The National Assembly last night carried a motion to have a committee of the Parliament examine the current arrangements for former Presidents’ pension, other facilities and benefits and the Opposition will bring a bill to significantly amend legislation passed in 2009 and which created a public outcry in the months leading up to the 2011 general elections.
Members of the Government benches believe that the Opposition motion was flawed and that a bill would be the more appropriate method of seeking to amend legislation. Further, they stoutly defended the right of former President Bharrat Jagdeo to receive the package.
Moved by A Partnership for National Unity’s (APNU) Carl Greenidge, the motion called for the committee to submit as a matter of urgency a revised superannuation benefits package for those persons to whom the Parliamentary and Holders of Special Offices Act applies and for those categories of workers catered for by other government pensions and arrangements.
The motion is also seeking to have a revised superannuation package sent by the committee for consideration and approval of the National Assembly. The Former President’s (Benefits and Other Facilities) Bill was passed in 2009.
Commencing the debate on the issue yesterday, Greenidge said that because of the importance of the office of President, it is not the intention of his party to have that office devalued. He said that the holder of the office of President is not expected to live “hand to mouth” or made to engage in activities to bring disrepute to the office he or she bears. However, he said the excesses of the arrangement must be curtailed.
Noting that the package – seen by some as specifically designed around former President Bharrat Jagdeo – attracted controversy and alarm, he said that there has been a failure to quantify the benefits listed in the act.
“There has been no attempt to quantify the benefits in addition to the pension and many of them can be considered unlimited,” he said. Among the other benefits and facilities to which former Presidents are now entitled are payment of utilities, staff, medical treatment including overseas, security, vehicles, tax exemptions and gardener. “There are no caps except perhaps in the case of the gardener,” said Greenidge.
He said that the range afforded to the former President in Guyana is wider than is found elsewhere. He noted that the question of the package is linked to morality as the vast majority of the populace do not enjoy an adequate pension. “We have growing and alarming income disparities,” he said, adding that the increase of the old age pension from $8,100 monthly to $10,000 monthly during the budget debates came only through ‘teeth-pulling’ by the Opposition.
“The Act places no caps [on the benefits], no condition for its receipt and no consideration for cost,” Greenidge said. “Caps should be put on every single one of these items. I think legislation must conform to certain standards. The elements must be quantifiable,” he said. Greenidge added that the financing of the package must be linked with the country’s ability to pay and must be commensurate with the levels of benefits in various parts of the region. “The [point] is that you cannot claim to have a vested right when that right has no ceiling,” he said. “We propose to bring amendments to the Act which [are seeking] to cap individual benefits and deal with the [former President’s] tax status,” said Greenidge.
Speaking on the motion, Attorney General and Minister of Legal Affairs Anil Nandlall said the motion is taking the Parliament down a road to unconstitutionality.
He asked whether it was proper for the National Assembly to be engaging in the review of its own work – in this case the Act of 2009. He said that any review must pass the litmus test of constitutionality. He insisted that for an Act to be amended, a piece of legislation must be brought to the National Assembly.
Nandlall said too that the motion will cost the Parliament time and money. He said that according to Article 222 of the Constitution, pension is a fundamental right and in that vein, no attempt could be made to deprive the former President of the pension that he now enjoys. He said that he does not know on what basis the Opposition could make the amendments to the 2009 Act retroactive.
“Move to the courts!” heckled Deborah Backer to Nandlall.
The Attorney General noted that the pension and other benefits are paid to the President immediately after he demits office and that there is no age restriction compelling that person to await the attainment of age 55 or 60 before being able to benefit.
Speaking on the motion, Dr. Rupert Roopnaraine of the APNU said that there are aspects of the 2009 legislation that need fine-tuning and said that that for this reason he does not believe that the Parliament is usurping the role of the judiciary.
“I am not ruling out that working on a select committee could lead to consensus,” he said. He said that no other single matter aroused more agitation during the elections like the issue of the President’s pension and benefits.
Dr. Roopnaraine made the point that the pension and benefits given to the former President must be considered in the context of the country’s ability to afford. He spoke of the United States’ policy on benefits to the former Presidents and said that these were not unlimited. He said that consensus on the payment of the benefits is something that the former President would be appreciative of.
Khemraj Ramjattan of the Alliance For Change (AFC) said that the novelty of a motion does not affect its validity in seeking to do what it is setting out to do.
Minister of Finance Dr. Ashni Singh blamed the Opposition and media for spreading lies about the nature of the pension and other benefits, calling the brouhaha a manufactured controversy.
He said that the 2009 legislation was not a stand alone bill but part of a suite of legislation dealing with the subject. He said that hitherto the legislation in 2009, former Presidents enjoyed the self-same benefits at the discretion of the state. “[The Act] made statutory what was discretionary or afforded by administrative fiat,” he said.
In committing the motion to the House for adoption, Greenidge said that it was not the intention of the Opposition to reduce the pension but rather to review the benefits and apply caps to them. He called legislation which allows unlimited use of resources and has no quantification of benefits bad policy and stressed that he will bring a bill to correct this by way of amendment.
