Amending PM's pension bill

THE debate on June 27 of proposed limits on the award of a pension to a serving prime minister straddled two concerns– the eligibility of Stuart Young, who served as PM for just six weeks, and the prevailing public concern about an unusual and awkward scenario after the PNM’s loss at the polls.

The situation is a sui generis confluence of two incidents: a significant improvement in the pension of prime ministers, a matter under discussion since 2004, when the President approved an evaluation by the Salaries Review Commission of pensions paid to members of the House of Representatives and the Senate.

Among the issues that the commission outlined in its 2007 report were having recompense calibrated to the length of service of members and senators, equivalent emoluments in other jurisdictions, and the challenges that some who have served experience in securing gainful employment after their term in leadership.

Before that report, the commission last reviewed pensions in 1995, considering members of the House who serve a single term and those who die in the line of duty.

It would be the 120th report of the Salaries and Review Commission, which, after evaluating 206 offices and considering the job descriptions submitted by 190 respondents found that 93 per cent of offices should receive an increase, with 67 per cent receiving a recommended increase of more than 20 per cent.

The impact of these increases on the salaries of the president and prime minister would prove particularly galling to the public, generally, and public servants, specifically, who faced an unshakeable four per cent increase by the finance minister.

Given that history, the revisions passed by special majority in the House offer at least the patina of equanimity.

After serving for a year, a new prime minister would earn one-third of their highest salary; in the second year, 50 per cent; after three, two-thirds; and after four years, the incumbent achieves full eligibility for the maximum pension.

In declining to be present for the June 27 debate, Mr Young described the proceedings as ad hominem, that is, in response to him, and he is correct. But while the amendment was triggered by him, it is specifically about the circumstances that an unusual transfer of power and the crushing election result created.

The resulting situation surfaced a gap in the Prime Minister’s Pension (Amendment) Bill, which the June 27 sitting addressed.

While nobody expected a revolving door of prime ministerial resignations and appointments to follow the precedent of Mr Young’s tenure as PM, the situation, unique in a nation familiar with long terms by political leaders, was an uncomfortable surprise, and it is appropriate to address it in alignment with the requirements for other parliamentarians.

Notably, the opposition abstained instead of voting against the bill, clearly aware that the situation remains a hot-button topic with the electorate.