In his piece titled ‘Service pension saga’ (March 30), Carmel Mallia, president of the Alliance of Pensioners Organisations, referred to two important events.
In the 2008 Budget written and presented in 2007, the Gonzi administration decided to ignore Lm200 (€466) from the service pension (SP) entitlement.
The SP is reckoned by the National Insurance Department as being two-thirds of the last salary on retirement day, independently of whether one opts for a gratuity or not.
So, the result: SP + NIP – €466 was pitted against the maximum NI figure of €11,068 for 2008. If the result of the calculation turned out to be exactly €10,602, the pensioner stood to gain €466 above the 2007 level. Borderline cases were topped up to €11,068.
A number of pensioners in receipt of a service pension took a sigh of relief. For this group the SP looked €466 less than the annual amount they would actually receive, enabling them to obtain a rise of €466 in their NI.
I left the civil service in 2006 and so far I have not received a single cent in spite of my NI being reduced by €7,253 per annum by virtue of my entitlement to a service pension.
There are of course hundreds of others in the same predicament as myself. Clearly then, Mallia and a restricted band of pensioners have amassed from January 2008 the figure of €9,994.
Why is the alliance all in favour of a service pension to members of the judiciary in particular?
The handouts above the 2007 levels were €466, €666, €866, €1,066, €1,266, €1,466, €1,666, and €1,866 respectively for the years 2008 to 2016, both years included. The alliance and Lawrence Gonzi as prime minister, after discussions, agreed toa ‘some-can-and-some-cannot’ form of pension correction.
Mallia claims that “the administration started the ball rolling”. But why is it rolling for some and not for others? As soon as Prime Minister Joseph Muscat took over, he continued with the same bad policy knowing full well that a €200 correction per annum was miserable. What mattered was that it was cheap.
In fact, in reducing the correction from €466 euro in 2008 to €200 in 2009 and thereafter, the pension reduction issue was capriciously to take 2.33 times as many years to correct, than if the amount had remained at €466 per annum rather than €200.
To add insult to injury, in 2010 no €200 top-up was awarded with the correction remaining at €666 above the 2007 level. Why the alliance should sound the fanfare so loud about such a poor state of affairs boggles the mind.
Why is the alliance all in favour of a service pension for members of the judiciary in particular? The alliance should first insist that a correction of present pension entitlement should take precedence over any talk of service pension to members of the judiciary or any other group.
In fact, if pension reduction is abolished, the judiciary in this regard would have a stronger leg to stand on.
Their case is very complex. How would civil servants react to a service pension for the judiciary but not for them?
Our right to a service pension is embedded in the Constitution. The present reduction policy regarding the NI pension does not make sense unless accompanied by a state of emergency statement by the government. But how can one declare a state of emergency and at the same time declare that the economy is doing well?
This apart from the internal conflict in the Labour Party. In reality this country is in an undeclared state of emergency.
Joseph Grech is a teacher by profession.