Derry Irvine's pension
The Telegraph (and presumably a few others) are getting all steamed up over Lord Irvine's pension (here, here and here) if and when he retires from his position as Lord Chancellor.
I hate to be a bore about this, but seeing as I spent an truly awful 6 months working in the department that administers judicial pensions I think I am entitled to, but Irvine's pension is determined by two things: legislation and his final salary. The legislation has been around for at least ten years and possibly even longer. It was presumably used when Lord MacKay of Clashfern stepped down from the position in 1997. No great fuss then.
The salary is more interesting. Ten years ago (this is pretty much off the top of my head) the Lord Chancellor was paid about £110,000, slightly more than the Prime Minister. I am pretty sure that index-linked rises would not have led to a £200,000 salary today. So, clearly, the Lord Chancellor (and presumably everyone else's) salaries were uprated in the last ten years. When and by whom, I wonder?
By the way, it one of my little promises to myself that if I ever get into power I will abolish all traces of the judicial pension scheme. Let them buy their own sodding pensions. The only thing is when I think about how you would go about it and the fight involved (with judges for frick's sake) I start feeling a bit daunted.
This feeling of dauntedness (?) is probably the reason why all sorts of stupid and complicated laws remain on our statute book until such time as they get "reformed" to make them even more stupid and complicated.
Trackbacks
Comments
Precisely why all legislation should have sunset clauses.
That way, instead of explaning why something should be changed, it is up to the proponents to explain why it should be reinstated.
Your scheme to fight the judges is worthy but utterly, as the Borg would put it.
Treasury legend has it that a few years back a determined effort was made to economise on the judges lodgings that circuit judges stay in when they move round the country. These well-appointed properties often stand empty for months at a time. It is a scandal. Well, after months of effort by the supposedly all-powerful Treasury, the only economy measure they were able to enforce was that the silver grape tongs with which each lodging was equipped were allowed to be replaced with stainless steel grape tongs.
£100,000 a year for life and not a penny contributed,disgusting!!!!!!!!!!
sent from one of the lowly plebs paying for it.
Can't wait to get to 65.....oops 70 to pick up mine!!!!!! Remember the treasury's words prudence ,prudence and more prudence!!!!!!
Just thought Derry should know I've managed to find some lovely washable vinyl wallpaper. A floral design.Ready pasted. It would look lovely in a boxroom and normally retails for 10 Million quid but I can let him have it at a snip for £250,000 a roll.Don't worry if it's a bit expensive and your pension doesn't afford you such humble luxuries, you can alway's rely on the humble taxpayer to help you out.Did I say rely sorry I meant EXPECT.
63 and too senior to get a job? Get down of your pedestal and enter the real world!!!!!!!
Precisely why all legislation should have sunset clauses.
That way, instead of explaning why something should be changed, it is up to the proponents to explain why it should be reinstated.
Posted by Patrick on June 10, 2003