Tuesday, the question of whether she misled the House of Assembly over the Civil Service review remains open.

Premier Smith was asked last month in the House of Assembly if the Civil Service review had dealt with questions over the size of the Cabinet or the size of the House of Assembly.

She said the review did not deal with Constitutional matters and therefore, was out of its terms of reference.

The Civil Service review, while admitting that the subject was out of its scope, dealt with both -- stating any moves towards reducing the size of Parliament and introducing single-seat constituencies would be akin to "pushing an open door''.

The apparently logical follow-up, reducing the size of Cabinet to eight Ministers, then was discussed in the review, and many of the proposed reforms hinge on a smaller and presumably more effective Cabinet structure.

The question for Ms Smith is not if the size of the House of Assembly or the Cabinet was in or out of the terms of reference, but whether, when she spoke in the House, she knew that the Civil Service review contained -- or would contain -- the recommendations.

Evidently the Press did not have the opportunity to put that question to her and it still remains unanswered. Premier Smith still owes the public an explanation.

ELDERLY SAVINGS EDT Elderly savings It may be no coincidence that a hospital consultant has called for better management of care for the elderly just one week after Health Minister Nelson Bascome unveiled plans for improvements to the Island's rest homes.

Arthur Andersen consultant Chuck Peck predicts that King Edward VII Memorial Hospital could save as much as $7.8 million if the elderly received better coordinated care, presumably at home or in rest homes rather than in the hospitals Extended Care Unit.

It is no secret that there are many patients in the ECU who are in the hospital but do not require acute care from the highly qualified nurses and doctors who are there. Many of the patients, quite simply, have nowhere else to go.

This is a drain on hospital resources and it could be argued that putting the patients in hospital actually shortens their life expectations; it becomes the place where you go to die.

Care in a properly run rest home -- or at home -- would result in savings for the hospital and a better quality of life for the elderly. But, as Dr. Peck added, this is not a suitable course until nursing home regulations are put in place.

As long as minimum standards of care and adequate facilities cannot be guaranteed, the hospital will continue to be burdened with this responsibility.

The fact that the hospital could save $7.8 million does not translate into Government saving the same amount of money. But the savings could be used more effectively in providing funds for rest homes, where people could be cared for more efficiently by nurses' aides and the like, or in providing subsidies to people who cannot now afford private care.