OU'VE probably heard it said a hundred times before, Mr. Editor; money is the root of all evil. But actually that's not quite right. It's the love of money that is the root of all evil, according to the passage from the Good Book, that is often misquoted.

On the other hand, while life on the Hill isn't exactly a Cabaret, like the song from the musical says, money does help make the world go around. It also pays the bills.

With that introduction, admit it, Mr. Editor, you're wondering: are we in this week for a sermon, or a rant, or some kind of bizarre combination of the two?

Let me help you out: Neither. I hope. It's just my way of getting your attention for the subject at hand: those proposed pay increases for Ministers and Members of the Legislature which came up to the Hill for discussion last week in the House.

Getting the attention of members was not the problem.

Debate was.

Government chose not to participate except through their leader, the Premier, who opened and closed the debate. He had to. It was his motion. The Premier had, by motion the week before, invited members to consider the findings of the independent Salaries Review Board, the body which had been established late last year, with the unanimous approval of both Houses of the Legislature, to review and make recommendations on parliamentary salaries.

Consider first, the exact wording of his motion, which was as follows:

Consider next the word "consider". According to my copy of the , it means to look at attentively; survey; scrutinise; give mental attention to; think over, meditate or reflect on; pay heed to, take note of; weigh the merits of . . . Okay, okay, enough already, you get the drift.

Now on to my point: considering that we had been asked to actually consider the Report, it was both a surprise and disappointment that no Progressive Labour Party MP spoke, other than the Premier, who, on this occasion at least, proved that he really was the Man in Charge. The whip was on ? or, in this instance, more accurately, the muzzle.

We could only presume that they were prepared to a person to accept without reservation all of the recommendations which would see the basic MP salary jump to $50,000 a year; with an additional $50,000 a year for part-time Cabinet Ministers; and $100,000 extra for full-timers.

We could only presume because they didn't get up to speak. "This side has been more disciplined," said Premier Scott ? when pressed at the end to explain his colleagues' silence.

Well, that wasn't exactly true.

Any number of them hectored and barracked from their backsides when United Bermuda Party members spoke. As it turned out, there were seven of us on the Opposition benches who spoke ? half our number: I mean why go on, Mr. Editor, if there is no discourse?

The hectoring and barracking from the PLP benches was particularly intense when the Opposition Leader Wayne Furbert followed the Premier and laid out the position of the United Bermuda Party. They didn't like what they were about to hear ? and they knew what was coming. They had seen the headline that morning in "UBP against salary hike" ? and seen Mr. Furbert's open letter to the people of Bermuda, from which the Premier quoted extensively in his opening remarks.

Now let me say this, Mr. Editor: interpolations are nothing new. In fact, the Rules instruct members not to make "unseemly interruptions". Seemly are permissible, it seems ? but, of course, only if the Speaker permits ? and there are times when interpolations can be both useful and welcome . . . whether speaking or listening.

But it wasn't just the steady stream of invective which the PLP directed at Mr. Furbert that stood out this time around. There was also the fact that the Premier chose not to adjourn for lunch at the usual time ? 12.30 p.m.

The Man In Charge had finished five minutes earlier and when Mr. Furbert rose to reply at 12.25 p.m. he invited the Premier to move the adjournment for lunch. The Premier not only declined the invitation, but he refused to adjourn at all until the Leader of the Opposition had finished speaking ? and that wasn't until 1.15 p.m. when the Premier finally moved that we go to lunch and return at 2.30, one half hour later than usual.

Whatever the purpose of the tactic ? all's fair in parliamentary war, I guess; it's certainly not love up there ? it served as quite the contrast to what Premier Scott said at the start of the debate (if you can call it that), and that was that he hoped we could discuss the issue "without going about it in an unseemly manner".

Well, we tried, and, remember, we were the only other members to speak.

We expressed concerns that (still) need to be addressed:

: The Board was at pains to point out that its legislative jurisdiction was limited to salaries only. The Board said that it could not take into account ? and thus did not take into account ? the total compensation package i.e. pension rights, health and insurance benefits and expense allowances. Call it a legislative oversight but let's correct it.

Significant increases could have a major impact on the pension fund. The last financial statement for the Fund dated March 2003, now some three years out of date, projected an unfunded liability of up to $4.5 million, while the last actuarial review dated September 2001 suggested that total contributions of 25 per cent (half by members, half by Government) were insufficient (then) to maintain what as required.

A minimum four per cent increase was recommended ? and that was five years ago ? before the last election when there were a number of retirements; some voluntary, some not. As I read the legislation, future retirements will be calculated on the new rates of salary while contributions were at the old rates. You don't need to be a maths major to figure out the potential damage here ? and if there was to be a shortfall it comes from the Consolidated Fund, i.e. the taxpayers.

l The Board picked up on a point which the United Bermuda Party did when the Board was established.

