It was a whopper that came up a cropper, you could say Mr Editor. Let me explain myself. The One Bermuda Alliance Government looked to be stuck with an investigation by a Commission that it seemed it neither approved of nor wanted.

Initial reports cast it as a victory for the Opposition PLP (which it was) as it was their motion that succeeded thanks to support from one member of the OBA backbench and the disqualification from voting of three of their members and only one from the PLP.

Notwithstanding what was said before, during and after the debate, the fact is Government not only voted against but failed in an attempt to reduce the motion to a take note motion, one of debate only and no decision, i.e. no action.

I expect another lesson has been learned, the hard way. The other fact is that you can always count on the unexpected in politics, on and off the Hill. The best you can do is be prepared for any and all eventualities, and on the Hill being prepared means always having all of your own members present and on hand particularly for, no, most especially for votes.

When you are the Government, it is the one way, arguably the only way, you can be certain that your positions will succeed, and your agenda will be advanced.

It’s not much different for the Opposition either except that Oppositions typically lie in wait for the most opportune to take up their motions, ie when Government numbers are down. It is a matter of simple arithmetic, yes, but also one of timing.

Everyone knows it. Everyone understands it. This is the way it works on the Hill, and this is one of the ways Governments get tested in the Westminster system. Attendance is a critical component of commitment and resolve.

Now I know we were told after the vote that the OBA didn’t have the whip on, meaning their members were free to vote as they each saw fit.

That may or may not have come as a surprise to members of the public who listened to the debate, and presumably not to members of the OBA. However, this did seem at odds with the position advanced by the front bench (aka Cabinet) who argued against.

On the other hand, it may just have been be a case of making lemonade out of a lemon — after the fact.

The motion called on the Governor to establish the Commission. The motion didn’t say but HE has the power to appoint commissions under the 1935 Commission of Inquiry Act.

The Act very much looks like it was set up to investigate concerns about the management of Government. Yet it also features this wide catch-all proviso: “or into any matter in which an inquiry would in the opinion of the Governor be for the public welfare”.

One might safely presume a decision by the House on the Hill, no matter how narrow, no matter how small the majority, might well qualify. HE gets to decide. Stop the presses: HE has — not at this time and not “of the kind proposed”.

But that was not the only challenge. There was also the question of who will pay — and given the nature and scope of the proposed commission, and the expertise required, the price is likely to be steep.

My guess is that the Bermuda Government would be expected (here and in London) to foot the bill. However, as we all now know Government didn’t actually support the establishment of a commission and one of the reasons given was the cost. It’s an expense they didn’t think we could take on at this time.

What’s interesting about this is that precedent and practice would seem to suggest that nothing that costs taxpayers money can get off the ground, including a Commission, unless and until the Government of the day approves it; no matter the Governor’s decision.

The Bermuda Constitution Order 1968 makes it clear that no monies can be spent from the public treasury unless the Minister of Finance approves and then only after the expenditure has been approved by the Legislature. This is reflected too, in the rules of the House which state that only members of the Cabinet can bring forward matters which will require funding from the public treasury.

However, if it was a free vote, these concerns arguably fall away: Government presumably was also prepared to accept and act on a vote of the House, you think?

A final thought: for those who are looking for a change in the way we do business on the Hill there is a bright side; and, no, Mr Editor, I am not trying to be funny here, even though the song as sung on the cross by Eric Idle of Monty Python fame comes to mind, from the movie The Life Of Brian, I believe. I am dead serious.

We catch a glimpse of how the House can work when a backbench is freed of the party line and matters are debated and decided on their merits. Out in the open. Meetings, debates and votes on the Hill become that much more important and meaningful. It won’t always be a case of simply falling in line and toeing the party line. A stronger backbench, Government and Opposition MPs alike, will be the result and stronger backbench is what helps keep the Executive in check and on their toes.

I know: be careful what you wish for. There is a limit to the number of committees, commissions and inquiries, both in terms of numbers and cost.

But there are other ways this strength can be exhibited and put to good use, reviewing, examining and questioning Government decisions and its expenditures. An active, more robust Public Accounts Committee is an obvious example. I mean how is that working out for us?

Share your views either on The Royal Gazette website or write jbarritt@ibl.bm.