Mr. Editor, recent debates in the House of Assembly have underscored once again the need for reform in the way in which MPs conduct the Country's business. We can, in my view, better organise ourselves to make more effective use of our time and the way to improve has less to do with numbers of MPs than it has to do with better management of the way the House is run from week to week.

Just look at the record since the House resumed following an eight-week Easter recess. On the first day back we took up only one item on the agenda: The Segregated Accounts Companies Amendment Act; a weighty piece of legislation which had been waiting for debate and passage since before Christmas. While not attractive enough to capture the attention of the general public, the Act was widely regarded on both sides of the House as an important piece of legislation. We were told by those in the business that the amendments were needed to keep Bermuda on the cutting edge of international business.

If that were so, why did it take almost four months before Government moved ahead with the debate? The delay completely undercut the claim that this legislation was needed so that Bermuda might keep pace with its competitors.

The problem was that the annual Budget Debate intervened between the Christmas and Easter recess. Notwithstanding the fact that the House met three times a week during the Budget Debate, the House was busy each day with examination of Ministry estimates and Budget-related legislation - and the Finance Minister wasn't able to take up the Segregated Accounts Companies Amendment Act at the end of each day. Who can blame him? It was a 40-some page piece of legislation that would likely take hours to pilot through, even without contentious debate - which did in fact turn out to be the case.

And so the legislation sat - over the Easter recess - waiting for a comfortable slot in the House agenda, and those who were looking to the amendments to make Bermuda more competitive had to wait as well.

But is this any way to run a country?

There is another, more efficient way. It was well over a year ago that I recommended a review of the Rules of the House of Assembly and proposed some changes on behalf of the Opposition United Bermuda Party. The recommendation came to the House and, after a short debate, the House agreed to refer the proposals to its Rules and Privileges Committee for, presumably, further review, recommendation and implementation maybe?

One of the key proposals called for the establishment of a House Business Committee - based on the New Zealand model - to better coordinate and plan the legislative agenda. It was suggested that the committee be chaired by the Speaker with two members from the Government and Opposition - their respective House Leaders and Whips. The committee would be charged with determining:

The order of business for the House for any given day;

The (overall) time required for any item of business;

How time might be allocated by the parties on each item; and

The estimated speaking time(s) of members.

As was pointed out in the paper recommending change: "The one obvious advantage to such a committee is that it would clearly identify those items which were non-contentious and thus through organisation reduce the time that has to be spent in the House on such matters. It also provides the Government and Opposition with a vehicle, under the chairmanship of the Speaker, to at least try and organise debates where there are differences."

Imagine that, Mr. Editor? The parties actually being forced to work together towards a mutually beneficial common goal. It could prove at least a bridge to cooperation and consensus where cooperation and consensus is, frankly, warranted.

In the case of the Segregated Accounts Companies Amendment Act, such a committee might have also proven very useful to more timely approval.

There are other ways to effect a more efficient Parliament: Better use of the committee system generally. There is no reason in the world why this particular Amendment Act could not have first been referred to a bipartisan House committee for review and approval. Each party would have representatives on the committee and, to the extent it was necessary, they could have reviewed the Bill in detail with help from the drafters. The committee could have met during the Christmas recess and come back with a recommendation for adoption (both parties did after all support it) and the House could have given it fast track approval.

There is of course a danger by proceeding this way: it may seem like Bills are being approved behind closed doors. That need not be. One of the key recommendations of the Opposition Paper for Reform was that all committees be open to the public and the Press. How much more impressive it would be, Mr. Editor, to see MPs from each side around the table with their sleeves rolled up actually pouring over an important piece of legislation with the drafters on hand to walk them through and answer questions?! Secondly, as is the case for private bills which are first reviewed by a Private Bills committee, they can be debated when they come to the House for approval if any MP wishes to take it up. The pity is that this committee - like all standing committees of the House - is closed to the public.

What will MPs do then in the House? Tackle the more contentious matters where there are differences - which is where debate is warranted.

For instance, one of the key recommendations in the Paper for Reform was the establishment of a Question Period on the issues of the day. As it stands now, questions have to be submitted in writing ten days in advance. By the time they come up for answer in the House, the urgency may have passed and their importance history. By the way, Mr. Editor, a Question Period is a common feature of most modern Parliaments. Why should a New Bermuda continue to be any different?

Of course, this assumes we will have business to discuss - which, regrettably, has not been the case since we returned in late April. We have had very little on the Order Paper in recent weeks - the most meaty and lengthy of which was an Opposition motion to amend the double jeopardy rule - and last week we had the debacle of one bill, which was not subject to debate, and the motion to adjourn less than two hours we began!

But that too, only points to the need for reform of the Rules. We are all too familiar with what will happen next. There will be a flood of legislation - just before we break for the Summer Recess - which will be squeezed in for debate and countless late-night sessions.

There must be a better way to do business - and there is. But is there the will? Changes to the Rules were proposed well over a year ago and absolutely nothing has happened. The Rules and Privileges Committee has yet to even consider the matter; and incidentally, Mr. Editor, the same is true of that controversial recommendation - also well over a year ago - that MPs lead the way on drug-testing by submitting themselves for testing. That too, was referred to the Rules and Privileges Committee where it has in effect died.

The Speaker chairs the Rules and Privileges Committee. The majority of its members are from the Government.

If only there was the will, Mr. Editor. There would be a way.