On amendment to the prime ministers pension act

Wednesday 7th February 2007

Mr. Speaker I rise to move for the adoption of the House a Bill for an Act to prohibit the payment out of the consolidated fund of a Prime Minister’s pension while that person holds the office of Governor General or of a Parliamentarian and for that purpose to amend the Prime Minister’s Pension Act.   Within the day, the House will be asked to pass also an Amendment to the Parliamentary Pensions Act; a Bill to bridge the service of former Secretary to the Cabinet Cleveland Walkine and a Bill to provide for a pension for retired Justice Jeffery Thompson.

The Government will speak to all of the Bills on this motion but each bill will be moved and passed individually. This should allow the more efficient use of the time of the House.

Mr. Speaker I would wish to deal first with the Bill now on motion first.

The regime of the Bill is quite simple, but the history and antecedents of this matter are not so simple and are to say the least colourful.  The original legislation was passed in 1997 to facilitate the retirement of the then Leader of the Opposition Sir Lynden Pindling known and accepted by most in the country as the father of the nation.

In reading the records on this matter, it appeared on the surface to have been a magnanimous gesture.  The then occupant of the office of Prime Minister the now member for North Abaco appeared to be making a magnanimous gesture toward his predecessor whom he had defeated and had vilified on the battle field of politics.  However, a close examination of the rhetoric of that day showed that the gesture was less than magnanimous because the language by the Member was suffused with an underlying begrudefulness about the whole event.  It was almost as if he were being forced to do something that he did to want to do.

One thing we on this side have learned is that when it is time to be magnanimous then you must do so completely, not give mercy with one hand and then seek to take with another.  It debases the value of the gesture.

Nevertheless, the passage of the Bill was the right thing to do and we thank God always for small mercies.  The right thing was done in the face of a blighted history of the mistreatment and abandonment of national figures who at one time bestrode the national life of the country.

It is a rare favour Mr. Speaker to have been asked by the now Prime Minister, the Rt. Hon Member for Farm Road to lead this debate.

Salaries and pensions are increasingly difficult matters to discuss in a Parliament these days, particularly in a small society like this.  There is generally not within these days sympathy for politicians and their terms and conditions of employment while they are serving office.   The parties themselves are hardly able to agree on what should happen. The Opposition parties will always disagree on the basis that a Government is trying to fix itself up even though they know the facts about public life for those who do not come to it with great wealth.  Governments are often afraid to move the issue because of the very fact to the opposition arguments and the sympathy that it finds in the public who are often cynical about politicians and what they do.

And yet there must be a political directorate, someone has to do it, and it is clear that the quality of what you get and who you get to go into public life is determined in part by what the terms and conditions are of the jobs.

Our history is littered with the carcasses of those who gave of their lives in political public service and ended up penniless and embarrassed and without friends or allies.  The loud applause has faded, the memories of the contribution and adulation are gone, and a shell of a politician is left.  We all know the names and it would not profit us much to call them.

My most sustained and intense involvement in the work of this place came in the period 1977 to 1982.  I was then the Director of News and Public Affairs of the Broadcasting Corporation.  I spent many working hours here, late into the night and into the early morning hours.  I know the very innards so this building and who did what here.  Near this very spot that I am now standing Mr. Speaker, the then Prime Minister Sir Lynden Pindling spoke in 1977 to the issue of emoluments and why it was important for the emoluments of politicians to be commensurate with the level of similar managers or executives of the day.

He said that his Government had introduced salaries for Members of Parliament so that men and women of ordinary means could without bankrupting themselves make their contribution to their country.  Before the Pindling era, the politician was the merchant or businessman who could afford to be here and we know all the allegations of conflict of interest that arose out of that.  The idea of the emoluments then was to make it possible as he said for ordinary men and women without economic means to serve.

