Byron Buckley, News EditorOpened 45 years ago, on October 26, 1960, as a temporary location for Jamaica's parliament, Gordon House and its facilities are today caught in a time warp.
The building is bursting at its seams, as evidenced by inadequate meeting rooms, library and research facilities; a public gallery that easily reaches capacity; and a chucked up press box.
Similarly, the benefits and conditions of employment of legislators are out of step, by thousands of dollars, with rates currently enjoyed by persons in comparable positions in the private and even elsewhere, in the public sector.
For example, a few years ago, a report on the salaries of public sector executives found that the salary of the governor of the Bank of Jamaica more than doubled what his boss, the minister of finance received.
However, despite the apparent disadvantages suffered by parliamentarians in terms of their emoluments and working conditions, they appear reluctant to take deliberate steps to advance their welfare as noted recently by Gleaner Managing Director Oliver Clark, who two years ago, chaired a committee reviewing compensation and conditions of employment for parliamentarians.
Hesitant to advocate
"One of the fascinating things that I found is that parliamentarians are actually hesitant to advocate for themselves and for Parliament," Clarke told the Sunday Gleaner last week. "I think this is because for some reason, parliamentarians feel that the public is against improving these facilities."
In fact, an attempt by parliamentarians three years ago to retroactively pay themselves several missed salary increases in tandem with civil servants, caused a firestorm of protests from the public.
Consequently, Prime Minister P.J. Patterson ordered a freeze on the approximately 100 per cent salary increases and, in February 2003, appointed Oliver Clarke, an accountant by profession, to head a review group.
Perhaps, still smarting from the public shaming over the aborted salary raise, the Prime Minister noted two weeks ago: "We have to prevent a situation where it is felt that as Members of Parliament we have a right to fix our salaries as we see fit without regard for what is happening throughout the public sector."
He was speaking in the Lower House during a debate on the deliberations of a special parliamentary group that had reviewed the recommendations by the Clarke Committee that were submitted in November 2003.
Mr. Patterson, however, cautioned against the view that parliamentarians and persons who work in other areas of government, including the Cabinet, were not entitled to some reasonable compensation in line with what obtains in other professional fields.
The terms of reference of the five-member Clarke Committee which also consisted of Bishop Charles Dufour, Tony Lewars, Corrine McLarty and Las Perry included:
Examining the history of the adjustments in emoluments to members of the Cabinet and Parliament since the Ashenheim report of 1973 and the subsequent findings of such review groups as the Sasso (1981) and Fletcher (1989) Committees.
Examining and reporting on the factors that have attributed to the delays, if any, in implementing the accepted formula and the resulting impact.
Reporting on how the most recent increases compare with other areas of public sector wage and salary settlements over the past 10 years.
Considering whether the present formula and linkages should be maintained, modified or abandoned, taking into account the decision to provide remuneration to the public sector, based on 80 per cent of market rates.
Upgrading physical facilities
Regarding the poor physical facilities at Gordon House, the Clarke Committee recommended the addition of office space or the construction of a new parliament building; the upgrading of computer and Internet facilities for use by parliamentarians and research/library staff; the employment of a pool of eight researchers; and, the implemen-tation of an intern programme involving second and third-year masters students from local universities.
Said Clarke recently: "The conditions at Parliament are disgraceful. The facilities offered to legislators to use the telephone, get on the Internet, have a decent library to look up things that have occurred in the past, have some research done, is non-existent or very poor."
He pointed out that the reproduction of Hansard, the official records of parliamentary proceedings, was in arrears for as far back as 1987 in some cases.
Clarke believes these drawbacks in the parliamentary facilities hinder the quality of legislation passed and, by extension, undermine governance.
Although the Clarke Committee did not recommend an immediate increase in the basic salary of parliamentarians, it suggested significant increases in existing allowances and reimbursement of expenses, as well as the payment of new allowances to reflect market rates.
"The existing allowances to attend Parliament are quite inadequate," he explained to The Sunday Gleaner. "I think the overnight allowances for meals and accommodation for rural MPs travelling to Kingston is $300. What that means is that whenever rural MPs come to Kingston to attend Parliament, they have to subsidise that visit out of their pockets. I don't think that's fair," added Clarke.
Performance standards
Another area in which the the operations of Parliament have been out of step with modern practices is the lack of job description and performance standards for MPs.
In this regard, the Clarke Committee recommended the filing of annual accountability reports by MPs.
The parliamentary special group has agreed to this, pending the development of a job description. This had been mooted long ago by the late Professor Carl Stone from the University of the West Indies, but the proposal was never adopted.
In supporting the need for MPs to present annual accountability reports, Prime Minister P.J. Patterson recently told the Lower House that "Certainly in terms of what might be described as discretionary funds that fall within our competence or control ... there must be a proper reporting system."
He added: "Members of Parlia-ment should be required to, from time to time, certainly on an annual basis, file a report on what they have secured and how it has been applied."
However, parliamentarians slapped down a second recommendation in the Clarke Report: the public filing of annual transparency reports on their income and assets.
They refused on the ground that such reports are already filed confidentially with the Parliamentary Integrity Commission.
Constituency offices
Another aspect of parlia-mentary operations requiring reform is the use of political party constituency offices to house MPs.
Pointing out that the state needed to fund and provide such a facility, the Clarke Committee suggested the payment of an allowance as well as the employment of three staff members for the constituency office.
The parliamentary review group amended the recommendation to a $50,000 monthly allowance and the employment of two staff members. The Clarke report tied state support of constituency offices to MPs' adherence to a set of rules governing the operation of the office, which the Political Ombudsman could adjudicate.
Although recommending that the review of the basic salaries of parliamentarians be referred to a permanent salaries committee (PSC), to be established by the Governor-General, the Clarke Committee suggested that inflation be factored into the calculation of future salary increases determined by the PSC.
The report suggested basing annual incremental adjustments to salaries on the rate of growth of the economy or up to a maximum of half the country's inflation rate. This would be subjected to a cap of the average of the inflation rate of our major trading partners.
Golding counter-proposal
But this suggestion has not gone down well with Opposition Leader Bruce Golding, who told the Lower House last week that the Clarke Committee had left the matter of compensation hanging.
He counter-proposed that parliamentarians' salaries be increased by the weighted average of the highest and lowest rate of increase for public sector employees within a year. The Golding proposal would probably produce higher salary adjustments than that proposed in the Clarke report.
While the Clarke Committee did not recommend an immediate increase in basic salaries for parliamentarians, the reviewers proposed changes in the differential between the Prime Minister's salary and other parliamentarians with different levels of responsibility as follows:
Finance minister 80 per cent
Cabinet minister 70 per cent
State minister 60 per cent
MP 50 per cent
Mr. Clarke explained last week that the committee felt the responsibilities of being Prime Minister was much greater than twice that of an MP, so that over time, the Prime Minister should end up earning three times what an MP earns.
Given that the Clarke Report has been studied for the last two years by a bi-partisan committee that included Anthony Johnson, Audley Shaw and Derrick Smith from the JLP, it is surprising that Mr. Golding has disregarded entirely the recommendations of these senior members from his party.
The result of the current impasse is that parliamentarians are continuing to get relatively low pay and allowances which are quite inadequate to cover their expenses to visit parliament and to run their constituencies.
Regarding needed improvement to the physical facilities at Gordon house Clarke said, "We felt very strongly that improved facilities for the parliamentary building was very essential."
In reflecting this view, his committee recommended the establishment of a broad-based committee to oversee the matter. Parliament is already in the process of naming members to this committee.
