From our “Worth reading again” department, here’s a little sample from the ePressBarbados article by Caswell Franklyn posted on February 13, 2011. The link will take you to the full article:
On the other hand, if the amendment were applied to the Retiring Allowances (Legislative Service) Act the picture would be quite different and alarming. That Act makes provisions for the pensions of Members of Parliament. Like public officers the allowances are not taken into consideration when computing the pensions of retired parliamentarians. The table below shows the effect on the monthly pension entitlement of the Cabinet and parliamentary secretaries at current salaries.
Post Current Entitlement $ Proposed $ Increase $
Prime Minister 11,287.53 14,334.11 3,046.58
Deputy PM 9,595.02 13,481. 61 3,889.59
Minister 8,465.67 11,129.23 2,663. 56
Parl. Sec. 8,218.13 9,969.03 1,750.90
It is interesting to note that the politicians qualify for their pensions at age 50 after serving a minimum of 8 years to qualify for half of their salary. They qualify for ⅔ of their salary after serving 12 years. A public officer qualifies for a pension of ⅔ of his salary after serving 33⅓ years.
Call me naive but I believe that these massive unconscionable increases in monthly pension entitlements would be unintended consequences of the Budget, despite the emerging pattern. In 1991, just prior to the 8% cut in salaries, parliamentarians gave themselves an increase of 10%. Also in 1991 Government reduced the severance payment entitlement for all workers except Constituency Assistants. I am left to wonder what next?