In 1989, the Parliament took that one step further, when it agreed to a Parliamentary Pension Act.  That act was repealed by his successor to office on the grounds that it was too generous, and replaced by a later act, an amendment to which we will seek to pass today.  The new act made the pension contributory and will serve those members of the present House. In repealing the act however, it left certain anomalies that we are seeking to correct with a small amendment today.  We are also seeking at the moment to review the pension arrangements for Lady Whitfield, the widow of the later Sir Cecil Wallace Whitfield to provide some equity as well.  The rationale for the pension bill was similar to that of the salary argument.

We in this generation could see how men and women who had served had fallen into hard times.  They had given their all and were reduced in some cases to public begging in order to make ends meet.   It was the least that we could do to ensure that there was some level of dignity afforded them in their later years.

This Government seeks to go further in this matter with the National Health Insurance and with special protocols at the public hospitals to deal with former Parliamentarians to afford them the dignity that should go with the office.

This is not a unique position.  If history serves me correctly, it was the fate of Harry Truman, the former President of the United States and his economic circumstances that led to the United States Congress passing legislation to provide for a pension and support for former Presidents.  The argument was that it was an affront to the dignity of the United States for former leaders to be treated in a way which left them in poverty and penury.

Many people still begrudge the pensions of Parliamentarians on the basis that they do not deserve it because they only work for a short period of time.  But it is clear that political work is special kind of work that requires that you give all. There is no asset that any politician has during this time in office, no period of his time that is thought to be beyond the reach of his constituents. It is precisely the high risk and the brief nature of its tenure that raises the special nature of the emoluments and pension considerations.  But in any event unlike the public service pensions, the pensions of politicians are now all contributory.

You will know that in connection with the public service, the Bahamas Public Services Union has agreed to join the government in making provision for a contributory pension to supplement the existing non contributory pension for public servants.

Mr. Speaker there is also the question of how you treat widows.  In some cases, the widows or more correctly the spouses of deceased politicians will get three quarters of their pension in other case half but the idea is the same to protect the dignity of the spouse in her retirement years after her husband has passed away and is no longer able to provide.  The argument is that the spouse has often had to sacrifice just as much as the husband in the business of public service.

The best way to deal with these matters is perhaps to find a mechanism to deal with emoluments of politicians at the same time and at the same levels of the public service increases generally and then there need be no special measures taken to address the subject and this should obviate any public controversy.

There are a whole number of issues like this that at one time we will have to deal with as a country: the question of transportation within The Bahamas for Prime Ministers so they can avoid catching rides on planes that may not be safe and with pilots the competence of whom they do not know, putting their lives at risk and the nation’s security at risk.

Similarly there is clearly the need for an official home for the Prime Minister on the same basis as the argument for the emoluments: a person of ordinary means may one day become Prime Minister and have no home in which he or she can meet and greet official visitors.  But that too is a source of great controversy.

I say this Mr. Speaker by way of background to all of what we discuss today.  The instant act before was passed to ensure the dignity of a former occupant of the office of Prime Minister in his retirement.  When the act was passed, the then occupant of the office in his statement to the House disclosed what he said was his interest, and he said also that the then Leader of the Opposition had an interest as well.  That we know in retrospect was not the whole story.  Certainly they both had an interest.  But what was not disclosed or recorded at the time or was simply ignored to be charitable was that there was no provision in this act similar to that in the Parliamentary Pensions Act which would prohibit someone who became a Member of Parliament again from continuing to receive both the salary and the pension if they became a Parliamentarian again and was no longer retired.

And in this case we have the evidence that the law was passed without this provision but before the recipient of the act was allowed to receive its benefit, the then occupant of the office of Prime Minister, the Member for North Abaco penned on the file the note that when it was confirmed that the late former Prime Minister had resigned from the House the monies would then be released.  The act made no such demand or requirement.  It appears then and reasonable men would draw the conclusion that this act was manipulated through the Parliament in a decided effort to force the resignation of the former Prime Minister.  That issue has now been rectified although unfortunately for the former Prime Minister only to the benefit of the estate.

