The debate over whether the House should vote itself a big pay increase led to some heated exchanges on Friday.

As reported in Saturday?s , the hike was eventually approved after a narrow vote and will now go before the Senate.

Under the proposals ? which were put forward by an independent Salary Review Board Premier Alex Scott?s annual pay packet would rise by 80 percent to $200,000.

Full-time Ministers would collect $150,000, with their part-time counterparts paid $100,000, up from $78,856 now. Backbenchers would receive $50,000, up from $39,000.

Shadow Minister of Home Affairs Maxwell Burgess earned a rebuke from the Premier during the debate with his remark that ?they tell me that the only two Ministers that work ? that?s the Minister of Finance and Tourism are going part time.? Mr. Scott said that for the record, Mr. Burgess was misleading the country over who was full and part time.

Mr. Burgess expressed his annoyance that the Premier would not tell the House who had opted for what, and told him: ?You?re too busy grabbing. Just drop the money for a while.?

This prompted Deputy Speaker Jennifer Smith to reprimand him for using ?un-parliamentary language?.

Mr. Burgess continued his speech by accusing the Government of treating the public with a lack of respect.

As the last person to speak in the debate, Government backbencher Renee Webb challenged the Opposition to move a motion saying that they would not take the salary increase, seeing as they did not agree with it.

?There?s enough hypocrisy going round,? she said.

And Ms Webb ? who branded the leadership of both parties as ?the weakest I have ever seen? after the recent defeat of her anti-discrimination bill added: ?I have no problem with the increases in and of itself. Where I do have some problems (is) not with the increases but with some of the people getting the increases. That?s definitely a problem for me.?

She said she had voted against the idea of part-time Ministers, as all of them should be full-time, and criticised the proposed $50,000 salary for backbenchers as too low.

Earlier in the proceedings, Government backbencher Derrick Burgess said that when the report first came out, the only complaint from the UBP was that ?there was not enough money for all of us?. He said the recommendation of the review board had to be accepted, and described the process as a form of arbitration.

?They ruled and we should not be questioning the way they went about that,? Mr. Burgess said, adding that review was just dealing with salaries ? not pensions. If workers ignored an arbitration ruling there would be uproar and he said that MPs should set an example to the country by accepting the report.

Opposition backbencher Grant Gibbons said an advisory board made the recommendations, and this was not an arbitration process.

Dr. Gibbons said that because the wage rises were ?toploaded? ? meaning the highest earners would be paid even more ? this would have a ?dramatic impact? on the pensions burden.

Asking the Premier to clarify the criteria for full and part-time ministers, he said that if ten ministers became full time that would add about $450,000 to the salary bill.

?If the Minister of Finance is part-time and the Minister without Portfolio is full-time, there?s something very wrong,? he added.

Shadow Finance Minister Pat Gordon Pamplin, responding to Government claims the UBP wanted higher salaries, said that the Opposition had called for the increases to be distributed more fairly, and not focus on senior Ministers.

And she said that the levels of rises recommended in the review would not be accepted in the private sector. Finance Minister Paula Cox said: ?I take no fun in talking about money and salaries, particularly when it?s about politicians.? However, she said the matter at hand was about ?changing the political landscape of Bermuda? and bringing people into politics who would previously have been ?screened out.?

?We?re talking about levelling the playing field and bringing in those who couldn?t afford to be here,? she added.

On the subject of her own salary, she said she had opted to be paid as a part-time Minister ?even though I consider myself to be more than a full-time Minister.?

Explaining why she wished to keep her current job as corporate counsel at Ace she said as she could be told ?so long and farewell? by the Premier tomorrow if he wished, leaving her ?high and dry.?

?At my age? I?m not that old (but) ?lawyer for hire?? ? I don?t think so!? she quipped.

She added that the issue of pensions as had been raised by the Opposition had not been overlooked and that an assessment of what the contributions are for those at the high end of the pay scale would be done.

Minister without Portfolio Walter Lister said: ?I don?t come to this House for the salary but there are people in this House in economic difficulty.? He added that there were people who would like to serve as politicians but could not do so for economic reasons and that the way the salary issue had been dealt with was ?commendable.?

Shadow Attorney General Trevor Moniz said he felt the salary suggestions were not based on notions of full-time or part-time but rather ?opportunism for Ministers.?

Government Party Whip Ottiwell Simmons said: ?We are not feathering our own nests. We are not approving salaries that we have established.?

He said that the Salary Review Board was ?eminently qualified? and had produced a sound report for which the House would be showing disdain and disrespect if it was not accepted ?lock stock and barrel.?

Deputy Opposition Leader Jon Brunson said it was important to attract young people into politics but that no young person living in the real world would make the sacrifice of taking the $50,000 salary proposed for backbenchers.

Before the votes were cast to approve the draft resolution, Mr. Scott said it would be improper to ?tinker? with the salary board?s recommendations.

?They decided some get more and some get less,? Mr. Scott said. ?Our view is that if we ask them to act and we do not tamper with their recommendations, then it can honestly be said it was left to an independent group to do that which it would be improper for us to do ourselves ? recommending our own increases.?

Speaking on whether Ministers should be full-time or part-time, Mr. Scott said it was his suggestion that the next group of MPs to sit in the House of Assembly should be full time and paid according to the Board?s recommendations.

?But as this Premier can?t bind this House, this House can?t bind a future Parliament,? he said.

Minister without Portfolio Walter Lister would have ?special projects? which would be announced to Cabinet and the public momentarily, he said.

?Most if not all Ministers demonstrated they were capable of meeting responsibilities part-time,? said the Premier. ?Now we are looking for greater responsibility full time.?

Finally, he thanked those who accepted positions on the Board. ?It was like a poison chalice, not everyone was up to the task,? he said.