Fred Mitchell MP

On Select Committee Request to review the allowances, benefits etc. of MPs and Senators and to the construction of a Parliamentary complex.

House of Assembly

6^th February 2013

I am privileged to be able to lead this debate.

It is yet another in a list of matters which I have been fighting for since I got to this place and which as time is winding down, is on my list to get done. It’s now or never.

This like everything else is going to be contentious. That is our system. But the problem has to be faced despite which is likely to be a heavy political and personal cost. It must be done so that the next generation of people who come here will not have this battle to fight. Hopefully, and if we are artful and determined enough, we will have designed when we have finished a system which will give flexibility to the next set of leaders of this country to determine the proper level of support for the work of Members of Parliament and Senators who come to serve in office.

The idea is to put in place a system which will allow for constant review in a transparent and objective context, on a regular basis so that the work of a Member of Parliament or a Senator is properly supported.

Mr. Speaker, I made some personal choices in my own life before coming to this job. I would be a single man, without a family and I did this so that I could be totally and absolutely dedicated to the one and only thing that I have always wanted to do. It took me a long time to get here, fighting disabilities, real or imagined, prejudice and hatred but along the way some great experiences of friendship, mentorship, loyalty and trust. I do not believe that this is a dirty business.

In fact, I say that to those who nay say politics and public service, that it is no more dirty than any other public activity in which we are all engaged. I have tried to dedicate my mature adult life to encouraging other young people to come to public service. And to try to work for a tolerant, liberal society. Remembering always that this is a secular state, not a theocracy and that we must work for the public good and in the public interest.

I have said to my family that when Pope John Paul II died he left only his Bible to his sister. I believe that may have been his only material property. I have not been called to such a higher purpose but my own decision is to exhaust all that is material in the greater interest of this country and leave not the material but a legacy of goodwill and a record of public service which can be emulated.

But that is a personal decision, deeply personal. It is not a stricture to be imposed on anyone else nor to be recommended. For coming to public service, although a vocation or calling is a job; a highly visible job but a job nonetheless. And for doing that job, you should be paid commensurate to the work you are expected to do, for the risks which you are called upon to accept, and to be supported in that work by the resources of the state. What you bring to the table as an MP or Senator is your mind, talents, your intellect and intelligence to solve the great problems which confront the country as well as the minutia and nuts of bolts of the business of government and legislation.

I have been around now as Parliamentarian since 1992. Before that I served in various capacities.

In 1977, there was a debate in this House when the late Sir Lynden Pindling was seeking to put in place the salaries for Parliamentarians and Ministers and other officers of the state.

The then Mr. Pindling said to the House that the salaries were being put in place to make it possible for men and women of modest means to run for office and to serve in office.

This has always stuck with me. I came to this job against the backdrop of my late first cousin once removed Sammie Isaacs who was almost consumed by the financial losses which he encountered as a Member of the House of Assembly. My mother always warned me not to do it because you end up backing notes for constituents who would never pay you back.

So the last generation put in place some things: the salaries, the pension, the constituency allowances.

Unfortunately, none of them are adequate neither do they support fully the work which MPs and Senators are called upon to do.

The Opposition almost never agrees to support any measures to move the process along. It is easy to simply argue that people are seeking to fix themselves up. But I say that this is a matter of such importance to the future of the country and its ability to attract people of quality to service here that it must be fixed and I am prepared to take the hit for it and the risk for it because I am nearer the end than at the beginning.

This is not an exercise about salaries. I want to make that clear. There is a mechanism to deal with that and even though the Committee, if granted, may make passing references to it, this is more about the supporting structures which MPs and Senators have. I commend to the government that there should be a similar committee of the Senate and that the two bodies work together to review these matters quickly and report back at the earliest opportunity.

I hope that we get a unanimous report but I am prepared to proceed if the majority alone is willing to proceed. It must be done.

This is also about suggesting some fundamental changes in the way the House and Senate, the Parliament or legislative branch is funded and administered.

I have had the advantage of reading this morning the views of the Honourable Clerk of the House and I would wish to read into the record those views with which I fully agree and commend to the House.

There is a need to de link the Parliament, its funding and work from the Executive. The business, administration and funding of the House is presently done through the Cabinet office. The Cabinet office can properly be the link between the two bodies - the Executive and the Legislative - but the House and the Senate should run their own affairs.

The Speaker should be and the President should be corporation soles with the property of the House and Senate vested in those respective corporations.

We have to look to the constitutional consequences of this if any but I do not think that there are any. There is an opinion however that there might be. The committee can investigate this.

The House and the Senate will be run by the respective committees of the House, let us say we call it the Administrative Committee which will be a standing committee of the House. The Committee will be chaired by the Speaker or President as the case might be and made up of three members of the majority and two members of the minority. They will make the decisions for the day to day running of the House, be responsible for relations with the executive and the House and Senate and negotiate the annual budget of the House.

My suggestion is that the House and Senate will then be responsible for the administration of all matters which affect the emoluments, allowances and benefits of the House.

The Parliament would be responsible for the administration of the following acts:

The Parliamentarians (Constituency Office) Allowance Act; the Parliamentarians ( Salaries an Allowances) Act; The Parliamentary Pensions Act; the Powers and Privileges ( Senate and House of Assemby) Act. Those acts together with the Prime Minister’s Pension Act; the Prime Ministers Personal Staff Act; the Public Disclosure Act and the Constitution will have to be reviewed by the Committee.

I have some suggestions. Pensions for example ought to be reviewed regularly and members ought to know what the status of their pension is, how they can improve the worth of the pension. It is a contributory pension and the value of it might be improved by allowance purchases of additional benefits. When a Member or a senator retires, it is the House or Senate that should provide the services to that member to ensure that he is properly treated and deal with such items as support for health care.

Further, it is my view that when you become a Member of Parliament or a Senator you are an MP for the whole Bahamas and so your work and travel throughout The Bahamas ought to be supported.

I wish now to turn to the idea of the construction of a new Parliament.

This is long overdue. There were drawings done before and a site chosen at old Victoria Hotel site up the street from this place but the project was never completed. A new complex was I think announced on the occasion of the visit of Princess Anne to The Bahamas for the occasion of the 250^th anniversary of the founding of the Parliament but we are still in this building. The Parliament first convened on September 29, 1729.

I do not like to work in this building. It is cramped. It is inadequate. It is too intimate and too accessible.

It has long ago outlived its adequacy.

I think that here is where it would be appropriate for me to read into the record the views of our clerk with which I agree.

(here read into the record the piece from the Clerk of the House)

I wish therefore Mr. Speaker to commend this resolution to the House and the Committee I hope if it is approved can begin its work right away and report expeditiously to the House. I believe that it would be useful to travel to Barbados, Jamaica, Trinidad and Antigua as well as to Canada and to the UK with a view to learning from their experiences and if not travel to get access to information on what they have done.

I so move.