_lrg.jpg)
My brother priest Fr David Elliot has been writing about Clergy Pensions on his blog: http://htreading.blogspot.com/
It is often said that clergy must accept that everyone is having to face reduced pensions, but with respect they are not all starting from such a low base, and clergy actually face increased costs and outgoings in retirement what with the loss of the guarantee to house us after retirement - on that basis one understood that the Pension would be lower. In any case the argument is a red herring for surely the Church of all organisations should be looking after its servants and in so doing setting an example for other Pension Funds to follow.
I don't mind sharing with the readers of this blog my response to the so called "consultation" from the Pensions' Board:
"I think these are a series of reprehensible proposals. On entering ministry in the Church of England as a Lay Worker I was told not to worry about pension and housing in retirement as I would be looked after. On that basis I understood that while my stipend was lower that what I could have expected had I continued in secular employment I did not need to worry about not having enough to live on in retirement.
I was subsequently ordained and within a year we were told that the Pensions Board could no longer guarantee to house us upon retirement. About five years ago now the age at which I would need to retire to gain the maximum pension allowed under the scheme was increased and now you propose to increase it again while claiming that monies for the pension scheme are not available.
I find it scandalous that the Church of England can be so cavalier in its attitude towards its servants. It has plenty of money for grandiose schemes such as "Fresh Expressions" - in 2006 the Church Commissioners gave £70 Million Pounds in addition to what it normally gives the Church of England for this "scheme" - that would have been put to better use in so many other ways. Although from what I read of the administration of OUR pension scheme I fear it would have been similarly badly invested.
At the age of 52 I have little chance of being able to recoup the loses to my pension and lump sum that you are robbing me of, as there are not enough years to be paying in adequate sums into a Stakeholder Pension.
If the House of Clergy and Bishops in the General Synod vote in favour of these proposals then they should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves; for the Bishops will certainly have lost the confidence of those they ordained and are supposed to be "Fathers in God" to; and the House of Clergy will prove that they are a craven bunch who exist in the vain hope of preferment.
The remedy lies in the Church Commissioners investing properly in pensions and giving a lead to the nation in the care it affords the Church of England’s servants; and with the Pensions Board who if they cannot manage the assets and investments more prudently and successfully should resign."
"I think these are a series of reprehensible proposals. On entering ministry in the Church of England as a Lay Worker I was told not to worry about pension and housing in retirement as I would be looked after. On that basis I understood that while my stipend was lower that what I could have expected had I continued in secular employment I did not need to worry about not having enough to live on in retirement.
I was subsequently ordained and within a year we were told that the Pensions Board could no longer guarantee to house us upon retirement. About five years ago now the age at which I would need to retire to gain the maximum pension allowed under the scheme was increased and now you propose to increase it again while claiming that monies for the pension scheme are not available.
I find it scandalous that the Church of England can be so cavalier in its attitude towards its servants. It has plenty of money for grandiose schemes such as "Fresh Expressions" - in 2006 the Church Commissioners gave £70 Million Pounds in addition to what it normally gives the Church of England for this "scheme" - that would have been put to better use in so many other ways. Although from what I read of the administration of OUR pension scheme I fear it would have been similarly badly invested.
At the age of 52 I have little chance of being able to recoup the loses to my pension and lump sum that you are robbing me of, as there are not enough years to be paying in adequate sums into a Stakeholder Pension.
If the House of Clergy and Bishops in the General Synod vote in favour of these proposals then they should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves; for the Bishops will certainly have lost the confidence of those they ordained and are supposed to be "Fathers in God" to; and the House of Clergy will prove that they are a craven bunch who exist in the vain hope of preferment.
The remedy lies in the Church Commissioners investing properly in pensions and giving a lead to the nation in the care it affords the Church of England’s servants; and with the Pensions Board who if they cannot manage the assets and investments more prudently and successfully should resign."
No comments:
Post a Comment