The time has come to condemn and discard bad habits and counter-productive practices in the House of Assembly. It's also time that we let the people in on how their Legislature is working for them – or not, as the case may be.

We have just concluded the so-called Budget Debate which, frankly, really is no debate at all, and there was no better illustration of this than the time which was spent in the House last Friday trying to discuss the $143 million which Government is proposing to spend next year on public education.

Each year a total of 42 hours is set aside to examine the Government Budget, roughly seven hours a day three days a week for two weeks, and the Opposition gets to decide how the time will be allocated and on what Ministries.

The Department of Education and Bermuda College were allotted an entire day of seven hours – for good reason.

It is not only the third largest Ministry in terms of funding, but this was our first opportunity to examine what Government is doing or proposing to do with public education in Bermuda following the Hopkins Report, its controversial but candid findings and its challenging recommendations.

Surely, there is no need to go on at length here about the importance of public education. It is a national imperative by anyone's standards.

We have got to get it right and do better for all of Bermuda's children, and whether PLP or UBP, all voices should be heard, most especially perhaps those who have been elected to Parliament.

However, there was no debate on education last Friday and no close examination of monies spent and why. Instead, we got what might best be described as competing monologues from just two speakers, one for Government, the other Opposition.

The Minister for Education, Randy Horton, was first up and he read from a prepared Brief, a binder some four inches thick, for four and a half hours.

The Opposition Shadow, Dr. Grant Gibbons, spoke in reply for two and a half; although he may not have wanted to speak that long, he had little choice – and more on that later. But you do the arithmetic. That's the seven hours. End of debate.

The Brief, which was obviously anything but, was not shared with the Opposition: not in advance, and not during, and not after the Minister spoke as far as I am aware. Not that there weren't plenty of copies to go around.

There seemed to have been sufficient for some Government MPs who were able to follow along, as well as staff from the Ministry who were up in the House for the day to listen to the Minister.

In fact, at several stages during the reading, the number of civil servants on hand – and I counted as many as ten – outnumbered the MPs in the Chamber. But don't be too harsh on them, the members that is: it's hard to stay glued to your seat when you know that you likely won't get the opportunity to ask a question, let alone speak.

Civil servants on the other hand have no choice: and think of the man hours and the hundreds of dollars, if not thousands, spent in the preparation of and listening to the Minister read the not-so brief Brief. The contents may be what the Minister and Ministry want people to hear, but that may not be what people want to know.

The Hopkins Report laid bare what's there – or rather what isn't. The sorry state of public education in Bermuda is no longer a secret and there is enough blame to go around that those of us who are responsible (past, present and future) need to join in on working towards solutions.

Inquiring minds want to know how it is that one of the better resourced systems of public education in the world produces such poor results, and how – in the context of a Budget Debate – Government is looking to turn things around through the expenditure of $143 million, some $7.7 million more than the year before.

The Ministry calculates that the average cost per student is projected to climb to $14,814.00 for the next financial year. Our calculations put the cost at around $20,000.00 a year.

In either case, we note that graduation rates go south as expenditure goes north. Some pointed, direct questions need to be asked – and answered – in the sunshine of public scrutiny, i.e. on the floor of the House of Assembly.

For instance – and these are just some of the issues which I would have taken up, if I had had the chance:

" Why are some schools getting more money than others? Is it just a function of numbers of students? Is there a model of excellence to which all should be working? We can hold up those that do well. We don't need to decry those who are doing poorly.

"Why is the funding for student services – which includes behaviour management and intervention for troubled students – showing a $2-million reduction from two years ago given the challenges teachers are facing in their classrooms?

" Similarly, why is the Child Development Programme, a critical component of early childhood education, showing a decrease rather than increase in funds?

" Why too, do we continue to persist in a pay scale for school principals that is in the middle band for top civil servants when, as the Hopkins Report pointed out, principals will be the key to raising student achievement in Bermuda?

But there was no opportunity for searching questions by your Members of Parliament. There was no opportunity either for answers.

The debate is simply not structured that way.

The Opposition allotted seven hours and the Minister took four and a half. That alone stifled interest and snuffed out the possibility of any real exchange or meaningful discourse on the money Government spends on public education.

When the Minister finally sat down, the Opposition knew that time had been reduced to two and a half hours and – here's an honest admission – to the extent that I am able as Opposition Whip and House Leader to influence our speakers, I encouraged our Shadow to take the debate to the end.

In fact, we had four other members who were prepared to weigh in on the Education budget. But we had to make our points, and our case, in the time remaining, which was only a third of what had been allocated.

Anything less meant giving over more time to a Government MP (chairmen in the House follow the practice of taking one from each side in turn) and the Budget Debate is after all meant to be the Opposition's Debate under the Westminster parliamentary system – an opportunity to probe and challenge and question Government spending for the upcoming year. Sadly it was anything but.

But please don't misunderstand: this is not intended as anti-PLP or pro-UBP rant. This is a practice which has its origins in the days when the United Bermuda Party formed the Government, and it is simply a practice which has gotten worse, not better over the years.

The people of Bermuda might think that it is well past time that we improved and enhanced the ways in which we conduct the country's business. Very little assembly is required: what is needed is the political will and a commitment to cooperation.