The Jamaica Labour Party (JLP), now in government, is implementing the salary increases for parliamentarians that were recommended by the previous administration, but frozen for a lack of consensus.

It was, perhaps, good tactics for Bruce Golding, who was then the Opposition Leader, to have resisted the implementation of the hike. The JLP, under his leadership, couldn't then be accused of seeking to line the pockets of MPs when taxpayers were feeling economic pain.

Mr. Golding may have been genuine in his expressed concerns. But in the circumstances, the cynics, and not only Mike Henry, who is now the Transport and Works Minister, could have been counted on to raise more than just an eyebrow.

It is important, therefore, to remove this matter of how parliamentarians are paid from the strategic consideration of partisan politics, as well as from the cynicism of a public that tends to approach any action by politicians with profound scepticism.

In this regard, Mr. Golding and his administration need not, as the saying goes, attempt to reinvent the wheel. There have been, since 2003, a reasonably good set of recommendations of how to approach this matter, around which the previous administration shilly-shallied.

A committee appointed by the P.J. Patterson administration recommended that we move away from the current practice of linking the salaries of ministers and MPs to that of civil servants.

This approach raises the potential, even if only in appearance, of conflict of interest. When a minister is negotiating the salaries of members of the civil service, there should be no assumption that he, as an individual, and parliamentarians, as a class, have a stake in the outcome of those negotiations.

It is important, we feel, that Mr. Golding moves quickly to establish the Permanent Salaries Review Committee which was recommended to conduct periodic reviews of the salaries of parliamentarians. Such an approach would help to take the issue of the pay out of the realm of national cynicism and imbue the process with a level of trust.

There are other elements of the committee's report, rejected by the former Government, that, in our view, would help build the confidence of the public in the process of governance and thus ought to be pursued.

Among the most immediate of those is the proposal for linking annual increments for MPs to economic growth and the rate of inflation, but subject to a cap that is equal to half the rate of inflation of Jamaica's major trading partners. The assumption here is that if Jamaica recorded no growth and/or recorded high inflation, parliamentarians would be penalised with no or low salary hikes.

There would be incentive for the executive to pursue rational, growth-oriented politics and for backbenchers to be vocal against inappropriate policy mixes. This might help to encourage a new level of intellectual dynamism in the legislature.

The committee's proposal for the funding of constituency offices for MPs, but tying disbursements to annual accountability and transparency reporting by parliamentarians, is eminently sensible. People will know what the constituency representatives claim to have done and what they plan to do, thereby having measures against which MPs can be held accountable.

Despite his stumbles, Mr. Golding has come to office promising a new quality of governance. These are aids to the process he should happily embrace.