Generate an appropriate single-sentence summary for the given text such that it includes the main topic of the text.

By Ian PollockPersonal finance reporter, BBC News So far the government has been having private negotiations with trade union leaders about its general plans but has not publicised some of the most important facts. But it is these details which are vitally important to understanding how much worse off public servants might be under the suggested new arrangements. The first point to grasp is that the government wants to change the current pension schemes in line with the recent suggestions of Lord Hutton. That would mean many employees being evicted from their existing schemes (mainly final-salary-related) into career-average ones, which should be less generous. They would also have to pay higher employee contributions. The NHS, local government, civil service and teachers' schemes would also have later retirement ages of 65 (rising later to 66 or even more in line with the state pension) whereas many staff are still currently able to bail out at 60 on a full pension. On the face of it, public servants are being invited to work longer, pay more but receive less. Accrual rate Actually, the government says its plans amount to working longer, paying more, but getting more or less the same as now. How can that be? After all, career-average schemes appear designed precisely to produce lower pensions than their final-salary counterparts. The first thing to note is that how much a career-average scheme pays out depends partly on just how fast pension builds up - the so-called accrual rate. It could be 1% of salary a year, or 2%, or almost any other figure. But the larger the number, the faster pension builds up, and thus contributions rates for both staff and employers have to be higher. For instance, the current civil service Nuvos scheme, open to new entrants to the civil service since July 2007, has a generous accrual rate of 2.3%. So someone who worked for 40 years before normal retirement, and whose salary never rose in that time, would accrue a pension worth 92% of their salary. Inflation-proofing It has been suggested that the government wants its new career-average schemes to have a much slower rate of accrual, possibly as low as 1% a year. That is partly to offset the cost of one of Lord Hutton's other key recommendations. He recommended that when staff in these schemes are building up pension, their accumulating pensions should be revalued each year in line with average earnings to protect them against inflation. It is argued by economists that in the long term, earnings rise faster than prices, so this would be a very advantageous feature. By contrast, annual revaluation in the Nuvos scheme is merely in line with the consumer prices index (CPI). "If you have the same accrual rate but revalue accrued pensions in line with earnings, rather than prices, most people would be no worse off under a career-average scheme than they would be in their old final-salary one," said John Wright, an actuary with Hymans Robertson. Final-salary link This is not the only apparently generous detail among Lord Hutton's recommendations. He also said - and the government has agreed - that when staff leave their final-salary scheme for a career-average version, they should still continue to build up pension in their old scheme, even though they are no longer paying in any money. That is because Lord Hutton said that the eventual payout from the final-salary schemes should still continue to be related to that member's final salary on their eventual retirement. Normally, people leaving pension schemes, but not actually retiring, become deferred (in the jargon of the pension industry). This means their accumulated pension to date is calculated at the point of deferral. It is then uprated each year in line with inflation until they do retire, but crucially is no longer linked to their salary. So Lord Hutton's suggestion for the design of his huge change to the public-sector pensions - that deferred pensions should in fact retain a link to final salary - incorporates another unusual extra cost for the government to digest. Government contribution It is only when current scheme members and their trade union negotiators see the fine details of the government's proposed new pension plans that they will be able to see what they are getting for their higher contributions. They will need to examine not only the suggested accrual rates and the method of inflation-proofing during accrual, but also the level of inflation-proofing for pensions in payment, as well as the retirement age and early-retirement penalties. Vitally, they will also need to see just how much the government plans to pay in as well. All these figures will need to be published, and understood, before anyone can decide just how fair, or unfair, the government's intentions are.
One thing absent from the debate about public-sector pensions is just what, in detail, the government is planning to do.

Glasgow City Council was granted a compulsory purchase order for Margaret Jaconelli's tenement flat and increased an initial offer of £30,000 to £90,000. The 52-year-old said this was not enough to buy another house and appealed against an eviction order. A sheriff has now ruled against her, clearing the way for eviction. The flat where Mrs Jaconelli has lived for 34 years is in an area that has been earmarked for the athletes village at the 2014 Commonwealth Games. Appeal hearing She is now the only remaining resident in the tenement. At a previous calling of the case, Sheriff Charles McFarlane QC granted the council permission to evict Mrs Jaconelli within 48 hours. But she was allowed to stay in her property at Ardenlea Street until her appeal had been heard. The case at Glasgow Sheriff Court last month, heard legal arguments from Mrs Jaconelli's lawyer, Mike Dailly, and Glasgow City Council. Sheriff Principal James Taylor has now issued a written ruling against the grandmother. Mrs Jaconelli can now appeal the compensation awarded to her through the Lands Tribunal but will have to leave her home.
A Glasgow grandmother has lost her legal battle against council plans to demolish her home to make way for the Commonwealth Games.

