O steal a linefrom , Mr. Editor, life in the House on the Hill can be like a box of chocolates: you never know what you're going to get. Or not, as the case may be, and such was the case (again) last Friday.

There we were late in the afternoon, poised to debate ? and, after last week, I do mean debate, Mr. Editor ? proposed increases in Parliamentary salaries when the Man who brought the motion, aka the Premier, rose to tell us ever so matter-of-factly that he was going to carry it over, which is to say that he means to take it up at another time.

There was no explanation why ? before or after.

Members are not required to give one either.

But maybe none was needed.

Few of us have forgotten (yet) the headline du jour from : "Public to rally for democracy . . . as MPs debate salary rises." Then there were the hundreds of people who showed up at our doorsteps (literally) for the luncheon interval to show us (literally) what they thought (literally) of their Parliamentarians arising out of last week's events and, yes, non-events.

I think it fair to say Mr. Editor, judging from the placards and the comments which were shared with me, that the people had not come out in support of pay rises. I think it probably fairer to say that they came out to administer cuts (literally). So it may be that deferral like discretion was thought to be the better part of valour ? and the increases will be taken up on another day.

* * *

FOR those who are wondering why we are doing increases at all Mr. Editor, we only debated the recommendations of the Legislative Salaries Review Board in March. The law requires that any changes be approved by resolution of both houses of the Legislature, the one on the Hill called Lower and the one down at the bottom of the Hill called Upper ? only in Bermuda, Mr. Editor, only in Bermuda ? which incidentally only serves to remind me of that great line from Jack Kerouac to the effect that he'd been down so long it began to look like up to him

Meanwhile, take a close look at the proposals (see insert): no prizes for spotting where the biggest increases ? in dollar and percentage terms ? are set to occur. You will note, too, that the amounts for "Officers of the Legislature" are to the basic salaries members receive, Upper and Lower, although it pays better to be Lower. There is also nothing to indicate what differentiates a full-time Minister from a part-Minister . . . other than the money, and that Mr. Editor says it all.

* * *

CONTRAST that approach, Mr. Editor, if you will, with that which the Progressive Labour Party Government takes with the Auditor General and that matter of office space.

There was the Premier, on his feet on the motion to adjourn, defending the decision of his Works and Engineering Minister, the Colonel, who with military precision, had his troops unceremoniously frog step staff and contents from one floor to smaller digs on the next.

The Premier wanted us to know there were two sides to the story. It was not personal. The old lease was up. The Auditor General had to move and he had to accept smaller space. "Like all of us," said the Premier with a straight face, "he is going to have to cut his cloth accordingly."

You won't believe this, Mr. Editor ? and we don't ? the explanation is that this part of a drive to start cutting costs in rentals and save money for Government.

The point was not lost on our shadow spokesperson for finance, Pat Gordon-Pamplin, who reminded the Premier that he was in charge when the Berkeley project began and he was the Minister who took the decision to ignore the advice of the technical staff when it came to the contract's award and that here we are years behind (literally) and $50 million over the original budget and still counting.

Ouch.

An angry Premier took a point of order. It was not his decision, he said, it was a decision taken by the Cabinet at the time, collective responsibility and all that.

Oh, really?

Explain that then to Ashfield DeVent, the Minister who followed the Premier and the Minister who took the fall for Berkeley.

Minors breakthrough

HERE was something of a breakthrough, Mr. Editor, if only minor, during the debate on amendments to the Medical Practitioners Act 1950. Minister Patrice Minors found herself under increasing fire from the Opposition benches after the luncheon interval ? rallies do tend to fire us up ? over the wording of some of the proposed changes.

There were no answers in her prepared pre-packaged brief and none forthcoming from her colleagues on the front bench. To her credit, I think, the Minister elected to rise and report progress ? which is an elegant parliamentary way of saying the debate was adjourned to another day.

It will give the Minister a chance to consult and come back with answers or changes or both.

But here's the point Mr. Editor: forget that well-worn clich? about the need to think outside the box. The real challenge is to get Ministers to think outside their briefs.

By the way, there is a way to improve the way we do business: a legislative committee of back-bench MPs, from both sides of the House, who are charged with reviewing legislation before it is taken up for approval in the House, and whose review will include access to the policymakers and those who drafted the Bill.

But where there's a way there needs to be a will ? and there isn't one in the PLP, which to date has shown no appetite for reform in the House on the Hill.

Par for the course

UST because a Bill is small, Mr. Editor, doesn't mean it won't generate big debate. Take for example the simple amendment to the Golf Courses (Consolidation) Act. The purpose was to transfer responsibility for Government's three courses to Tourism from Works & Engineering.

Oh.

Burch to Brown.

"Those responsible for marketing the golf courses will now manage them," explained Dr. Brown. He said that there had been a "steady but discernible deterioration of the golf courses" and this represented "a different approach . . . to improve the management and the operation of the golf courses".

But Works and Engineering will still be responsible for looking after the courses, but at the direction now of the Tourism Minister and his Board. Dr. Brown said the Board was a very good and active committee headed by Wendell Brown.

"But he's a civilian," piped up one of our crowd.

Dr. Brown wasn't about to be baited. The relationship with Works & Engineering is a good one, he insisted, and he was looking forward to the "highest level of co-operation".

"Better than the one with the Auditor General, I hope," shouted out Dr. Gibbons.

Jibes aside, what we didn't learn was how this transfer will actually improve the condition of the courses and of golf in Bermuda.

"Today," said an exasperated UBP MP Cole Simons, "would have been the day to roll out the vision that you have for the courses."

Like Tourism Shadow David Dowell, Cole said that he had heard nothing to convince him that the change will bring about an improvement, and Dr. Gibbons reminded members of one of the other more recent transfers of responsibility to Tourism, Stonington Beach Hotel from Education, and the highly criticised Coco Reef lease which followed. Not to mention, of course, the result of the different approach which the PLP took with the award of the contract to construct the new Berkeley.

Nevertheless, Mr. Editor, the amendment went through ? fore! ? over Opposition objections, which is of course par for the course.

Speechless . . . again

O day in the House on the Hill is complete without Ministerial statements, it seems. We had five last week: one warned us about the start of hurricane season and of the need, like Boy Scouts, to be prepared; another from Minister Minors about an Emergency Plan booklet coming soon to a home near you (yours they hope); another about the start this week of Access Week; and a fourth an update on the work of the Bermuda Federation of Musicians and Variety Artistes ? a once discordant group that is now making a sweeter sound, according to Minister Butler.

The fifth was to remind us that Monday the 5th was World Environment Day.

I hope, Mr. Editor, that you weren't stuck on what to do that day. Members of the House should not have been. Environment Minister Neletha Butterfield told us there were a number of things we could do.

"[For example walk along a beach, ride along a Railway Trail, visit one of our National Parks, or even take a swim in our crystal clear waters," the Minister suggested in her statement.

And she added: "I remind Honourable Members that even such a small action has enormous symbolic significance."

Like breathing maybe?

I was speechless.

What again? I know, I know, Mr. Editor, no need to keep rubbing it in.

* * *

LAST WORD then this week from me Mr. Editor, to all my critics and to your faithful correspondent Cicero in particular. In fact, I have two words for them, Mr. Editor, and they are not the two words some may be thinking of.

They are these: