EDITORIAL - Rethinking PM pensions

The little flap stirred by Andrew Holness' pension entitlement for serving a mere two months as Jamaica's prime minister is understandable.

But the larger issue, this newspaper believes, is how much and for what we pay our legislators. It is a matter that the new Government and Parliament should have the courage to confront, and on which they should engage the country in serious debate.

As the law now stands, former Jamaican prime ministers are entitled to pensions equivalent to the salary of the country's current leader.

On the face it, Mr Holness held the job from October 23, 2011 until last Thursday. Should he end his political career now, he would be eligible to get the same pay as his successor, Portia Simpson Miller, 66, who previously served 18 months in the job. But there are provisos.

Mr Holness is only 39. Under the rules, he should not, officially, be able to collect a pension for another 11 years, although with 15 years in the legislature, he has served more than the cumulative nine years required of members of parliament (MP) to be eligible for pension. Mr Holness, though, need not be overly worried.

He is almost certain to take his place in the House of Representatives as leader of the Opposition at the start of the new Parliament. In this scenario, he will not be able to collect his pension and associated perquisites, but will get the pay that accompanies the opposition leader's post. However, he will be entitled to the difference of his salary and Mrs Simpson Miller's as an allowance.

Iniquitous provision

Clearly, as Dr Carlton Davis, the former Cabinet secretary, observes, the legislation giving prime ministers full pensions, no matter how short a period they serve, was loosely framed. We also agree with Bruce Golding, the ex-prime minister, that a former prime minister being entitled to a pension equivalent to the salary of the incumbent is conceptually flawed and iniquitous to other members of the legislature. After all, only few MPs will ever able to the rise to the post of prime minister.

But this issue goes much further and deeper than the pensions of prime ministers. For, as this newspaper has long insisted, it is long past the time to put in a proper system by which we compensate legislators, inclusive of performance-based remuneration.

Largely, the salaries of legislators are linked to those of public servants, with a marginal differential between the pay of ministers and their permanent secretaries. In recent years, though, in the face of the country's economic problems, parliamentarians have been wary about increasing their pay. Adjustments have lagged behind those of public-sector workers.

No one, in the circumstance, can claim that Jamaican parliamentarians are well paid. Indeed, they are underpaid, which expands the likelihood of corruption and graft, which are detrimental to good and decent governance.

Re-examine clarke report

It is urgent, we feel, that the question be seriously addressed. A framework already exists, in the 2003 Clarke Committee report, for robust discussion on the subject.

That report proposes a standing mechanism for salary adjustments, taking the matter out of the hands of MPs, and for pay hikes based on deliverables, such as inflation and deficit targets and specific undertakings in constituencies.

Better pay for MPs would, of itself, not end graft, but it is certainly better than low pay in deflecting temptation.

Clarification: If it was misconstrued in Sunday's editorial, we clarify that it is the assignment of Richard Azan to the Ministry of Transport, Works and Housing that was gratuitous.