The annual sectoral debate continued Tuesday and Wednesday with at least eight contributions, without the Speaker or his deputy present, but with the Leader of the House, Dr Peter Phillips, returning from an extended absence.

There is no doubt that Dr Phillips’ absence created a vacuum which has resulted in an attempt to now lump as many as four or five speakers, together with motions, questions and the other weekly actions of the House of Representatives.

There was a lot of excitement during the week, with the Member from St Elizabeth South-East, Lenworth Blake, being elected to act in place of Speaker Michael Peart and his deputy, O T Williams, both of whom were absent for the week.

The absolute mess of the sectoral debate which developed while the member from South St Catherine, Fitz Jackson, acted as House Leader, has resulted in a fast-track attempt to get the debate concluded by Wednesday.

It is expected that some 12 members will speak over the two days – Tuesday and Wednesday – before the House goes on its summer break.

In his presentation on Tuesday, Leader of Opposition Business Derrick Smith suggested a meeting with Dr Phillips to clear up the mess.

“We cannot have a situation where from one week to the next it is unclear what is on the agenda, what committees are meeting, or who will lead the House,” said Smith. “We have a sectoral debate going on, and I have never seen a debate of this nature proceed in such disarray as this current one.”

. Abe Dabdoub, the only independent member of the House and MP for North-East St Catherine, finally made his contribution on Tuesday.

It turned out to be an anti-climax, as the much-anticipated crossing of the floor to join Verna Parchment on the government side did not materialise. In fact, Dabdoub laid to rest the rumour.

“Let me state that I did not, as some have speculated, resign in order to join another political party,” he said. “As I stand here today, I am not a member of any political party.

“Mr Speaker, earlier this year I advised you that I was no longer to be regarded as a member of the official Opposition and requested that you seat me accordingly. This was consequent upon my resignation as a member of the political party presently forming the official Opposition. I wish to make it clear that my resignation after serving 16 years as a member of that party did not come lightly,” Dabdoub said.

“I have, from time to time, had differences with the leadership on matters of policy and direction, including matters I considered to be matters of principle. I had always been able to work with previous administrations without compromising those principles. That situation no longer obtains and hence my decision to extricate myself lest I become contaminated.

“Among the many concerns was the fact that the new leader was a person who had left the party to form another party, the success of which depended entirely on the demise of the party of which I was a member. Self respect alone, Mr Speaker, made it difficult for me to support that person as leader of the party. It is now a matter of history that the existence of the party which he formed contributed significantly to at least two general election defeats of the party from which I recently resigned.”

Dabdoub said he wished to continue serving the country in whatever capacity that best suits Jamaica, “whether in or out of politics”.

. While all this drama was going on in the House, the Special Select Committee which was appointed earlier this year to examine Ministry Paper #83, entitled “Parliamentarians Pay and Conditions of Service”, has been meeting on the issue.

Their report was tabled on Tuesday. The committee had its final meeting on Tuesday morning and we have learnt that the last two meetings have not been attended by the Opposition members, which suggests a split on some of the issues the committee is examining.

Any split at this time would delay a vote in the House on the issues, as with general election in the air, none of the two parties would want to take sole responsibility for increased spending on members and their facilities.

The committee has already approved the proposal that the MPs should reject the second tranche of the huge pay increase they were awarded in 2002, but which was frozen after a public outcry and put to the (Oliver) Clarke committee.

They approved, however, the proposal that they should be paid new increases commensurate with the increases granted recently to public sector workers under the new Memorandum of Understanding (MOU2) and retroactive to April 1.

A new issue raised by the committee in its report is that permanent secretaries will end up earning about half-a-million dollars per year more than Cabinet ministers when the latest round of public sector increases are fully implemented.

But the Parliamentarians expect redress soon. A Permanent Parliamentary Compensation Committee, which has been proposed in a report tabled in the House of Representatives Tuesday, is expected to have, as its first task, to correct the anomaly.

The special committee, which looked at the pay and conditions of services of Parliamentarians and tabled the report, said that it had been informed that as a result of the freeze on the wages of the Parliamentarians in 2002, and the subsequent granting of a special adjustment to public sector workers in October 2005, an anomaly had developed between the salaries of the Parliamentarians and that of the permanent secretaries in favour of the civil servants.

Consequently, a proposal was made by the Cabinet for the salaries of Parliamentarians to be adjusted, in accordance with the relevant percentage increases granted to the civil servants under MOU2, which took effect on April 1.

The point was made, however, that this adjustment would not correct the existing differential, as the salary of a permanent secretary would move to approximately $4.5 million, in comparison to the $4 million per annum paid to Cabinet ministers.

The special select committee has also agreed with a proposal from the Opposition to acquire lands adjacent to Gordon House for expansion of its facilities.

The report said that the committee agreed that, in the short term, the properties adjacent to the existing Parliament building should be acquired in order to increase available space. But that, in the long term, a new Parliament building should be built at an appropriate location. It also recommended that a previous committee which was dealing with the issue should be reactivated.

In its findings, the special committee said that in regards to the location of a new building, a view was also expressed that although 15 acres of land in the vicinity of Wolmer’s Boys’ School, National Heroes Circle, had been identified as the site for the building, a more appropriate location would be the Kingston waterfront.

The report is to be debated in Parliament.