I refer to Mr Rodan’s letter on the subject of ‘The reform of Tynwald pensions’ (Examiner August 30) – and his statement that ‘Tynwald members fully recognise their existing pension arrangements are unsustainable ... and that it is imperative to embrace the changes which other employees, whether public or private sector, have been required to face’.
Perhaps one might query whether – in Alan Clarke’s immortal phrase – Mr Rodan has been somewhat ‘economical with the actualité’? As always, one needs to ensure that the right questions have been asked if one is to get a fully-rounded answer.
The first and most obvious point is that Mr Rodan’s emoluments committee took responsibility for pensions reform in October 2008.
It seems somewhat dilatory that we still don’t have his answers in September 2011 – three years later.
Does it really take so long to determine that MHKs should share the burden by making a contribution to their own (very generous) pension scheme? It hardly confirms the ‘imperative’ to come to a resolution.
It should also be pointed out that it was Mr Rodan’s intervention in the debate concerning Bill Malarkey’s attempt to raise the question earlier this year that caused Tynwald members to vote with their feet (perhaps inspired by their own self-interest), and resulted in a vote to postpone the necessary commitment to a contributory pension scheme.
Would it be a major surprise (or just cynical?) if the implementation of such a scheme wasn’t somehow linked to a salary and/or expenses increase which more than compensated for any contributions?
CHRIS BLYTH, Address supplied