Controversial pay rises for senior politicians cleared their final legislative hurdle yesterday after it was ruled that the Constitution prevented the Senate from voting on the wage hikes.

Government avoided a potential bloody nose on the hot topic as Senate President Alf Oughton decided that members in the Upper House could not vote on the draft resolution.

A law dating back to 1975 states that salary resolutions have to be rubberstamped by both the House of Assembly and the Senate.

But despite this Sen. Oughton ? in a landmark ruling ? said the Constitution made it clear that ?in the last resort? the Senate could not ?frustrate the will of the House of Assembly?, particularly over use of taxpayers? money.

The resolution was passed in the House of Assembly but voting was split 16-13 on party lines.

And before yesterday?s ruling there had been speculation that Independent Senators could join the Opposition in voting down a resolution that gives the Premier an 80 percent pay rise. Full-time and part-time Ministers will receive $150,000 and $100,000 respectively.

After the President?s eagerly awaited ruling was passed down, powerless Senators could only talk about the pay increases.

One Independent compared the situation to a ?debating society?.

Speaking outside the chamber, Senate Leader Larry Mussenden was asked why Government raised the issue about the Senate?s voting rights when it handed a letter to Sen. Oughton a fortnight ago.

The Attorney General denied Government was worried about defeat and said: ?The Constitution is sacrosanct and it?s the ultimate authority in Bermuda.

?You can?t sweep it aside even if there?s a great desire by people, even if a law has been enacted that is not consistent with the Constitution.

?Whatever the Constitution says, it?s my duty as Attorney General, as protector of the Constitution, that it?s complied with whether I like it or not.?

He said that if the Constitution was ignored on this matter it could set a precedent in future.

Weeks of legal and political manoeuvring came before yesterday?s judgment, however Sen. Mussenden said he had not canvassed the Independents to see how they would vote. ?No Independent or UBP Senator told me how they were going to vote,? he added.

Sen. Bob Richards, referring to the President?s ruling, said that Government had ?bobbed and weaved and tried their very, very best to make sure that salary increases could not be stopped?.

But the Attorney General had told Senators that claims the Government had ?hijacked? the Senate over the constitutional issue were ?insulting?.

Earlier, Sen. Oughton told the Senate he had taken legal advice after receiving the Attorney General?s letter on June 26.

Pointing to sections 35 to 39 of the Constitution, he said that it barred the Senate from proceeding on any motion ?the effect of which ... would be to make provision for the imposition of any charge on the Consolidated Fund.?

Mr. Oughton added: ?It is recognised that the effect of the resolution (on politicians? salaries) under consideration is to activate a charge on the Consolidated Fund.?

He added: ?Moreover, if the House of Assembly passes such a resolution but the Senate declines to do so, the result would be a veto by the Senate on the expenditure from the Consolidated Fund that is formally and lawfully desired by the House of Assembly.

?This is clearly contrary to the scheme and intent of sections 35 to 39 of the Constitution.?

Sen. Oughton ruled this meant that it appeared that sections of the 1975 act, requiring a resolution to be passed by the Upper House, was ?inconsistent? with the Constitution.

It would be unconstitutional for Senators to vote on the issue, he ruled, but there was nothing to stop them debating it.

Even if the Senate had voted on the issue, it would ultimately not have been able to reverse the decision of MPs. Even if the resolution was rejected, it would only be delayed before the resolution returned to the Senate to become law as the resolution could not be blocked a second time by the Upper House.

Meanwhile, it also emerged yesterday that the Senate President was not consulted by the Premier about membership of the salaries review board.

Sen. Oughton said the Attorney General?s letter ? outlining reasons why the Senate should not vote on the proposed pay rises ? noted that there was a requirement for the Premier to consult with the Senate President about membership of the independent Salaries Review Board that drew up the pay recommendations.

Mr. Mussenden added that this consultation process meant that it could be said that the need for a Senate resolution had been ?superseded? and so a vote was no longer necessary.

However, Sen. Oughton yesterday hit back and said he was never consulted by the Premier as required by law ? and said this was a ?serious procedural defect? in the appointment of the review board. He said this probably did not weaken the salaries report, but he added that it could be argued that the report was a ?nullity? if all of the board members were ?defectively appointed, as would appear to be the case if the President of the Senate was not consulted prior to the appointment as is required by the Act?.

In response, Sen. Mussenden said that lack of consultation with the President was an ?oversight?, but said the issue was not significant enough to call into question the legality of the pay review report.

The Premier last night confirmed that he did consult with both the Leader of the Opposition and Speaker of the House and through ?oversight? missed the President of the Senate. He said that Sen. Mussenden acknowledged this publicly today and apologised on behalf of the Government.