United Bermuda Party leader Wayne Furbert last night said his party will not support hefty pay hikes for politicians, can reveal.

He said that a recent salaries review gave ?no justifiable reason? for the proposed wage increases that, if introduced, would see Premier Alex Scott?s pay packet rise by almost 80 per cent to $200,000 a year.

Mr. Furbert added: ?We as servants of the people cannot put ourselves ahead of the people. There has been no justifiable argument made to the people of this country as to why their legislators need salary increases of this magnitude in the face of so many pressing social issues.

?For this reason alone if there were no other, the United Bermuda Party cannot and will not endorse the recommendations.?

His comments come as Bermuda?s politicians prepared to discuss the controversial pay issue today in the House of Assembly. The report also stated that full-time ministers should get $150,000 and part-time ministers $100,000 per year, up from $78,856 now. MPs should get a near 27 per cent rise to $50,000.

Mr. Furbert admitted that under the current pay scale many MPs struggled financially.

And he accepted that competition from the private sector was fierce and ?decent salaries? had to be on the table to attract scarce talent available and lure future political leaders. ?Many MPs and Senators find that they have to make financial sacrifices in order to serve their country,? he wrote (see Page 4). ?Frankly speaking, many parliamentarians cannot make ends meet.?

Mr. Furbert also said it was becoming increasingly difficult for political leaders to stay in their primary job and continue with their ?demanding? public service role. He pointed to the example of new Senator Gina Spence Farmer. She gave up her youth worker job at Bermuda College after failing to get time off to serve in the Upper House.

Mr. Furbert also said there was no justification for the committee only recommending a percentage increase in line with the Consumer Price Index (CPI) for Senators. ?Did this committee consider that fewer Senators in the Upper House deal with the same pieces of legislation as their more numerous counterparts in the Lower House?? he asked.

The review had not considered the entire compensation package and the impact any increases would have on the member?s pension fund ? and ultimately the consolidated fund.

And there was no difference in workload between a full-time Minister and a part time Cabinet member to justify the difference in salary, he added.

The UBP leader said the report had been produced under ?considerable time constraints?.

And he added: ?The committee was forced to produce within four months a report that was originally given seven months to complete.?

He said the UBP backed periodic reviews of politicians salaries, and ?wholeheartedly endorsed? the appointment of the eight-member Salaries Review Board in July 2005.

He said the ?highly-respected and competent? team, well balanced both professionally and politically, had been charged with carrying out the review.

Such a review was ?long overdue? as the last time the thorny issue was addressed was in 1994. Mr. Furbert said the report should now be returned to the committee so more details could be provided on the entire compensation package.

That would take into the account the impact of any pay rises on MPs? pensions and other benefits. He also called on the committee to re-examine the issue of full-time and part-time Ministers. And he said that any salary increase should take effect upon the election of the next Parliament and not come into force in the immediate future.