Park in September to document an attempt by an athlete to break the record for the fastest climb up the Grand Teton. They planned to have only two or three people, using small handheld cameras and tripods, on the 16-mile route for the shoot. In fact, to keep up with the fast pace of the speedrun, they would carry less gear than the typical climber going up the mountain.


    But under current law, whether a filmmaker needs a permit to film in a national park doesn’t depend on the amount of gear they bring or how disruptive filming might be. The only thing that matters is whether their purpose is “commercial.” The rule could apply to filming a big blockbuster movie near the Grand Canyon (where the scale of the project might justify a permit requirement), but also to a small-time YouTuber who posts a video of their jog through the National Mall.

    “Congress wanted to keep big Hollywood productions from taking over the parks and keeping others from enjoying their natural beauty,” said FIRE attorney Daniel Ortner. “But the current law wasn’t written for a world where anyone with a smartphone has a film studio in their pocket.”

    Alex and Connor knew they might use the footage to produce a documentary film, so they filed for a permit and explained how small their impact would be. But NPS employees have wide and unquestioned discretion under the law to deny permits. NPS denied the permit on the grounds that it could turn the speedrun into a “competitive event”— and pocketed the non-refundable $325 application fee.

    “Independent filmmakers don’t have the resources of the big production companies,” said Connor. “It’s a gut punch every time we throw down hundreds of dollars, only to be denied permits for reasons that are vague, arbitrary, and unfair. As someone who needs to film outdoor sports where they happen, it’s a threat to my livelihood.”

    COURTESY PHOTOS OF ALEX AND CONNOR FOR MEDIA USE

    Alex and Connor were forced to choose between risking prosecution, or letting a potentially historic event go undocumented. For dedicated documentarians like themselves, it was an easy choice: They filmed without the permit in September.

    “In the entire time we were up there, we didn’t get in the way of anyone else’s enjoyment of Grand Teton,” said Alex. “To us, the Grand is a very special mountain that we’ve spent countless hours exploring.”

    An NPS spokesperson later announced they had determined that Alex and Connor’s actions didn’t meet all the criteria for charges—but if their work had been featured “in a commercial or a catalog or something like that,” it would be “less of a gray area.” Far from settling the issue, the NPS statement effectively signaled that Alex and Connor could still face charges if they ever sell or use their footage.

    FIRE and the NPPA are seeking an injunction in the United States District Court for the District of Wyoming to prevent that outcome, and to put a permanent end to a system where individual park employees can deny Americans their First Amendment rights on a whim.

    “I chose this line of work because I love the national parks,” said Connor. “Photographers and videographers are the best advocates the parks have; the more people see and understand their unique value, the stronger their desire to protect them. It’s time for the Park Service to stop throwing up roadblocks and work with us, not against us.”

    The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to defending and sustaining the individual rights of all Americans to free speech and free thought — the most essential qualities of liberty. FIRE educates Americans about the importance of these inalienable rights, promotes a culture of respect for these rights, and provides the means to preserve them.

    CONTACT:

    Alex Griswold, Communications Campaign Manager, FIRE: 215-717-3473; [email protected]

    Source link