LL right, Mr. Editor, debate came to life once again in the House on the Hill. Parliamentary salaries and the proposed big increases proved to be just the ticket to get us up and going.

Silence, sir, was not golden this time around. On the other hand, mind you, what looks golden are the sizeable jumps in pay that will backdated to April Fool's Day ? no fooling ? assuming the other place down the Hill called Upper gives the proposals the thumbs-up, in what could turn out to be the Senate's version of the golden handshake for parliamentarians.

But I'm getting ahead of myself again, Mr. Editor. Let's back up to the beginning.

Debate on the motion ? like the indigestion it engendered ? started not long after lunch. The Premier led off. He said the increases simply followed the recommendations of the Salaries Review Board that had been set up last year.

True enough, Mr. Editor, with the exception of the Attorney General, a post which the Board said was outside its remit due to legislative oversight. No problem, the PLP was able to come up with a figure for him.

There were other matters too, which the Board said was outside its statutory terms of reference. For instance:

The Board said that it was unable to consider the total compensation package, i.e. those expense allowances under the PLP, pension rights, health and insurance benefits: "While these items often have some bearing on the setting of salary levels, the Board is of the view that these and related factors are outside the scope of its remit."

The Board also lamented the absence of guidelines on full-time as opposed to part-time Cabinet Ministers: "In the Board's view, it is not open to the Board to attempt to define what is meant by these terms. It should be emphasised that it is not for the Board to determine which ministries are full-time and which part-time."

The Board also recognised that "full and immediate implementation" of its proposed increases would mean instant, additional cost to the taxpayer "in the range of an additional $602,000.00 to $1,202,000.00".

Further, the Board cautioned in its report: "Any increase in salary levels will necessarily give rise to added costs with respect to related benefits such as pension rights and health insurance. If our recommendations are approved but full and immediate implementation is thought to be impracticable or otherwise in appropriate, the legislature may wish to effect certain of the recommendations in stages".

Are you kidding? These guys, Mr. Editor, are from the Stanley Morton school of pay increases: they want it and they want it now.

When it comes to full-time and part-time Ministers, the Premier said that he had polled his Cabinet and ten were going to be full-time and three part-time. He wouldn't ? and he didn't ? tell us who had chosen which and why.

Only one of the front bench who spoke on the motion told us: Minister of Finance Paula Cox . She is going to be a part-time Cabinet Minister, if you can believe it, Mr. Editor ? or rather paid as a part-timer, that is $50,000 less than her full-time colleagues.

The Minister of Finance a part-time politician? Er, yes, only in Bermuda, under the PLP.

"I have opted to be part-time," explained Ms Cox, "even though I will be working at the job full time."

We believe her: how else can you be anything but as the Minister of Finance, Mr. Editor? What this means, of course, is that she will also be able to continue to hold down her job and draw her salary as corporate counsel with ACE.

Although Ms Cox said that it wasn't just the money; she also wanted to maintain some degree of control over her life should the Premier decide there was no longer a place for her at the Cabinet table. "If nothing else," explained the paid part-timer, "I want to keep my options."

"You mean your stock options?" shouted out the UBP's Trevor Moniz.

"No, no," smiled Ms Cox. "I am not one of those well-heeled boys. I'm a black Cox."

"Okay," came back Trevor, "tell us then: will you be making more money or less as a part-time Minister?" There was no answer.

But the exchange highlighted the issue of part-time versus full-time under the PLP. The Ministers can apparently choose for themselves ? and the choice may have absolutely nothing to do with the work and the demands of the Ministry for which they are responsible.

For instance, Minister Without Portfolio Walter Lister did speak but wouldn't tell us whether he has elected to be paid as a full-time or part-time Minister. But we can all do the arithmetic: do you want $50,000 or $100,000 more a year in parliamentary salary? That's the choice.

Apparently he will be full-time.

Not to worry, said the Premier when he wrapped up the debate. Minister Lister will shortly be given "specific responsibilities and special projects", explained the Premier, and we will all be informed about them "momentarily". How very nice for them.

Meanwhile, the Premier also told us that it is generally assumed ? presumably by him as well ? that any politician who spends over "about 35 hours per week on official duties" is working full-time.

Big deal ? and nice work if you can get it.

