An amended pension bill for legislators was yesterday passed in the National Assembly, prompting the opposition to criticise the priorities of the administration in light of legislation it has left on the back burner.
The Pensions (President, Parliamentary and Special Offices) Bill 2010 seeks to have the removal of the four decades-old requirement that a person having entered parliament would only be eligible to receive benefits from the contributory pension scheme which exists within the parliamentary framework until he/she would have attained the age of 40.
Prime Minister Samuel Hinds, who piloted the second reading of the bill in the absence of Finance Minister Dr Ashni Singh, yesterday stated that while particular contributions are made to Guyana’s development by persons, including him, one should welcome young people who may have been attracted to, or who would have earned a seat in parliament.
He noted that under the laws of Guyana, one can enter parliament at just over 18 years and he/she would become a contributor to the pension scheme at a rate of 6% of his/her salary. It is a contributory pension scheme, he reiterated, and not a non-contributory one as in the case of the public service although parallels exist. Hinds stated that the question of superannuation, pensions and gratuity needed to be addressed.
Persons who would have attained 12 years’ contribution would be allowed access to the scheme. He said that some three to five members of parliament “would have been caught in the provisions of the existing Act” and he noted that such persons would benefit immediately from the passing of the legislation.
Shadow Minister of Finance Volda Lawrence noted that several anomalies existed within the amendment, including “the continuous inclusion of the title president.” The PNCR-1G MP noted the enactment of the Former Presidents Benefit and Other Facilities Act 2009, which made further provisions for the president, including his pension. She said the law provided “extraordinary benefits” to the president, including provisions that the pensions and benefits of the president after leaving office will be calculated on the basis of the salaries of any future president.
Consequently, she noted, the president can be assured that his pension and benefits will not be affected by inflation or any such incidence. She explained, “There is nothing wrong with the provisions but the principle should be applied across the board to ensure civil servants benefit. They are the persons most affected. They receive poor benefits.”
She said that the bill which was presented yesterday had nothing to do with the president’s pension and therefore any amendment to the Act should have seen the removal of the title “president.” Lawrence described the passage of yesterday’s legislation as “another clear example of the haphazard way in which bills are rushed through the House.”
As she continued, Lawrence stated that the notion that five persons at parliament will benefit from the passing of the bill was “mind boggling.” She said one would question why the government would have considered passing the legislation yesterday such a priority “that they would summon this sitting of the National Assembly only to consider this matter when there are far more important bills on the order paper.” Among the outstanding legislation on the parliamentary agenda are the Local Government Amendment Bill 2009, the Freedom of Information Bill 2006 and the Broadcast Bill 2010.
Lawrence said that one may speculate the motive of the passage of the bill yesterday as being urgent, “because the government does not intend to have the many young members following general elections this year.” She said too one may expect that the numbers on the government side of the house may be reduced following the elections, hence the need to provide pensions.
PPP/C MP Manzoor Nadir expressed shock at Lawrence’s assertions when she concluded that the bill was being piloted as a treat to the younger persons at parliament. He said that the opposition attempted to use “cheap politics” and to put to the feet of the government their own failures during Lawrence’s presentation.
Nadir also refuted statements made earlier by Lawrence to the effect that the government had “pushed” to raise age of National Insurance Scheme (NIS) pensioners from 60 to 65. He said that a committee was established within the NIS and its members recommended, after consultations, the raising of the age requirement but he noted that such was never even considered by Cabinet.
Advisor to the President Gail Teixeira, who also spoke yesterday, stated that the amendment was simple, while noting that it was about persons in the House being considered now and in future and will not have to wait until age 40 to access the pension scheme.
She said she thought that the PNCR, in its recent promotion of youth, would have supported the legislation. She said that Guyana currently has a young parliament unlike other nations, where she noted persons are in their 80s and 90s. Teixeira noted that persons should be proud that 13 MPs are below age 40 as she reiterated that the legislation should be embraced.
Opposition leader Robert Corbin noted that the passing of the legislation gives the impression that “we appear to be looking after ourselves and not the population.” He said that he receives letters from public servants who could not access their benefits or felt cheated after retirement. He said that the passing of the legislation was “an insult to young people” as it appeared to give youths the impression that they should be drawn to parliament to seek the benefits of the legislation. He called on the government to set up a committee to address pensions, including those of public servants, generally.
