a bid to be more user friendly to the public, it was claimed on Friday.

Shadow Legislative Affairs Minister John Barritt said it was time Parliament revised the way it operated, just as other businesses and modern Governments had done.

The Opposition MP has proposed that a limit be put on how long MPs can speak in the House during debates to prevent issues becoming clouded with irrelevant comments and diatribe.

He has called for a cap to be placed on how long the House of Assembly sits at night so that Members are no longer forced to sit through to the early hours -- or longer -- on important issues.

And he has suggested a special business committee be set up to decide what business should be discussed each week and how long each item should take.

And the United Bermuda Party MP has also called for a time to be allotted each week for questions to be put orally and answered, as opposed to the current situation where questions to ministers must be written before a response is given two weeks later.

Mr. Barritt moved a motion that the House refer his proposed amendments for how the House operates, which were comprised in a report, to the Rules and Privileges Committee for examination and consideration.

Parliament agreed the motion on Friday, but refused to consider an amendment to the motion moved by Opposition Leader Pamela Gordon that the committee report back to the House on their findings by no later than November this year.

She was told that she would have to put that amendment to the motion in writing.

Mr. Barritt said the rules to the House had not been revised since 1977.

Barritt calls for time limit And he said the report he had put together on using time more effectively touched on three areas.

He said: "One of the things I would like to see considered is to have a question period after ministers have given statements in the House.

"There is no period in the House where there is an opportunity to ask questions. Often questions can be on important issues of the day.'' And he said some questions needed an immediate response, as opposed to a two-week delay.

And he said that in Jamaica, New Zealand, Barbados and the UK, they each set aside a time for questions.

And on the issue of time limits for speakers, he said this was nothing new.

He said with preparation and discipline, speakers could get their points across just as well, maybe even better, within a shorter time limit.

He added: "I suggest we consider capping the time we sit in the House.'' MPs debate length of sessions "Sometimes we go through to the next morning. The sad thing about that is that we do a disservice to ourselves, and those members that we relegate to speaking in the early hours.

"We should introduce family friendly hours. If we reach the limit, then we come in another day, so we participate at our best and so people have an opportunity to hear us.

"All of this is standard in other modern jurisdictions. I'm not proposing anything radical here.'' And Mr. Barritt has also proposed that Parliamentary committees be open to the public, so Government can be as transparent as possible.

He added: "We have nothing to hide. We have nothing to be ashamed of.'' Attorney General Dame Lois Browne-Evans said she did not think the House would be discussing the issue immediately, but instead would do so when the Rules and Privileges Committee had reported back to MPs.

And she said she believed it would be better to get the new Constitution in place first, before making any changes to the House.

But she said if issues were important, they ought to be discussed in full and restricting time on speakers may be restricting democracy.

She added: "We believe in democracy. We are not here playing a game. We take it seriously.'' Finance Minister Eugene Cox was to later fully support Dame Lois' stand. And he blamed the Opposition for taking up valuable time in making congratulatory speeches instead of engaging in the "critical functions'' of Parliament.

Mr. Barritt said it would have been better to discuss the issue before it went to committee, so the committee members were aware of what MPs thought.

Shadow Tourism Minister David Dodwell said he supported the move to tighten up on business hours, and to make the workings of Government more transparent.

He added: "The public does not know what goes on up here. Very few people come up here anymore.

"We need to make this a friendlier and more open process. The public doesn't respect what we do here. This is all about how we can better represent our constituents.'' And Shadow Finance Minister Dr. Grant Gibbons said often speakers were on their feet for a long time, but did not use their time effectively.

Dr. Gibbons said claiming that restricting time would restrict democracy was the furthest thing from the truth.

He added: "What Mr. Barritt is suggesting here is that it is possibly about time that we started to look at how we do business.

"One of the things we hear from time to time is `why did you not make the changes when you were in Government'.

"Well, the (former) Government has had an opportunity to be in Opposition. We have seen both sides of it.

"It should be looked at in a broader sense of how we can make this chamber more effective at what we do.'' Mr. Cox made it clear that he was quite sceptical about imposing time limits on House speeches.

"Time limits for what? When I first came to this House there were no time limits,'' he said.

The introduction of time limits was as a result of political expediency that served the interests of the late Henry Tucker, he said.

Mr. Cox also said that Mr. Barritt's proposals amounted to developing a fully fledged committee system which would require technical officers, researchers, a library and other resources.

"Has anyone thought about the cost?'' he asked.

"We're not looking at the whole question,'' said the finance minister.

Mr. Cox also said he saw nothing wrong with ten hour sessions, if the subject demanded debates of such length.

But he supported committee hearings in public. "I would have loved hearings in public when we had that bad information about the government years ago,'' he said.

He suggested that some members sought personal interest instead of the interests of the country -- a comment which offended the Opposition members.

"Perhaps he was speaking of members on his own side,'' said Mr. Barritt.

"Try as we might the return isn't that great for what we have to endure.'' John Barritt Eugene Cox Dr. Grant Gibbons