THE EDITOR, Sir:
The appeal to pay salaries to Senators may seem reasonable when we consider that Parish Councillors who used to volunteer their community services are now in receipt of a monthly stipend. This move is of a piece with the policies of the present ruling party, which is also responsible for the hefty pay increases parliamentarians have been voting themselves since 1989. But before considering the needs of the allegedly impecunious who now fill seats in the Upper House, we ought to be examining the larger question of Senate reform; its composition and the role it plays in the legislative process.
Earlier this year the British Government rejected a similar call to pay salaries to members of the House of Lords; and it set up a Royal Commission to study the matter. Prime Minister Blair's administration expressed a preference to maintain a daily subsistence expenses payment along with travel costs; a secretarial allowance per day of attendance; and accommodation expenses (depending on whether members are London-based).
The Royal Commission said, "The Govern-ment is not convinced that a move to formal payments by way of salaries is desirable. Formal salaries would also tend to imply full time commitment which, in turn, would argue for a rather smaller House of Lords than currently exists or is proposed"
The argument put forward by the present Jamaican Government is that the payment of salaries will ensure more reliable service from Senators; and that failure to pay could deprive the country of the desired standard of competence. One wonders, though, whether thoughts about quality and competence have been all that pressing in past selections for the Senate. Has it not been more important to the political parties to choose their budding candidates for the House of Representatives? Or to provide a place for Ministerial material having a dislike for the hustings?
The true role of the Senate should be to press the Government to justify its actions, to debate public issues and to hold Ministers accountable for their deeds. Both the Royal Commission and the Blair Government agreed that the "Upper House" should "...make a distinctive contribution to the Parliamentary process, not simply imitate or replicate" the position of the other House of Parliament.
This leads me to ask whether or not it is possible in Jamaica to find 21 persons qualified and willing to serve in the Senate without thought of the financial reward. I believe that this is possible. I believe that our productive sector has the capacity to give paid leave to their employees or directors able to give genuine service at the senatorial level. I believe that there are thousands of patriotic senior citizens willing and able to share their talent and experience for the benefit of the people, and without seeking to make a profession of it.
I think if we look at the Senate this way, we might begin to attach more urgency to better service for the people than more handsome rewards for those who freely choose to put their services at the disposal of the nation. Until we do so, this untimely and unseemly request for money will make Parliament appear as a trade union for the profession of politics.
I am etc.
KEN JONES
alllerdyce@hotmail.com
