Morning:
13°c
An awesome and ridiculous film that leaves you thrilled beyond the point of your natural endurance
Ministry of Defence spent £149 million on an "urgent" upgrade to 900 tanks that are now only being used in training exercises, it was revealed
More...
Gorbals Mick battles Brown to keep £1.25million pension perk
Last updated at 00:22am on 21.11.07Speaker Michael Martin is battling the Prime Minister over plans to scrap the post's £1.25million pension package.
Currently, the Speaker is automatically entitled to a gold-plated pension of half their £137,579 salary - about £69,000 a year.
The pension, which is paid regardless of how long the Speaker has served, is on top of the retirement pot they have accumulated as an MP.
But Gordon Brown is determined to crack down on the payment of generous additional pensions as part of his planned constitutional shake-up.
Scroll down for more...
'Fury': Michael Martin is opposed to plans to scrap his post's pension package
Only three posts in Britain carry an index-linked life pension funded by the taxpayer - the Speaker, Prime Minister and Lord Chancellor.
Mr Martin is said to be furiously opposed to the reforms, even though he would be unaffected because they would come into effect after he had retired.
His allies say he considers the plans a severe attack on the post.
Friends of Mr Martin point out that former Speakers are unable to sell their memoirs after they leave office - unlike outgoing prime ministers.
Justice Secretary Jack Straw, who has retained the title Lord Chancellor and so is entitled to the pension perk, is said to share Mr Brown's view that the payouts should be scrapped.
Experts said a worker with a traditional company scheme would need a pension package worth about £1.25million to qualify for such a lavish payout.
Tom McPhail, of the stockbrokers Hargreaves Lansdown, said: "Gordon Brown only has to do one day as Prime Minister and he has already doubled his pension income.
"There is widespread sentiment within the pensions industry that MPs shouldn't be lecturing the rest of the country about improving savings for retirement while granting themselves such generous pensions."
Liberal Democrat treasury spokesman Lord Oakeshott questioned whether the Prime Minister would be prepared to jettison his own estimated £1.6million extra pension if he introduced the reforms.
He said: "It would be extraordinarily hypocritical if he did not refuse the life pension to which he is allowed."
Mr Brown is already embroiled in a row with former Lord Chancellor Lord Falconer over the Prime Minister's refusal to pay him the full pension he believes he is owed.
Lord Falconer, who left the Government in June, is said to be outraged that his annual pension entitlement is £52,193 - half the deal enjoyed by his predecessors.
However, in June 2003 he turned down the £232,900-a-year package on offer and instead opted for the standard £104,386 deal paid to Cabinet Ministers in the House of Lords.
He had been entitled to the larger salary and pension because Lord Chancellors are barred from practising in case they appear in cases with judges they appointed, meaning Lord Falconer gave up private earnings of more than £500,000 a year.
Reader views (4)
I could almost support this guy who has the same surname as me but unfortunately is no relation. After all, aren't all these people socialists, believing in fairness etc? I wouldn't mind a salary of £69k let alone a pension of that amount! What is the basic state pension? Around £100 per week!
As for Charlie Falconer wanting an obscene pension because he gave up a legal practice to become Lord Chancellor, wasn't that his choice? If it means a smaller income tough, he chose to become LC.
How I long to see some signs that some of our Members of Parliament (all parties) and particularly some of our Government ministers are actually people of integrity. I fear that I shall wait for a long time yet.
- Stephen Martin, Harrow
The pension schemes of civil servants needs to be reviewed, in fact, a complete efficiency and pay scale review of the civil service needs to be performed. At a guess I'd say you could probably sack 50% of the civil service and raise the pay of the other 50% to normal market levels, drop the pension scheme and still save the taxpayers around 30% of the money currently shelled out.
- Trevor Roll, London
Greedy! Isn't seventy thousand pound a year enough for a pensioner?
- Dave, london
The levels of some of these pensions are obscene as the rest of us look at the remnants of what we thought were prudent (yes, Gordon) savings that got plundered by Brown when he was at the Treasury.
- Paul, London
