while speaking in the House of Assembly: Premier Jennifer Smith over whether or not the Civil Service Review was going to examine the size of the Cabinet, and Works Minister Alex Scott over whether an over-sized official car had been bought for his use.

These are serious accusations. The Westminster Parliamentary system traditionally requires office holders to resign for lying in the House of Assembly, in part because Members of Parliament are protected from being prosecuted for libel or slander for anything they say in the chamber.

It's worth looking at the facts of both cases to see if there is any merit in the allegations made by Opposition Leader Pamela Gordon in Ms Smith's case and by Shadow Transport Minister Erwin Adderley in Mr. Scott's.

Last year, Tourism Minister David Allen told a Bermuda Society dinner in London that the Civil Service review would include an examination of whether the Cabinet's size should be cut.

Not so, Premier Jennifer Smith told the House of Assembly days later. The size of the Cabinet -- and the size of the House of Assembly -- was a constitutional matter which fell outside the Civil Service Review's terms of reference.

Mr. Allen said he had made a mistake, and went on to add that he must have accidentally merged two paragraphs of his speech while editing it.

Then last week, the Civil Service review was leaked to the media. The authors of the review, while conceding that any reduction in the size of the Cabinet was a political decision, recommended that the Cabinet be cut from 13 members to eight.

Ms Gordon has stated that Ms Smith wrote the terms of reference for the report and therefore had to know whether or not any such recommendation had been made.

When a team of consultants go outside their terms of reference, she said, it is normal practice to inform whoever commissioned the review that they wish to do so.

Thus, she argues, Ms Smith had to have known that this was happening when she spoke in the House of Assembly at a time when the review was either completed or nearly finished.

Mr. Adderley makes a similar argument when dealing with Mr. Scott. Mr. Scott denied on December 17 that any over-size cars were being bought for Cabinet Ministers. But January 10, the car was on the road -- and in a reciprocal part of the deal, the Premier's official car had been given a thorough refit for free.

Given most people's experience of car delivery and repair in Bermuda, Mr.

Adderley makes the point that it is hard to imagine that the purchase had not been made less than a month ago.

The integrity of Parliament is central to the functioning of good Government.

Ms Smith and Mr. Scott may both have perfectly reasonable explanations for their speeches. But sufficient doubt has been raised to justify an inquiry to determine, in Watergate parlance, what did they know and when did they know it? The Speaker of the House of Assembly should form a joint select committee of the House to determine the true facts. That would appear to be the only way to clear the air.