instituting large parliamentary pensions did for the career of the Hon.

Clarence James.

Dr. Terceira has pointed out that the committee looking at salaries for MPs and Senators feels pay must be increased. The question is how big an increase the committee should recommend, there having been no raises for six years.

This is not a party decision since the committee is made up of four representatives of the United Bermuda Party and three of the Progressive Labour Party. But some members of the committee could disagree with the majority and issue a minority report.

Increasing parliamentary salaries and pensions is traditionally a problem. Dr.

Terceira is right when he says salaries for parliamentarians are always controversial and that people generally do not want to pay parliamentarians.

The problem is magnified in Bermuda where parliamentarians are thought of as "part time'' and seen to be part time in terms of the hours actually spent in the chambers of the House or Senate. The public, of course, does not see and often fails to recognise the hours spent in committees of Parliament and on constituency affairs.

Then too, Bermudians often exercise a disrespect for "that lot'', the very people they have elected. Some of that disrespect can be healthy because it comes from the fact that parliamentarians too often lose touch with their people but it also comes from the Bermudian tendency to tear down anyone who is doing anything. Bermuda is full of armchair critics who sit at home and "mouth off'' about those who are doing something.

Clearly Bermuda's parliamentarians have to be properly paid. The days of serving virtually free ended with party politics and with the change in the social structure of Parliament after party politics. The days of rich parliamentarians serving the Country free are, and ought to be, over. Many parliamentarians today either need their salaries because Parliament is their substantive job or because they have given up a large part of their personal earning power to serve in Parliament. Either way, Bermuda has a duty to recognise their contribution and service with proper payment.

Problems arise in a small Country like Bermuda because the disparity in terms of ability and talent in Parliament is enormous and the service given by elected representatives is seen by the public to be uneven. Because it sees the disparity, the public seems to feel payment should be based on the contribution of the least capable representative. If that theory were followed, we should probably be decreasing salaries. It is true to say some of the perception of ability in Parliament is caused by differences of opinion and people are happy to pay the members they agree with and unhappy at paying those they either dislike or disagree with. But parliamentarians, like other people, come in all shapes and sizes and in a range of ability from brilliant to useless.

The fact is Parliamentarians are elected by the people to serve and can only be paid as equals by the people. Where Parliament is concerned you do not get what you pay for, you get what you elect -- but you still have to pay.

The decision MPs now must make is how much their salaries should increase by, after six years without a raise. Many will argue their pay should be restored to what it was in real terms in 1988.

But they should remember that many people accepted pay freezes or pay deductions during the worst of the recession. Few have seen their pay restored to pre-recession levels since and MPs should consider this before restoring the 30 percent of their salaries they claim has been eroded.

After decidng what increase to grant themselves, MPs should index link their salaries to inflation. In the event that Budget constraints deter them from increasing their salaries in a particular year, they should decide then whether to forgo that increase or defer it. This would enable them -- and their successors -- to avoid the controversy in which they are certain to find themselves soon.