There is nothing quite like a good PQ to start the day — on the Hill, that is, where parliamentary questions (PQs for short) are now a featured part of the day’s agenda. It is known as Question Period that typically comes up fairly early in the morning and lasts no more than an hour. How boring, you think. Not so. Question Period can make for a very lively exchange that is both educational and entertaining as the Opposition (and backbench Government MPs too, if they feel so inclined) get to hold Ministers to account and thus keep Government on its Ps and Qs, as it were. A good, sharp series of questions can do just that.

There are two kinds of questions that can be asked. The first are those that are submitted for answer ten days in advance. They can be answered either in writing or orally and in the case of the latter there is an opportunity for follow-up questions as well. The second set are those that arise out of Ministerial Statements read on the day and/or on any other matters of “urgent public importance”. There is plenty of scope there for the bold and the able and, yes, the creative too, although the Speaker will ultimately decide what is or is not permissible.

Let me pause here and say that the Opposition PLP should be thanking their lucky stars that they agreed to the introduction of the latter when they were the Government. Credit here goes to their former colleague on the Hill Dame Jennifer Smith who, as Deputy Speaker, worked with me to bring about Question Period. I am certain that they now appreciate the opportunity that this has given the Opposition to participate in a far more meaningful and effective way than had been the case for donkey’s years.

Here’s how: If advance notice is anything to go by, we can reasonably expect a veritable plethora of PQs as the House on the Hill re-opens today after a nine-week recess. A lot has happened in the interim — cancellation of the referendum on gaming and the commencement of a so-called campaign of public education on integrated resort gaming; commercial immigration and the controversy that has already started to attract; a week of distressing and arguably unnecessary industrial unrest; and the start-up of the Bermuda Tourism Authority with the hiring of its first CEO.

As well, there are the standard stand-by questions that can be asked on Government travel and Government consultants, what’s been spent and on whom and why; and, no, I don’t think this can fairly be viewed as tit for tat politics. This standard was set by the previous Opposition, members of whom now form the Government: transparency and accountability require that the information be made available and public. The pity is that it still requires questions.

On the Tourism Authority, I expect we will hear of questions as to the new CEO’s package of remuneration i.e. what he is being paid. That should be no surprise in view of what’s been said off the Hill to date. You might also think the House is the right place to ask these questions: the Authority was created by public statute and is currently funded by vote of the Legislature. End of argument, or so I would have thought.

But there are rules that govern what questions can and cannot be asked or answered, and it falls to the Speaker to ultimately decide and from his decision there is no right of appeal. Stay tuned.

The key though is that questions can be asked. Governments and their Ministers are judged by their answers and/or unwillingness to answer regardless of whether they duck, dodge or avoid altogether. Whichever way, voters get to make up their own minds in the end.

Questions should also feature more prominently than they currently do in the annual Budget Debate, which is due to commence later this month. We deserve more than the reading of those lengthy briefs by Ministers and in turn equally lengthy replies from the Opposition Shadows. It would be far more productive if MPs spent much more of the time asking questions and seeking answers on how monies have been spent and will be spent, probing, if necessary, line by line, item by item. This is the way to establish benchmarks in my books by which backbench MPs should (a) get to hold Government to account for what it does or does not do and, (b) bring about actual transparency. It is also a good way to keep track of the money.

There is no better time than the present to begin. This Budget will be all OBA (they really did not have sufficient time to put their own stamp on last year’s) and presumably the Finance Minister will take into account some of the recommendations of the SAGE Commission. He was reported recently as saying it will be more “aggressive” than SAGE. We don’t know for sure though. Cards have been played very close to the chest. We have not yet had the series of public meetings we were promised after Christmas, and that the late night debate on the SAGE report which the OBA initiated on the eve of their Christmas recess, revealed precious little of the direction Government intended to take.

Perhaps all will become clearer when the Budget is delivered in a week’s time. I expect it will be a biggie.

• Your views are welcomed either on The Royal Gazette website or at jbarritt@ibl.bm.