GEEZ, peeps: what’s it been then, about eight weeks since we last met in the House on the Hill? Oh well, not to worry, some things never change - in fact, Mr. Editor, it didn’t take us long before we slipped back comfortably into the same old, same old.First, there was the usual raft of Ministerial statements, seven in total, including a re-hash of the key findings and recommendations of the Education Review, which we saw on TV the night before. What about the actual report? The Minister has promised to table it, but no commitment on when. There will be a debate worth having—before the next election, you think? Speaking of an election, and secondly Mr. Editor, there were also more than enough congratulatory and obituary remarks to be made after eight weeks -which included the remembrance of two former colleagues from each side of the House on the Hill who had fallen during the interval: Dr. Pauulu Kamarakafego (aka Roosevelt Brown) of the PLP and Mr. deforest (Shorty) Trimingham, a former Minister of Tourism for the UBP from back in the hey-days of the industry. Members’ oratory skills, as well as their senses of timing, were tested to the limit. The rules of the House restrict each speaker to the three minutes each and the Speaker who is the Listener to all has a timer -and it works, er, beeps, when you’re done.

All of this took us practically to lunch, Mr. Editor. It was just around noon when we got down to the only item on the agenda which the Government intended to take up for the first day back: amendments to the Bermuda Immigration and Protection Act. As it was, it took us until after eight in the evening to get through this one Bill - which wasn’t that surprising. At least not to me. It had all the appearances of heavy lifting, Mr. Editor, as far as legislation and legislative drafting goes.

It was 36 pages long and featured an entirely new section in the 1956 Act which deals with the control of the purchase of land in Bermuda by non-Bermudians (which actually is nothing new, Mr. Editor, the principle dates back to 1907 when controls were first put in place, legislatively, under the Alien Act. How’s that for a change in nomenclature? Have we come a long way baby or what?).

The official Explanatory Memorandum attached to the Bill was a further five pages and told us that the general purpose was “to strengthen the enforcement of, and prevent circumvention of, the licensing requirements governing the acquisition and holding of land in Bermuda by non-Bermudians, and in particular circumvention of licensing requirements by the use of trusts.” It’s a crackdown on “fronting” - the purchase of properties for non-Bermudians by Bermudians that are not eligible for purchase by non-Bermudians. The Ministry reckons that of 1900 properties owned by Bermuda trusts, 200 of them are fronts for non-Bermudians.

There was support for the crackdown on both sides of the House on the Hill.

But the devil, as they say, is in the detail - and it’s the legislative detail which we need to focus in on. It isn’t easy - even for a lawyer, and there are only four of us in the House, Mr. Editor, two on each side. But our work was made that much harder when Government told us they intended to make fourteen further amendments, to the amendments, on the floor of the House, after sharing the amendments with us about 24 hours in advance of the debate.

I tell you all this, Mr. Editor, not just to explain and complain, but to make a point.

“Immigration rules and regulations can be exceedingly complex and confusing”, the Minister responsible, Derrick Burgess, told us earlier in the morning. Unfortunately - for us - he was talking about passports and trying to clear up some of the confusion that has arisen over what type the Bermuda Government can issue, and to whom, and why, and why not - which is a whole ‘nother story, folks.

But the Minister made the point. Government should be clear on what the Government is proposing to do, how it will be achieved and whether the legislation actually achieves what it is supposed to achieve.

The floor of the House on the Hill is not necessarily the best forum for this analysis. (I know, I know, Mr. Editor, I could say that again. I won’t.) The Minister reads from a Big Brief - which is not shared with the Opposition; not in advance, not ever as far as I am aware. We get to go through the Bill clause by clause. The Minister explains from his prepared, pre-packaged Big Brief. We in the Opposition get to ask questions and make our points. Behind the Minister, to his left, in the visitor’s gallery, sits a phalanx of swivel servants - the ones who had a hand in devising and drafting the legislation - six in all who spent the entire day, or at least the duration of the debate, in the House. The Minister can consult with them - and he does - and notes are handed forward for the Minister to reply - and on and on it goes until we reach the end.

