Editorial

When political parties agree on a matter in which the financial interests of parliamentarians are involved, it should not be a matter for profound surprise. That, at least, will be the cynic's reaction to the news that the government and opposition whips are agreed that government employees should retain their public sector job when they are elected to parliament. At present, parliamentarians who emerge from that sector have to give up their primary employment and lose a source of income. Both sides are viewing this as discriminatory. The chief whips have concluded that it is time for a move that will go for the constitutional jugular.

The anomaly, if it is decided by parliament that one exists, is obvious only in the sense that other MPs do not give up their jobs when they are returned to parliament. A number of these, in addition to the receipt of the Lm6,000 annual salary (minus perks) they receive as parliamentarians, cash in far more from the income they generate in one form of private practice or another. There thus exists, according to the whips who do not put it in such a way, a first- and second-tier style of parliamentarian, financially at least.

Clearly such discrimination piled against public sector employees turned parliamentarians is, given such a context, weighted absurdly against them. Why then has it taken so long for any member of parliament to twig? As it is based on a constitutional requirement, there must surely have been a valid reason for its inclusion in the first place. It was to discourage government employees from taking a direct and participatory place in politics. These, if we wish the civil service to be free of political shenanigans initiated by its members, who should be politically neutral in the workplace, was a good thing. The rampant fact that they are not neutral is another matter.

Why, the man in the street may now wisely ask, has the reason for its constitutional inclusion lost its validation? What has changed so that makes it necessary for MPs who were public officers to retain their job and, presumably, their income, while they occupy benches in parliament? It is not a good enough reason to put forward a parliamentarian's salary being pitched at a piffling Lm6,000, or that the two chief whips find this salary one on which they can barely survive. The answer to that should be, we would have thought, to raise that salary to Lm9,000 so that parliamentarians of this genre do not suffer any financial hardship in the service of their country. As to after that, when they fail to keep their seat, that is their look-out. Nobody is compelled to take up the political game.

It seems that parliament will not be viewing the matter in this way. It is probable that most of the country will be ready to see a change made to the Constitution to reflect the plight of public sector ladies and gentlemen who have made it to the House. The plight of parliamentarians in general was similarly treated in parliament when it came to the question of pensions that members should receive. Nobody, except the parliamentarians, thought that was right, or just. This time, at least, the public sector MPs make a stronger case.

Ideally, every MP should let go of his job - any job - and prove to the hilt that what he does is solely in the service of the country. But pay him more.