APNU calls for old age pension requirement to be revisited

Apr 13, 2012 News

The main opposition party, A Partnership for National Unity (APNU), is calling on the Government

to revisit the requirement for a person collecting old age pension.
APNU Parliamentarian Volda Lawrence highlighted this in the National Assembly on Wednesday during the budget debate.
“Madam Speaker, the number of persons seeking Old Age Pension and Public Assistance is alarming and the facts representing longevity cannot be ignored.”
Quoting a World Bank report, Lawrence said that the aging index was nearly eight elderly persons to every 100 children in 1970, while by 2002, it had risen to 12 elderly persons, accounting for an annual growth rate of 0.82 percent.
“In contrast to a decrease of 16.3 percent in the number of children aged less than 15 years in 2006, the number of people aged 65 and over increased by 26.3 percent.”
She added that Guyana like other countries must, therefore, review its age of retirement and look at the emerging picture of the elderly group.
“With the increase in the number of elderly people, our pension schemes would be unable to support the large number of pensioners who make demands on them.”
According to Lawrence, the discourse on the review of the age of retirement in Guyana has been going on for too long. She pointed

APNU MP Volda Lawrence

out that currently, the typical retirement age is 55 years in the public sector and 60 to 65 years in the private sector. Yet, she noted, this does not entitle one upon retirement to receive pension from the two main state institutions. She stated that a person must acquire the age of 60 to receive pension from the National Insurance Scheme (NIS), and 65 for Old Age Pension.
“What happens in the interim? Given the increase in the number of persons living above sixty-five years, the strain on our pension schemes, and the inability of families to cope with the cost of taking care of their elderly relatives, it is imperative that the situation be brought to an end, and a firm decision is made to increase the retirement age in the Public Service to sixty-five years.”
Alternatively, Lawrence said, there may be the need to reduce the age of eligibility for NIS pensions, to coincide with the age of retirement. She added that it is lamentable that nothing has been forthcoming from the Government regarding the report from the Committee, which was put together by the Government for the review and reform of the NIS.
“There is urgent need for the restructuring of this pension scheme,” she emphasised.
Lawrence further pointed the Assembly’s attention to the fact that in November 2007, the committee produced its final report, which entailed several recommendations. She stated that at the time the PNCR had some reservations over some of the recommendations made, particularly one which suggested further raising the age of eligibility.
“On March 3, 2008, the Hon. Member Ms. Manickchand, told this Honourable House “It is presently engaging the attention of Cabinet, where these recommendations that were examined and considered, are going to be looked at, with a view to making the scheme, as the Terms of Reference said, more financially viable and efficacious.”
She pointed out that “the retirement age of 55 years indeed places a greater strain on the ability of the NIS to meet its obligations to the large number of persons who are forced into retirement”. Lawrence said that apart from support of family members at home or remittances from those abroad, the elderly depend to a large extent on the NIS for financial support.
“The NIS, we have been told for some time now, cannot withstand the pressure to provide benefits for the large number of pensioners in our midst.”
She added that despite a Stabroek News article by Professor Clive Thomas last April, under the caption, “Downside Risks & the Upside Potentials Facing the Economy’, the Minister’s 69-page presentation made absolutely no mention of the government’s intentions for this institution.
Lawrence stressed that according to Prof. Thomas, “The National Insurance Scheme is at risk of turning to the state for bailouts with which to fund its outstanding liabilities”.
“This institution which helps to bridge the gap between the ability of pensioners to meet their survival needs and living in poverty, did not find favour in the distribution of any of the revenues which the Government raked in the last year. Instead, the NIS management is left to face the many complex problems, including but not limited to resources tied up with the Clico/Stanford debacles, an aging work force, humongous and burdensome financial arrears, over abundance of bureaucratic and administrative problems and high administrative costs.”
In concluding, Lawrence stated that despite comments by Minister Manickchand, “the Government’s reluctance to act on the recommendations put forward for this institution is another blatant disregard for the many pensioners and workers, who by compulsion, must continue to have their earning paid into this scheme”.
“Is this not another deprivation of the rights of the workers, who on retirement, expect to receive a pension for their hard years of service, only to be faced with another Clico fiasco if nothing is done in the near future to secure their benefit?”
Lawrence emphasised that the Government must recognise that many of the contributors to NIS gave a mandate to APNU and AFC on 28 November 2011 to represent them and address their concerns in the House.