The Act gives no guidelines on what would distinguish a full-time Cabinet Minister from who was part-time. It seems that decision is to be left to the Premier and the way it appears to us is that a full-time Minister is one who doesn't have another job (and so gets to draw the extra $100,000) while a part-timer is one who does have another day job (and so only gets $50,000).

It matters not then as to what the Ministerial job requires ? and that cannot be right. Again, fix it and give the Board the guidelines it needs to make a sensible decision.

l: If we are trying to make public service more attractive for the brightest and best Bermuda has to offer, it's the entry level that ought be adjusted upwards. Dr. Grant Gibbons, himself a former Finance Minister, went to work and came up with an alternate model which shaves money from the top and redistributes to improve the base salary of MPs and Senators.

It had not escaped his notice ? and others ? that for the last two years Government had been budgeting an extra $1.4 million for the salaries of legislators. (Last year and this year some $3.855 million was set aside for parliamentary salaries; the actual expenditure on salaries the year before was $2.467 million).

Dr. Gibbons reworked the figures to come up with what he termed the 60-120-180 formula, meaning a backbench MP would get $60,000 and full-time Cabinet Ministers (are there any others?) would get $120,000; the Premier, $180,000. Incidentally, few among us were surprised that the Cabinet seemed to get the best deal. The Board told us in their report that they had two focus groups: one with the Premier and ten of his Cabinet; the other was with just a handful of backbench MPs and Senators.

We need to also commit to, and get on with the introduction and adoption of reforms to make MPs more accountable and their work more transparent, which would specifically include: A Code of Conduct for legislators; a strengthening of the operation of the Members' Register of Interests; and the introduction of Anti-Corruption Legislation.

Those were just some of the concerns which the Opposition voiced, Mr. Editor, and now that we have had our say we wait to see how the Government decides to have its way. As we see it, consideration of the Report was only the first step in a two-step process.

The Act requires that salary increases be approved by way of a resolution in both Houses ? the one on the Hill known as Lower and the one at the bottom known as Upper. For our part, we would like to see a re-examination ? after the Act is amended ? to give the Board the scope it was originally denied.

Finally, talking about seemly, Mr. Editor, Opposition Leader Mr. Furbert argued that it would be seemly if members were seen not to decide salary increases for themselves, but rather make it so that any decision is not effective until the next Parliament, i.e. after the next election, and after the voters have had the chance to make dollars and sense of it all.

When the Speaker listens

IT wasn't all heavy lifting, Mr. Editor. There were some lighter moments.

The salaries of some of the officers of the Legislature appeared to have been overlooked.

One of them was the position of Attorney General. It had to be.

As the Board also pointed out the post was missing from the Act and they couldn't make a recommendation at all; another legislative oversight that needs to be corrected. One of the other officers was that of Speaker.

The office did not appear to get the special consideration the post deserves, argued MP Trevor Moniz, who wondered aloud why that was so. The Speaker was in the Chair. Mr. Moniz speculated that this may have been because he was not interviewed.

"Mr. Speaker, I don't whether you would want me to go any further on this . . ."

"Soldier on, Mr. Moniz," interjected Mr. Lowe. "You've got my attention."

It does help when you're speaking in the House to have the Speaker's attention ? and his support.

* * *.

EARLIER, The Premier felt compelled in his presentation to refer to the way things used to be in the House on the Hill. It was once the preserve of a privileged few.

"They could afford to be here," he said.

"Yes," I interjected from my seat, "and some of them couldn't afford not to be here." Such was the scope and the power of the old boy network ? decidedly white and mercantile.

Yes, we May . . . for now

BY the way, Mr. Editor, we're out for Easter already and the Premier set Friday, May 5 as our return date. A seven-week break. We've got a lot to contemplate in the meantime, maybe even consider (that word again):

l Ren?e Webb has come forth with an amendment to the Human Rights Act to outlaw discrimination in the grounds of sexual orientation and also put down a motion which calls for the establishment of a Truth and Reconciliation Commission based on the South African model. We know the former does not have the support of her Government, but we're unclear on the latter.

On the other hand, we expect that backbencher Glenn Blakeney does very much have his Government's support for two take note motions which he put down. They're the cheerleading variety. The first is to compliment the PLP Government for seven successive years of economic growth and their key social objectives, such as ? I kid you not ? affordable housing: which is what? Where?

The second motion sounds equally HOTT. It calls on members to applaud the PLP for their efforts to encourage competition and "to consider recommending" (his words, not mine) further measures to expand the economic pie.

Meanwhile, the Opposition also carried over its motion calling for Whistleblower legislation to establish ethical guidelines and effective procedures for the disclosure of wrongdoings within Government.

If anything, Mr. Editor, you should expect warmer days on the Hill when we return in May.