Training on the job has its privileges

  • Temporary ministerial post: Lawrence Scott

    Temporary ministerial post: Lawrence Scott


Dear Sir,

This is in response to the article titled “Temporary ministers paid $240 extra a day”.

“Lawrence Scott, the Government Whip, was sworn in on January 10 as the temporary Minister for Tourism and Transport for ten days.”

A temporary minister in “training” while “shadowing” the official minister earns $2,400 in ten days of “training”?

“Mr Burt explained earlier this month that the ‘constitutional provision’ that allowed the Premier to appoint a Member of the House of Assembly or Senate as a temporary minister was not new.”

Yes, the Constitution does make this provision and, technically, the Premier can appoint as many temporary ministers to his Cabinet as he justifies each new temporary appointment.

But the Bermuda Constitution Order also clearly states under Chapter III, The Legislature, powers and procedures, section 46:

The Legislature may by law determine and regulate the privileges, immunities and powers of either House and the members thereof, but no such privileges, immunities and powers shall exceed those of the Commons House of Parliament of the United Kingdom or the Members thereof.

So would, or more importantly, does the Commons House of Parliament of the United Kingdom extend this type of financial privilege to temporary ministers in “training” at Westminster Palace?

Because the query isn’t in the appointment but rather why a “trainee” who is “shadowing” is paid to do so?

In other words, what type of ministerial trainee is rewarded with a “financial privilege” or a “gift” above and beyond the basic MP’s salary at Westminster Palace in London?

And before David Burt sets out to create and deeply embed this type of precedent or extend financial “political privileges” to his backbenchers — even while he has the Governor in his photo-op — wouldn’t it be prudent to firmly and transparently establish whether this type of financial “training” privilege is a privilege known and falls within the established privileges of Westminster?

I think that the qualified opinion of Whitehall on the powers and procedures at the Commons House of Parliament (Westminster Palace) would clarify and settle this perplexing issue, as the payment for training an MP is a rather extraordinary political “financial privilege” by the Premier.

VALIRIE MARCIA AKINSTALL

London, England

You must be registered or signed-in to post comment or to vote.

Published Feb 4, 2020 at 8:00 am (Updated Feb 4, 2020 at 7:49 am)

Training on the job has its privileges

What you
Need to
Know
1. For a smooth experience with our commenting system we recommend that you use Internet Explorer 10 or higher, Firefox or Chrome Browsers. Additionally please clear both your browser's cache and cookies - How do I clear my cache and cookies?
2. Please respect the use of this community forum and its users.
3. Any poster that insults, threatens or verbally abuses another member, uses defamatory language, or deliberately disrupts discussions will be banned.
4. Users who violate the Terms of Service or any commenting rules will be banned.
5. Please stay on topic. "Trolling" to incite emotional responses and disrupt conversations will be deleted.
6. To understand further what is and isn't allowed and the actions we may take, please read our Terms of Service
7. To report breaches of the Terms of Service use the flag icon

  • Take Our Poll

    Today's Obituaries

    eMoo Posts