The other occupant of the office, the other former Prime Minister now sits in the Parliament having indicated prior to his election to office that he would serve two terms or ten years and then go, has changed his mind and is now here and is the beneficiary of both the pension and the salary.

Mr. Speaker, this bill will not solve that issue.  We have made the point before and our legal advice is clear that once a benefit is vested in someone you cannot deprive him without the consent of the beneficiary. There is no way in the law as it is presently structured to allow the present recipient of the law to give up the pension until he is retired.  This bill then seeks to solve that problem for him.  The provisions of the Bill will give the present recipient of the Prime Minister’s pension an opportunity to do what is right in the circumstances, since he is not now retired from politics to be able to lawfully suspend the receipt of the pension until he is truly retired It is not lawful for the Treasury to accept the salaries he purports to return, until such time as he is retired.  We think this is the right thing to do for him.

This is only fair and equitable Mr. Speaker because during his term in office he used a little known provision of the Pensions Act to suspend the pensions of many pubic servants who had been asked to return to the job after they had retired.  This meant that they could not receive their pensions and their salary. What is good for the goose must then be good fro the gander.   That policy has left a hornets’ nest of difficulties for the present administration with scores of petitions by public servants to alleviate their great distress and economic hardship s result of that policy.  This government has reversed the policy and we are seeking subject to available resources to resolve administratively these issues.  Those who have sought redress include a number of retired prison officers and permanent secretaries.  The latter group has petitioned to be able to take advantage of the special provision that was passed to benefit a chosen few Permanent Secretaries with much junior service by the former administration to the chagrin of those long serving PSes before them. Bit by bit, we are seeking to address them all but the previously policy has left us in a mess.

So Mr. Speaker, the bill has two provisions. One, which copies that in the Parliamentary Pensions Act that prohibits anyone who becomes Governor General, Prime Minister or Parliamentarian from collecting both the pension and salary of a Prime Minister.  The other provision to allow the present recipient of the pension the Rt. Hon Member for North Abaco if he can see his way clear to do so, to do what we believe is the honourable thing and within 21 days of the coming into operation of this bill to suspend the receipt of the pension until such time as he is truly retired. Again, we think it is the right thing to do.

The other Member in this place who is a potential beneficiary under this act is the Rt. Hon. Member for Farm Road who has authorized me to say that he is unambiguous and clear on this matter.  He believes this is the right thing to do, and it is not within the realm of his contemplation ever to double dip and take both pension and salary.  His view is that when he is retired he is retired and he has no hesitation at all about these measures that we seek to pass here today applying to him. When he wraps up the debate he will no doubt speak to the issues.   This shows a fundamental difference between these two national figures.  When you agree to go, you go and are gone.  You don’t change your mind and come back after making a solemn promise. The other believes that you don’t double dip. One man, the Member for Farm Road, is clear and unambiguous, faithful and true. The other, we leave you to judge for yourself by his actions.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to report that as of January 2007, the sum of $102, 666.65 sits in a treasury Special Deposit Account at the Royal Bank of Canada to the order of the Member for North Abaco who has been seeking even though he knows that it is not lawful for the money to be accepted by the Treasury that belongs to him to return the monies.  The monies are there to his account and to his order. He can collect it as he wishes and if does not collect it, his estate is its beneficiary.

Mr. Speaker, I turn now to the Bill which seeks to bridge the years of Service of Cleveland Walkine the former Permanent Secretary and Cabinet Secretary.
Mr. Herbert Walkine was born on November 28th, 1929, on Crooked Island.  He began his career as an assistant teacher in 1948.  He later served as a book-keeper at Symonette’s shipyard in 1954. He re-entered the Public Service as an Out Island Commissioner in 1958.  Mr. Walkine also attained the position of Under Secretary in the Ministry of Home Affairs.  A formal recommendation was made, requesting that Mr. Walkine be transferred on secondment to the Cabinet office, without change in salary or status.  Mr. Walkine later retired as Secretary to Cabinet on 31, March, 1994 after he had previously attained the mandatory retirement age on November 28th, 1989.