It’s the way things are done - and the way things have been done up there on the Hill for ages, or so it seems. But it’s not the way they have to still be done. Just a thought here Mr. Editor - and yes it is a recurring thought with me - but we can change the rules and the way we do the country’s business, but only if the Government of the day has the will. To date, they have not shown any will to change.

There was no better Bill than the Immigration and Protection Amendment Act, and the further fourteen last-minute amendments, to make the point on the need for reform. First, it came to us in fits and starts, of sorts. A first stab at a battery of legislation to tackle this issue of “fronting” was presented in early December last year. It was withdrawn following representations and consultation with some of Bermuda’s heavier hitters, e.g. the banks, trust companies and lawyers. This Bill then followed and was tabled in early February and it, too, became the object of further representations from the same group of heavy hitters. We were told that they were the reason why we got the fourteen further amendments the day before the Bill was debated.

Secondly, and here is the point, Mr. Editor, why shouldn’t all of Bermuda be let in on the discussions about the proposed legislation? A Public Bills Committee of the House could hear the concerns of all interested parties, and the draftspersons could explain directly what’s being done and why, and answer directly any questions members might have, and the public, Mr. Editor could and should be admitted in on the dialogue for increased awareness and better understanding. Committee meetings would of course have to be open to the press and the public. It’s a system of governance that might better address Bermuda’s needs and provide answers to some of the nagging questions that still linger with respect to this Bill and the wording of its many provisions.

For instance:

*Will Bermudians married to non-Bermudians find that they are limited to the purchase and ownership of one property until their spouses obtain status?

*If so, what was the problem anyway, that required this restriction? And why should a Bermudian married to a non-Bermudian be subject to the same licence limitations as a non-Bermudian which includes restrictions on renting and a fee for the right to rent?

*Is there or is there not a so-called amnesty period for those who own properties who now run afoul of the law? If this is true, why are we discriminating against Bermudians who are married to non-Bermudians and their families?

The questions were asked, but I cannot say that the answers have been entirely clear to date. Pity that, Mr. Editor, especially when there is a better way to ensure that these things get done. But that’s just my opinion - and I am all for reform in the House on the Hill.

Fat chance

IT’S just a little thing, Mr. Editor, but I found it ironical that on the same day, earlier in the morning, the Premier, in his additional capacity as Minister for Transport, tabled an airport lease by way of a CD-Rom; one for everyone in fact, instead of the usual pages and pages of the actual lease.Dr. Brown told us this will result in a cost savings (exactly how much he didn’t say) and he urged members to adopt “similar fiscally prudent and environmentally friendly methods of doing the people’s business.” Nice thought; but fat chance, I bet.

The fact of the matter is MPs still sit in the House on the Hill with sets of outdated Bermuda laws under their desks. They are no longer updated: the volumes, that is, Mr. Editor. There’s access to three computers, inside the House precincts, but outside the Chamber. It’s good luck to you if you are in a hurry and looking for up-to-date legislation.

So much more needs to be done to bring the operation of our Legislature into modernity and the 21st Century - and it isn’t CD-Roms that are going to get us there.

Touched off

BY the way, now that you ask Mr. Editor, we sat until after ten in the evening. There was also the Motion to Adjourn, touched off by the MP for seniors, Louise Jackson, who renewed her claims on the diet and menu of residents at the Sylvia Richardson care facility in St. George’s, and read from a damning report on the state of mould at Cedarbridge. There were denials and counter-denials and accusations of lies, although curiously enough there was confirmation from Education Minister that while the report was being quoted accurately, the credibility of the author was now being seriously questioned. Interesting twist, huh? The Minister told us that he now has another report which he said that he intends to share with us. But he didn’t actually say when: “in a couple of weeks”.It wasn’t long then, Mr. Editor, before we truly were back to the same old, same old. The we-have-the best-interests-of Bermuda-at heart, no-you-don’t, yes-we-do, no-you-don’t, variety. Enough said. The House on the Hill is back in session, Mr. Editor.