PRIME Minister PJ Patterson revealed his personal position on the recommendations of the Oliver Clarke Committee on parliamentary salaries, when he opened the debate on his resolution seeking bi-partisan support for the recommendation on Tuesday.

Patterson pointed out that the recommendations have now been approved by his Special Parliamentary Group, as well as his Cabinet, and it is only now left to the House.

It was obvious, however, that he would appreciate bi-partisan approval, although he has enough votes to approve them without Opposition support.

The outgoing leader called on House members to prevent a situation where they are not afforded, at least, some reasonable compensation in line with what obtains outside the public service.

He specifically referred to the situation where MPs retire, after years of service, and find that their pecuniary needs, even for essentials, cannot be met, saying they have to depend on charity.

He noted that he had frozen the increases due to the MPs in April 2002 after a public outcry over a 100 per cent increase.

Salaries for parliamentarians moved from $1.08 million in 1999 to $2.2 million in 2002. The last increase was granted in October 2002.

However, following the outcry against the level of increases, Patterson put on hold additional increases due on April 1, 2003; April 1, 2004; and April 1, 2005.

He informed the House Tuesday that he felt that the time had come to deal with the issue.

“Let the records show, that we froze the salaries and allowances pending the consideration of the Clarke report and they have not moved since, and let me also say and hope that it will be reported, that whatever we finally approve during this debate will not have a retroactive effect and will only come into being after the present form of the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) has expired.

“So let nobody think that when we pass this resolution we are going to witness a hike in emoluments and allowances, immediately. I feel, however, that this matter has been pending for quite sometime.”

Other issues raised by the recommendations were also commented on by the prime minister:

. Job description for parliamentarians

“I think it is desirable that Members of Parliament on both sides should meet and settle this issue. What are the functions that they are legitimately called on to perform during their incumbency, no matter on what side of the aisle they may sit.

. Mechanism to deal with the issue of pay increases

“There needs to be some appropriate mechanism and body that can deal with the question of periodic increases in the salary and allowances on a defined basis.”

He suggested a broad-based permanent salaries committee, including persons appointed by the Prime Minister and Leader of the Opposition, as well as representatives of the trade unions and the private sector.

“That body will require a secretariat and it is suggested that the same secretariat which serves the Permanent Salaries Review Board could also serve as the secretariat to that body.” He said that this suggestion has been endorsed by the cabinet.

. Constituency support

“There should be in each constituency an office that is provided for the MP, where people, irrespective of their political shade or affiliation, can attend and receive the service to which they are entitled from their elected representatives.”

. Accountability and transparency reports

He said that if the recommendation is to be accepted, the MPs would need to give it further consideration.

. SESP/LDP (discretionary funds) spent by parliamentarians

“These funds are within our control and there must be a proper reporting system. Not only should the auditor general be involved, but members should be required on an annual basis to file reports on what they spend and how it was spent.

. Parliament building

Patterson said that he agreed that the facilities at Gordon House were sub-standard, but he felt that the improvements required more than acquiring adjoining premises and expanding the facilities.

“Having served at different levels in this Parliament over the years, it is high time that we got a parliament building. Even if we can’t do all of it in one go, let’s stop the tinkering and let’s take a decision on how we move forward from here,” he said.

balfordh@jamaicaobserver.com