Mr. Walkine was transferred by the Prime Minister as an Under Secretary from the Cabinet Office, to the Ministry of Home Affairs which became effective on January 28, 1974, without change in salary or status.  Later in 1974, Mr. Walkine was considered, by the Prime Minister, for an acting appointment in the rank of permanent secretary in the Ministry of Labour and National Insurance.  He became Permanent Secretary with effect from 4 November 1974.

He has since served as Permanent Secretary in the following Ministries:
Ministry of Works and Utilities - with effect from 7 April 1975
Education and Culture   - with effect from 7 April 1977
Labour and Home Affairs - with effect from 29 October 1979
Works and Utilities - with effect from 12 November 1980
National Security - with effect from 22 October 1984
 
He became Secretary to the Cabinet on 5 January 1987 and until his retirement in 1989.  He was returned to service following his retirement until 1994 when he left the service.  He is now the Chairman of the Public Disclosure Commission.

Mr. Walkine has been trying unsuccessfully to have his periods of service bridged. There was no legislation to support the bridging of his two periods of service and the rules that we have presented to the House for bridging would not allow for a period longer than two years.  Having regard to his stellar contribution to our country, ex debito justiciae we are proposing today’s bill.

On the coming into effect of this legislation he will have two periods of bridged service so that his pension entitlement will now be based on 36 years and 10 months service as opposed to 31 years and three months service.

I now turn to the Act to Amend the Parliamentary Pensions Act.  This act will be deemed to come into Force on 1st December 1995 that makes it effect retrospective.  It will allow any Parliamentarian who has been disadvantaged by the existing law to be able to have his pension calculated so that it will more properly reflect the salary that he or she received during the time they served in Parliament. Under the existing law, the pension is calculated on the basis of the previous ten years of service prior to one’s retirement.   This will now make the years fifteen years and it is generic in nature not specific to any individual and will affect those who are presently sitting in the House of Assembly as well as those who served in the past.

There are some former legislators who would only have received a gratuity or a minimal pension based on their service and the legislation in place at the time of their retirement from active politics. Certain of these persons have been petitioning the government on their behalf and on behalf of their colleagues to have a review of their benefits. It is felt that sympathetic consideration should be given all several living former parliamentarians and the surviving widows of those now deceased.

The Bill would allow the pension benefits of all former legislators who retired in the fifteen years prior to their retirement, instead of ten years, to have their pensions recalculated based on the average of their three highest annual salaries. In some cases a person might have been a Minister, thereby earning a higher salary, prior to the period of consideration for the calculation of pension benefits and consequently the pension would have been based on their lower salaries as Members of Parliament. By extending the period to fifteen years the former legislators would be allowed to receive benefits from service at a higher level.

It is felt that all former legislators should be in receipt of pension benefits that would allow them to live at an appreciable level, having served their country diligently and faithfully.

I turn now to the Bill to affect a pension for former Justice Jeffery Thompson.  This bill is being effected ex debito justciae. In the interest of justice and humanity.  Former Justice Thompson falls into that category of politician of which I spoke earlier and we believe that the dignity of our country is adversely affected by our not addressing this issue.  He served in the Cabinet of The Bahamas, the first majority rule Cabinet from 1967 to 1972 and then later following his studying law took up residence in Freeport and became a Senator. He served as a justice but was unable to meet the qualifying period because an error was made in neglecting to renew his appointment before he passed his 65th birthday.  He is therefore short of the qualifying period of five years service for Judges. This bill seeks to provide a pension afforded all other Justices of the Court on the basis of the existing pension law, notwithstanding the legal disability.  Mr. Thompson is not well and is in reduced circumstances and we are appealing to the House to support this Bill.