No need to be retiring violets

Yes, it does make sense to consider raising the retiring age of judges. The early attempt to shoot the proposition down was hasty. Yet it should not be considered in isolation. It had best be part of a rethink regarding the retirement age in Malta, even outside the context of how and when to introduce further pillars to the statutory pension arrangements.

Under the existing pension arrangements the general retirement age will gradually be raised to 65 for what may not necessarily be all the correct reasons.

The decision was taken as part of the objective of attempting to make the statutory pension scheme sustainable, not least because of the projected increase of the so-called dependency ratios as our population ages – becoming skewed towards a higher proportion of retired people relative to those in gainful occupation and contributing to the social security pension arrangements.

Gradually raising the retirement age to delay the time when people start drawing a pension was one of two major reform planks, the other being raising the period of contributions which make one eligible for a full pension from 30 to 40 years.

There is sense in trying to bring about financial sustainability of pensions, as much as there is sense in knowingly forcing people to make savings over and above their NI contribution to build up a pension better than the universal retirement once they are no longer in gainful employment. The first part of the proposition is put as an argument in favour of obliging people to work and make social security contributions beyond the age of 61.

Nothing strange about that – that is how the argument is being put the world over, and in particular in the European Union where various countries will be facing our own projected problem of an ageing population and practically a staggering doubling of the dependency ratio – where today four gainfully employed people contribute towards paying a pension to a person, the ratio will climb to two-to-one in the lifetime of the younger element of our working population.

That is why many governments are rushing to review their pension arrangements. There are two other reasons why reviews should be carried out. Both reflect the demand or beneficiary side for pensions.

One reason is that one takes a sharp drop in one’s disposable income and standard of living during retirement. Being able to work longer postpones that drop, enabling one to continue to earn a full income, save part of it and also contribute to the second pension pillar (own supplementary provision) where it exists.

The other reason is that put forward by two judges who have just retired, most recently Lino Agius ,and slightly before him Joseph Galea Debono. The reason they gave is that judges – who go out on pension at 65 – are being made to retire just when they are reaching their peak of learned experience. To allow them to continue to serve on the bench would be of mutual benefit to them, possibly more in terms of self respect that the earnings factor, and to the country.

The argument is valid. But, at one and the same time, it is not universal – it cannot apply to everybody – nor is it restricted to judges. It may not be correct, for instance, to raise the retirement age – as is gradually being done – for those who work in strenuous and demanding manual occupations. Those who labour in the building industry come immediately to mind, even though modern equipment has reduced some of the strain in their work.

On the other hand, the argument that was correctly made for judges also applies, among others, to university lecturers, who may be allowed to extend their retirement age under certain conditions, but not automatically so.

The argument is not without its weaknesses. Lengthening the tenure of judges and university lecturers could block the arrival in their place of a younger generation, certainly not in as much possession of wisdom, but possibly more qualified through the latest developments in their respective disciplines.

There are, of course, possible solutions, not least in the case of judges. The Bench could simply be enlarged to reflect both an increase in retirement age combined with openings for younger appointees, as well as the persistent fact that the outstanding caseload of the judiciary needs to be tackled with more numbers rather than urging speed in an area where cool and deep deliberation on the factors that go into a wise judgement should be the key factor.

Judges Agius and Galea Debono, both men carrying the deep respect of their peers, are now lost to the Bench. But should their words in departing be heeded in time before other judges reach 65? The affirmative answer is clear. On all three considerations indicated above. As well as on a comparative basis.

Judges, who interpret the law, currently have to retire at 65. Legislators – Members of Parliament who enact laws – have no retirement age. There were MPs (and several Presidents) who served with vigour well beyond 65 in the past.

In the future, should there be a Labour government after the next election, there will probably be a few ministers considerably over 61, but still full of political experience, vim and vigour. Nor is there any retirement age on those of us who presume to influence opinion through our columns.

The issue deserves to be discussed further, rather than being summarily thrown out of court as was done by the Justice Ministry.