Senators might have been unable to vote on controversial pay rises for senior politicians, but there was still a lengthy debate yesterday about the increases.

Early in the debate, revealed that the pay increase would be phased in over two stages.

Half the increase would be backdated to April 2006, he confirmed, with the rest paid one year later. Previously it appeared that the pay awards would be introduced all in one go, although the Bermuda Industrial Union recently called for the pay rises to be phased in over the next two years.

Amid criticism on the impact on the politicians? pension fund, Sen. Mussenden said that if contributions to the fund were stopped today there was enough money to pay for 25 years of pensions.

?The pension fund for ministers and members is solid and will not be hugely impacted by the increases.?

He hit back at ?shameful? criticism by the Opposition of the findings of the salary review board and added: ?This is not about increases this is about salary structure?.

On the President?s ruling, he said that when it came down to the critical issue of Senate voting, the advice he received was consistent with that received by Sen. Alf Oughton. He said critics of the Government?s legal stance would ?gladly accept? the same advice, probably from overseas legal experts.said the revised pay scales were skewed in favour of Cabinet Ministers. Referring to George Orwell?s ?Animal Farm? he said it was clear which politicians were more ?more equal than others? and added: ?It?s obvious who are the strutting roosters of this barnyard.?

He criticised the proposed three percent increase for ordinary Senators and said this was a ?slap in the face?.

He said the Opposition was not against Cabinet Ministers getting properly compensated for a difficult job, but questioned the logic of giving backbench MPs a 27 percent increase when Senators had to ?cover the legislative landscape on our own?.

He added: ?This is not right, equitable or fair.?

Sen. Richards said Government should have told the salaries review board, ?you have got it wrong, go back and try again.?

He also asked for clarity on who decides if a Minister should be full-time or part-time and warned of the impact ?fat pay packets? would have on the politicians? pension fund, which he said was seriously underfunded as current payments were not enough. He said this mattered to residents ? because politicians? pensions were guaranteed by the Consolidated Fund.

The fund was underfunded by nearly $5 million in 2004, and despite Sen Mussenden?s ?rosy picture? he warned that assets faced ?complete obliteration? three years after the new salaries come into force.

Commenting on the president?s earlier ruling that the Senate could not vote on the resolution, Sen. Richards said that Government had ?bobbed and weaved and tried their very, very best to make sure that salary increases could not be stopped?.

This earned a rebuke from who told the Opposition member to talk about the resolution. said that Sen Oughton?s ruling was ?sound?. The Attorney General was right to raise the issue, but he asked why it had taken so many years to to spot the constitutional conflict.

He said he was not looking for a large salary increase, but expressed disappointment that the pay gap between MPs and Senators would grow.

Sen. Hughes, who also asked for a definition of full-time and part-time ministers, also said the fact that the Senate?s powers on salary issues had been reduced meant this was a good opportunity for Government to ?re-think? the pay rise issue and look at the impact on pensions. He also called for a report by a joint select committee. The act governing politicians? salaries and pensions had been ?thrown into disarray? by the President?s ruling, the Senate heard. said the revised wage scheme was a ?restructuring for this day and age?. He added: ?We knew we were going to get some stick about it, but going forward there will be many people thanking us for taking this step.?, referring to the weeks of delay over the resolution, said that many in the community felt that Government had gone to ?great lengths so certain outcomes can be achieved?. She claimed the ?top-heavy? rises would lead to discord and also called on Government to take another look at the resolution.said she would have supported the pay hike had it gone to a vote. But, she said that having spoken to members of the public about this: ?I can say that we have a real PR problem in politics. They really don?t think we deserve any increase or work for what we get.? But, she said, the salary level should aim to attract ?the best and the brightest? to politics.said he was fully in favour of the report recommending the pay rise, which he said had been ?a long time coming.? He said that not many people were willing to be ?slapped around by the press and members of the community.? And he added: ?We have a strong economy, one that can take increases in salary, and a Government not afraid to take tough decisions and correct some things that are wrong.?expressed annoyance at the ruling earlier in proceedings that Senators could not vote on the salary issue, saying he saw no difference between this and the annual cost of living rises that the Senate considers. He said he would have liked the opportunity for legal argument over the Attorney General?s letter. But Senate President Alf Oughton said it was not for anyone else to have a copy of the letter and advised him not to pursue this topic. criticised the Bermuda Employers? Council for speaking out against the salary rise saying it was ?hypocritical? as the way employers decide on remuneration for CEOs is not transparent and the council had no right to be ?self righteous? on the matter. said he had complete confidence in the Minister of Finance when it came to the issue of the impact of the pay restructure on the pension pot.

He recounted his personal experiences of how he was regularly stopped on the street by members of the public keen to hold him accountable as a Minister.

He said that he worked a 95-hour week and that his current salary worked out on this basis as being around $14 per hour. He said after the increase, the part time Minister salary would see him earn $16 an hour or $27 at the full-time rate.

Comparing this salary rate to the amounts earned by various ranks in uniformed organisations, Sen. Burch ? who rose to the rank of Lt. Col. in the Bermuda Regiment ? said his current $66,000 per year salary would place him at the much lower rank of Warrant Officer Class Two. In the Fire Service he would be earning at Sergeant rank and in the Police service the fourth grade of Sergeant. He said that after the part time minister increase he would receive earnings on a par with a Police Inspector.

He said he had used the example to highlight that salary levels should be about recognising responsibility and accountability. And he added that he had prepared letters to the Attorney General for anyone who wanted to follow ?the milkman? ? UBP Minister Michael Dunkley of Dunkley?s Dairies ? and say they did not want to take the pay hike.

Wrapping up the debate, said he had no problem with ?what at first glance seems to be very large increases.?

He said he felt the criticism from the Bermuda Employers? Council was ?a little out of order.? He added that the Premier?s job was ?an awesome responsibility? and it was also important to attract intelligent young people into politics.

However, he criticised the idea of having different salaries for full time and part time Ministers, commenting: ?It?s a ridiculous idea. I don?t know who the blazes thought it up.

?Are we going to have full and part time Governments in future??

He also said that in his view the salaries for Ministers should be split into three grades according to their roles. On this basis, he said that the Minister of Finance would earn a ?grade A? wage, the Environment, Telecommunications and Youth and Sport Ministers would be at ?grade C? along with the Minister without Portfolio. The others would be placed in a middle ?B? wage band. He said that he meant no disrespect to current Minister Without Portfolio Walter Lister but ?I can?t for the life of me see why we should pay a Minister Without Portfolio the same salary we pay the Minister of Works and Engineering.?

He also said that Government must urgently review the impact on pensions. Responding to the points that had been raised, said they had provided plenty for Government to consider and also for the Salaries Review Board to look at when it re-visits the topic in two years.