No wonder Ms Cox challenged some of her other front-bench colleagues to stand up and defend this new concept of full-time under the PLP, especially since so many had chosen to go that route. None of them did. But they didn't have to. We expect that the extra $50,000 and an annual parliamentary salary of $150,000 rather than $100,000 has a lot to do with it.

As for pensions, and the dramatic, negative impact the increases will have on the Pension Fund for parliamentarians, the subject didn't even rate a mention in the Premier's brief. It was left to the full-time, part-time Minister of Finance to tell us that they will start working on this problem once the increases are approved "and we have the figures".

That's very nice too, Mr. Editor ? and convenient.

Meanwhile, the last actuarial report that we had for the Fund (September 2001) called for at least a four per cent increase in contributions. At that time, the Members' Pension Fund was reported to have an unfunded liability of some $3.75 million ? and that was almost five years ago. Rates have not been increased since and the most recent financial statement (March 2003) disclosed a $4.5-million deficiency of net assets over accrued benefits.

So what's the big deal? Here's the big deal, Mr. Editor, those who retire ? or who are retired at the next election at the new rates of pay ? will have their pensions calculated on the new rates. But their contributions will have been under the old pay scale (), and this from a Fund that is already in serious trouble.

But hey, no problem. The Act states that any shortfall can be paid out of the Consolidated Fund.

Isn't that nice too, Mr. Editor . . . for the politicians.

But pity the poor taxpayer ? especially too, if the pensions are increased in the future. It seems that some in the PLP are not happy with the current method of calculation and are looking for an even better package.

The part-time, full-time Finance Minister admitted as much and cautioned those of her group who are pushing that: "To whom much is given, much is expected."

Much is right.

But there again Government Whip Ottiwell Simmons didn't think the increases amounted to that much. He thought the Board's recommendations ? and their adoption by the PLP ? were "the best thing that happened to Bermuda".

It was also his view that members were not getting an increase in pay. "It's an adjustment," he said.

Take a close look, people, that's some nice adjustment they are making for themselves.

Told you so

ORNING on the Hill wasn't half as spirited, Mr. Editor. Resumption of the debate on the Medical Practitioners Amendment Act 2006 was the only other item the PLP wanted to take up. Readers will remember the Minor(s) breakthrough last week when the Minister had to rise and report progress: the Bill needed further treatment.

Just as well really, there had to be further legislative surgery as it turned out and Minister Patrice Minors came back to us with amendments to the Amendment Act to which ? I kid you not ? we managed to make one further amendment. It was dry but important stuff and who is to say we have it right now? Not I, Mr. Editor.

Incidentally, it wasn't the only Bill we had to correct either. The Senate sent back up the Hill that recent amendment to the Works & Engineering Act which omitted some important words ? words that had been there before, but had been dropped without explanation.

It turns out that they should never have been dropped and Government was never intended to have the power to grant leases greater than 120 years even where they include options to renew.

The correction was made without objection, but with the comment from us: we told you so.

We've also been telling them for years now about a better way to do legislative business, Mr. Editor, but that's another story about reform and progressive parliamentary labour which apparently does not interest the PLP.

Clothes minded

ES, Mr. Editor, there were the usual assortment of Ministerial statements too; three, in fact. One was from the Premier who reported on his trip to a Caribbean Environmental Forum (CEF-3) in Antigua and Barbuda.

Our Man from Bermuda had been the keynote speaker apparently ? maybe you saw the speech printed as a Government paid advertisement in thelast week , the print equivalent of the Government TV which the taxpayers will also shortly be funding.

Now I don't know who's writing his speeches these days ? I mean how can someone claim to plagiarise himself as the Premier did down there? ? but what do you make of this line in his statement Mr. Editor: "(The) CEF-3 was yet another example of Bermuda being a small country 'in big clothes' and carrying large influence."

Big clothes? Large influence? To those of us in the Opposition, we gawk in amazement: for us, the Man is looking more and more like king who has no clothes on ? at all.

* * *

ONE final item of interest, Mr. Editor: Minister Minors also withdrew the Adoption of Children Act 2006 which she put down three weeks ago. We now only have three other pieces of legislation on the Order Paper ? and nothing new was tabled on Friday gone.

Legislation ? flawed or no ? is literally down to a trickle. Another sign then of the early summer election some have been suggesting ? or just more of the same old same old?