(Trinidad Guardian) Less than a day after Social Development Minister Donna Cox defended proposed legislation that would impact the elderly’s access to the Senior Citizens’ Pension Grant, Attorney General Reginald Armour is now saying the controversial amendment that would have seen people with savings of over $25,000 become ineligible for old-age pension, was included in error.
During a media briefing at the Ministry of Social Development and Family Services yesterday, Armour said the bill will be withdrawn to be re-laid in the future but without the savings cap.
On December 9, a bill titled The Miscellaneous Provisions (Senior Citizens’ Pension and Public Assistance) Bill, 2024, was laid in Parliament. Section 4 (g) of the bill stated, “An individual shall not be eligible to receive a pension unless he: has savings not exceeding twenty-five thousand dollars.”
The issue was raised by Opposition Leader Kamla Persad-Bissessar at a political meeting on Monday. The news led to an uproar from the public, who felt the savings cap was too low and would unfairly disenfranchise those who genuinely need Government’s $3,500 grant.
However, it appears this amendment was never meant to make it to the Parliament.
Armour sought to explain how such an error occurred.
“The Cabinet note which first introduced this issue came to the Cabinet in March 2023, and the policy document. It is ordinarily Cabinet approves the policy coming from the particular ministry which is promoting the draft legislation. And the policy document that came on December 3, 2021, from the Ministry of Social Development,” Armour said.
Reading from what he called “paragraph 9,” Armour added, “That policy document came to Cabinet in March 2023 and there was nothing in the Cabinet note, which was addressing the draft policy that spoke to anything to do with savings. For a number of different reasons, that note was referred to the Finance and General Purposes Committee and to the Legislative Review Committee.”
Armour explained that someone in the public service, who he did not name, was responsible for inserting the amendment that dealt with the applicant’s savings.
“And from looking at the bill, that provision was inserted into the bill, it came back to Cabinet on November 27, 2024 and the provision in the bill which deals with savings, section 6 of the bill … that part of savings not exceeding $25,000 was inserted into the bill regrettably. It would not appear that was addressed at the LRC stage sufficiently to put it before Cabinet, so when it came before Cabinet on November 21, and Cabinet approved the policy which had come back to them with no reference to savings in that Cabinet note, the bill was approved and is now laid in Parliament,” Armour said.
The Attorney General said he was out the country on November 21 when the bill came to the attention of Parliament.
“I have looked at it and out of the discussions that took place in Cabinet and Cabinet affirming very clearly that it never was the intention of addressing and impacting the savings of any pensioners. I will be withdrawing the bill that is now before Parliament and bringing back a replacement bill to exclude the reference to savings,” Armour announced.
Guardian Media asked Cox why this was not mentioned during an interview on Tuesday, where she defended the amendment and said the purpose of the savings cap was to ensure there is no abuse in the system.
Cox had said the grant, which is separate from NIS benefits, was meant for the poor and vulnerable and therefore those with $25,000 in their bank accounts may not need financial assistance.
However, Armour intercepted the question.
“The point is this having come to my attention and having done the research that informs what I just said, that informed the considerations that were discussed in Cabinet today and I had not spoken with Minister Cox yesterday (Tuesday),” he explained.
Cox then said, “I think you will remember my concerns when you called me, I was not well, and I told you what we were going through with regard to the death of our colleague and I would speak to you when I was able to.”
Pressed on how Government did not notice the so-called error in the bill before it went to Parliament, Armour reiterated he was out of the country.
“I did not say I did not see it, I said I read the bill but the date it went to Cabinet, I was not in the country and it is normal that in the absence of a government minister, Government continues,” Armour replied.
Guardian Media noted that in his absence, an acting AG would have been performing such duties.
“That’s correct but I am not pointing any fingers, I take responsibility,” he said.
According to a media release from the Office of the AG, during that time, Camille Robinson-Regis acted as AG.
However, Armour said he is also taking full responsibility for the public servant’s error.
He denied it had anything to do with the public backlash.
“I am withdrawing it because now that I have looked at it carefully and it was brought to my attention by the Cabinet this morning and I did the research, I have satisfied myself there’s an error in the bill and I will be withdrawing it,” he claimed.
Also addressing the issue at the sod turning for West Park in the Diego Martin West constituency yesterday, Prime Minister Dr Keith Rowley attributed the error in the bill to miscommunication.
“Pensioners ought not to be concerned. Once you’ve qualified, there’s no question of you not being qualified after you’ve qualified,” Dr Rowley said.
“However, we have qualifications like what income you have, whether you are a citizen, and whether you have lived in the country. These are all qualifying criteria. And one of the situations here is income versus savings. Nobody is going to be looking at your savings.”
