MORE wind, no change, Mr. Editor, last week on the House on the Hill. Ok, Ok, colleagues, the assessment might be a mite harsh, but there was after all only the one item of business for the day: some amendments to the Public Service Superannuation Act which will allow Government employees to work a further five years beyond mandatory retirement and to collect both pension and paycheque - and this was agreed.Still, I suppose it was worth talking about at some length - which we did, Mr. Editor, myself included. This retirement stuff is serious business and the older you get the more serious it becomes. No surprise there, huh? It’s human nature to want to have your cake and eat it too - if you’re able and fit enough.The reality is that we are living longer - women longer than men as someone pointed out during the debate: “and that’s something we need to fix, John ,” shouted out Maxwell Burgess, who is not the retiring type, but who is planning on retiring from politics at the next election. Statistics say we are healthier too.

There are also those who can use the money. Bermuda’s typical senior citizen is a 72-year-old retiree with a median household income of less than $36,000 a year, which categorises him or her as poor: a finding taken directly from the November 2005 Report published by the Statistics Department, The Changing Face of Bermuda’s Seniors.

Seven out of 10 seniors are also reported to be living in their own homes, and are said to be house rich, but cash poor. There is also the rate of inflation to contend with as well as the inflation of expectations, another powerful factor in consumer-driven Bermuda and its standards of living high.

Suddenly, it just seems so right, er, politically correct even, not to force people to retire simply because they reach a certain age. Age is just a number, so they say, Mr. Editor, and you’re as young - or as old - as you feel. Certainly this is the view of my colleague, Mrs. Louise Jackson, whose specific and express responsibilities includes speaking for seniors, a subject on which she is neither shy nor retiring.

“There are many people aged 65 who cannot afford to retire, as you know Mr. Speaker”, said Mrs. Jackson. “Many people don’t even have that choice. This comes as a wonderful thing then for them, for people who are no longer forced to retire at 65 and to go home and stagnate”.

Stagnation, Mr. Editor, there’s nothing worse for your health. It may not be good for the Bermuda economy either. The numbers of people over 65 years are growing in strength. Our elderly population has in fact grown faster than the total population in every decade except in 1950, according to the November 2005 Report, and between 1950 and 2000, our elderly population increased at annual growth rate of 11.5 percent, more than twice the annual growth rate of 5 percent for the entire population - and the growth rate for people over 65 years of age is not expected to diminish. On the contrary. In the past seven years, the numbers are thought to have grown has grown from 6,722 to just under 8,000.

With a projected decline in birth rates, seniors could form a significant part of the workforce.

Minister of Finance, Ms Paula Cox, who piloted the amendments through the House, told us that Bermuda is facing a shrinking workforce, thanks to the expected, continued decline in birth rates. The workforce is expected to drop by 21 per cent from 40,428 to 31,950 people by the year 2045. However, the number of seniors look set to increase by 140 per cent during the same period from 7,728 to 18,506 people.

I know, I know, Mr. Editor, by the year 2045 I will be 95 years old (if I’m blessed, and if I’m lucky, and if I’m alive).

But we get the picture. There’s a potential resource here. Age should not get in the way.But even with the changes to this Act, it still does. Police, prison and fire officers will now be allowed to work for a further five years until they are 60 years of age, and all other civil servants until they are 70. There is still this cap.The number is arbitrary and without reference to capability or ability and the requirements of the job. It is discriminatory. The real question is whether or not discrimination on the basis of age, and age alone, should be outlawed under the Human Rights Act. We ducked that issue, Mr. Editor, in last Friday’s debate.

The position used to be that Government employees didn’t necessarily retire when they reached retirement age (particularly police, prison and fire officers who reached the age of 55). They just retired from the service (and got their pension) and took another job in the private sector.

Two incomes, Mr. Editor, are always better than one.Maybe with these changes, they will stay in the service five years longer. We’ll see. It may be the only change as a result of the amendments.On the other hand, - and geez, Louise, I agree with you - what we actually do need is a more comprehensive strategy to tackle the challenges our seniors, and Bermuda, face going forward, which goes well beyond just the age of retirement, and includes grappling with pensions and the cost of living, and the cost of health care and health insurance, care-giving and assisted living.

We can see the future, Mr. Editor. It is us.

Seniors moment

SORRY to go on and on about retirement, Mr. Editor, but as I say, it was the only item on the order paper which Government took up. Let’s just call it my seniors moment. The rest of the day was the usual - starting with Ministerial Statements, including three from one Minister, Wayne Perinchief, of Community and Cultural Affairs, who took the time to (1) remind us that this is the Year of the Family (2) share with us a Report on Recommendations for a National Policy on Disabilities and (3) tell us about events his Department has planned for Heritage Month.The latter teed up one of the lighter moments of the day.

Minister Perinchief happened to go off script when he turned to his third prepared statement.

“As you may know, Mr. Speaker”, he said - before reading his prepared statement, “May is Heritage Month”.

“Of course I know that”, snapped Speaker Mr. Stanley Lowe.

Naturally. We all do.

Let the blame begin

EDUCATION, or more precisely, the Education Review Report was the subject du jour once again on a lively motion to adjourn that kept us on the Hill for another couple of hours. So far, as you know, Mr. Editor, we’ve only heard about the recommendations. Minister for Education Randy Horton is still promising us copies “once it (the Report) is printed”. Perhaps then the debate can begin - and the blame games too, I suspect. Already we’ve heard the cries of I-knew-it-all-along and didn’t-I-tell-you-it-was-so - and that’s from within the Government benches which boasts four former Ministers of Education!

Interesting too, was the call from those same quarters for the Opposition to somehow join hands with the Government and work through the report and its recommendations in the best interests of our children. Interesting too, how the exhortation comes after the review has been conducted and without any invitation to participate in the decision-making going forward.I don’t think this is a language thing, Mr. Editor.

What is it the French say, Mr. Editor? La plus la change, la plus la meme: the more things change the more they stay the same. C’est la parliamentary vie, I guess. For now.