Attorney General Larry Mussenden announced on Wednesday that the pay hikes ? which will result in Premier Alex Scott receiving a 79 per cent increase, full-time Ministers getting $150,000 and part-time Ministers receiving $100,000 ? will be phased in in two parts.

Half the increase will be back-dated to April this year and the remainder will be paid a year later. When MPs voted on the pay hikes, which were recommended by an appointed salaries commission, there was no mention of phasing in the increases.

Therefore, the draft resolution was null and void, and the amended version should go before the House of Assembly, argued Sen. Swan.

A controversy erupted over the pay rise issue after an expected Senate debate on them was blocked. The Attorney General wrote to Senate president Alf Oughton, pointing out that the Senate could not vote on the issue, by law. Sen. Oughton accepted the point, but the letter has not been made public.

Sen. Swan said: "The Government came up with a a new proposal on Wednesday, that the pay rises should be phased in.

"But the resolution that MPs voted on did not allow for that. So the Senate cannot vote on it, but the Government can amend it after it's been voted on by the House of Assembly? Surely that amended resolution should be sent back to the House. Surely, it is null and void."

Because Sen. Mussenden's letter to Sen. Oughton had not been made public, the Opposition had effectively been denied a chance to give its views on whether the denial of a Senate vote on the pay rises was justified, Sen. Swan added.

"The Opposition doesn't get its say, but the Government gets its pay," he added.

Sen. Mussenden said on Wednesday that it was the Constitution which forbade the Senate to vote on the pay hikes.

"Whatever the Constitution says, it's my duty as Attorney General, as protector of the Constitution, that it's compleied with, whether I like it or not," added Sen. Mussenden.

Sen. Swan accused the Government of "blatant hypocrisy".

"A few weeks ago, the Government and the Premier were not concerned about breaching the Constitution, when they ignored the requirement for collective responsibility and a Cabinet speaking with one voice," Sen. Swan said.

"We had one Cabinet Minister (Sen. David Burch) questioning the selection process for the Regiment's Commanding Officer and demanding the recall of the Governor, while another Minister (Randolph Horton) supported the CO's appointment. Which one is talking for the Government? The Premier has remained silent.

"Sen. Oughton has behaved correctly and played by the rules, but in cleverly using a loophole in the Constitution, the Attorney General has denied the three Opposition Senators a say on a landmark decision and has bypassed the 'sunshine of public scrutiny'."

Sen. Mussenden was claiming otherwise when he released a statement last night, saying: "It is important that these issues were canvassed in the open light of public scrutiny and this demonstrates that our democratic traditions are respected and practised.

"Additionally, I am grateful that Senate president Alf Oughton was able to seek independent legal advice from senior legal counsel in the UK and to see that the conclusions reached through that process were consistent with the issues that I raised with him.

"As a consequence of this process there is a need to amend various provisions of the Act so that any resolution regarding salaries of members of the Legislature would be passed by the Member of the House of Assembly only."