GOVERNMENT plans to have controversial MP pay increases rubber stamped by the Senate without a vote could be dashed ? because of the Constitution.

Government Senate Leader Larry Mussenden shelved a debate on the controversial hikes at the 11th hour last week after delivering a letter to Senate President Alf Oughton.

It is understood Government claims the Senate should not be allowed to reject the controversial legislation ? which will give Premier Alex Scott an 80 per cent pay increase ? but will have to pass it without taking a vote.

Sen. Oughton said he would announce his decision on the matter when the Senate sits next week.

Although Opposition politicians have so far been unable to see the contents of Sen. Mussenden?s letter, there is speculation that Government is hoping to get the draft law reclassified from a resolution to a money bill. The Senate can debate a money bill but has to pass it without a vote.

But according to the Constitution, only the Speaker of the House can determine whether a bill should be classified a money bill ? something that Speaker Stanley Lowe failed to do when the bill was being debated in the House of Assembly. Section 39 of the Bermuda Constitution Order states: ?Money bill means a public bill which, in the opinion of the Speaker, contains only provisions dealing with all or any of the following . . .?

The Constitution also states: ?There shall be endorsed on every bill . . . the certificate of the Speaker signed by him that it is a money bill.?

Yesterday Opposition spokesman on Legislative Affairs John Barritt urged Government to reveal its case for the bill to be passed by the Senate without a vote. And he warned that, if Government was trying to get the bill reclassified, it would face difficulties under the Constitution.

?I think the difficult thing about all of this is that we in the Opposition don?t actually know what Government?s position is,? he said.

?I haven?t seen Sen. Mussenden?s letter but, if it is the case that they now want to change it from a resolution to a money bill, then they?re going to face difficulties with that argument.

?It is the Speaker of the House of Assembly who designates whether it?s a money bill or not and that certainly wasn?t the case here ? no such certificate accompanied the bill.?

Mr. Barritt also pointed out that Government was breaking with tradition if it wanted to get the bill changed ? in the past six years Government has always put through MP pay increases as a resolution, not a money bill.

?This is at variance with what has been done in the last six years, when it went through as a resolution under valid legislation,? he said.?This is not something that the Senate is initiating and there?s a big difference between the Senate initiating something and deliberating on something that has come from the House of Assembly.?

Mr. Barritt condemned Government for putting Sen. Oughton in what he said was a difficult position, and also questioned why Government was going to ?extraordinary lengths? to get the pay rises approved.

?People need to look at the way Government is going about this and ask, are they doing it for the best interests of the country, the best interests of the public, or because it benefits themselves,? he said.

The e-mailed Sen. Mussenden, who is currently off island, asking him about Opposition concerns. No reply was received by press time last night. The Speaker could also not be contacted, despite several attempts by this newspaper.