The chancellor said it was essential to "protect the collective interests of non-eurozone member states" while the rest of the EU forged stronger links. Without such reform, the UK might "face a choice between joining the euro or leaving" the EU, he said. The 28-member group also had to do more to ensure economic competitiveness with rivals like India and China, he added. Labour said David Cameron's "weakness" regarding his party was preventing reform, while the UK Independence Party said the prime minister had repeatedly "caved in" to Brussels. Mr Osborne's speech followed the Conservative leadership rejecting a call from 95 of the party's MPs to allow Parliament to block EU laws which damage the national interest 'Simple choice' Earlier this week Foreign Secretary William Hague said the EU's rules had to be followed by all its members and the MPs' veto plan was unworkable. But addressing the think tank Open Europe and the Fresh Start group of MPs, set up by Conservatives keen to see reform, Mr Osborne said he understood the need for change, especially given further economic and political integration by EU countries within the eurozone, aimed at preventing a repeat of the recent crisis. He warned: "If you cannot protect the collective interests of non-eurozone member states, then they will have to choose between joining the eurozone, which the UK will not do, or leave the European Union." He also said: "I believe it is in no-one's interests for Britain to come to face a choice between joining the euro or leaving the European Union. "We don't want to join the euro, but also our withdrawal from a Europe which succeeded in reforming would be bad for Britain. And a country of the size and global reach of Britain leaving would be very bad for the European Union." 'Status quo risk' The Conservative Party has promised an in-out referendum on EU membership - following a renegotiation of powers with Brussels - before the end of 2017, if it wins a majority at the next general election. Mr Osborne said: "The biggest economic risk facing Europe doesn't come from those who want reform and renegotiation. "It comes from a failure to reform and renegotiate. It is the status quo which condemns the people of Europe to an ongoing economic crisis and continuing decline." Mr Osborne argued there was a "simple choice for Europe: reform or decline". He said: "There are those who throw their hands up and say 'We can't reform Europe'. To them, I would say that we have already proved that wrong. "Take the EU budget. Last year, the prime minister negotiated the first ever real-terms cut... Far from being a lone voice, we were working with like-minded countries like Germany, the Netherlands and Denmark." Mr Osborne talked about how the 2008 financial collapse had exacerbated the EU's problems, but argued: "We knew there was a competitiveness problem in Europe before the crisis. "But the crisis has dramatically accelerated the shifts in the tectonic economic plates that see power moving eastwards and southwards on our planet." He said too much money was going on benefits across the continent: "Europe accounts for just over 7% of the world's population, 25% of its economy, and 50% of global social welfare spending." 'Utter bunkum' In a question-and-answer session following his speech, Mr Osborne said the Conservatives were "having a grown-up conversation" on Europe, adding: "I would rather be in a party that's addressing these issues for the future than a party that's burying its head in the sand." But, for Labour, shadow foreign secretary Douglas Alexander said: "The Conservative leadership seems to be spending more time negotiating with their backbenchers than negotiating with Europe to deliver real reform. "All of us know change in Europe is needed, but the tragedy is that David Cameron's internal party weakness is preventing him from approaching the need for reform in a sensible way." UK Independence Party leader Nigel Farage called the idea that the UK could lead reform within Europe "utter bunkum". He added of Mr Cameron: "The EU is not going to suddenly turn around and be dictated to by a man...who has given away any leverage in the negotiations he may have had by declaring his support for EU membership." 'Compelling' The CBI business group said Mr Osborne had set out a "compelling" case for EU competitiveness. But European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso warned of "scaremongering" about the right of EU citizens to live and work elsewhere in the union following recent suggestions by David Cameron that restrictions should be considered in future. He told the European Parliament that the principle was "good for all of us that enjoy freedom in Europe and have an open idea of Europe and not a narrow, chauvinistic idea of the protection of the different countries". Earlier on Wednesday, it emerged that the Home Office has delayed a report into the issue amid reported disagreements in the coalition.

The UK could be forced to quit the European Union if the organisation does not reform, George Osborne has warned.

