The annual Government Budget Debate is behind us. Few may have noticed and the rest of us can be forgiven. Some 60 hours are set aside for debate on the Estimates of Revenue and Expenditure in the House of Assembly. It usually takes six or seven days. The estimates get a further going-over in the Senate. Of course, proceedings are broadcast and there is the occasional headline and news story. But by large, it’s my impression that the debates tend to go unnoticed.

The buzz around budgets typically centre on tax increases. Not this time. It was just the opposite: tax reductions. A welcome change — and welcome relief to many.

Parliamentary tradition has it that close examination of the estimates is the Opposition’s debate. The Official Opposition gets to choose what ministries or government departments will be tackled, in what order, and how much time will be allocated to each one.

The way it has evolved over the years, ministers tend to read prepared briefs that are anything but brief, that take up a fair chunk of the allocated time. The Opposition is in turn limited in what its members can say by way of reply, as well as in the number of questions they can ask — questions that often have to go unanswered as time expires. It is debatable as to whether this is by deliberate design, in some instances. If you have ever tuned in, the average listener would immediately appreciate the tedium that features in this exercise. Wit has it that it is like watching paint dry.

Mind you, this is the way this debate has evolved over six decades in our legislature through successive administrations, and different governments, starting in 1968 with the start of responsible government — ie, party politics.

But make no mistake, this debate is the means by which the legislature gets to hold the Government to account for past and planned expenditure from year to year. While it may have become a blunt and dull instrument in the parliamentary toolkit of accountability, it is nonetheless an important one — not to be taken for granted or cast aside.

The question is whether it can be improved?

I have always thought so.

Some fine-tuning could help. It is not necessarily just a matter of increasing the overall hours, which has been done in the past. But once hours are allocated to a particular head, a certain percentage should be assigned to the Opposition, and time reserved for answers to questions. House rules can be amended to reflect this change. It would not necessarily make the debate any more exciting, but it would help to sharpen the tool for probing, questioning and promoting accountability.

But why stop there?

The Budget debate on expenditures is only annual. What’s needed in the parliamentary toolbox is the opportunity to track expenditure over and during the financial year. Here I have in mind the creation of a number of joint parliamentary committees whose task it would be to track expenditure on a continuing basis — joint because these committees could be populated by senators as well as backbench members of the House of Assembly, Opposition and Government. Cabinet ministers would, of course, be disqualified from serving.

The number of available legislators could make up at least three such committees. Each one would be responsible for groupings of ministries. There would be hearings, open to press and public, wherein the committees would take a close look at budgeted programmes and expenditures. Cabinet ministers, along with the relevant and responsible civil servants, would attend to answer questions.

This is not a new idea. It has been mooted for a number of years now. Their work would supplement that of the Public Accounts Committee, which should also be far more active than it has been over the years.

This to my mind would help constitute accountability in action. It is done in other modern parliamentary systems. We would not be reinventing the wheel. Just modernising what we have and what is available to us, but which has not yet been fully tapped into in our Westminster model of government.

An open system of checks and balances is what helps to distinguish a strong democracy.

Tomorrow: What more?

• John Barritt is a former elected member of the Bermuda legislature where he served for 18 years. Dialogue is welcome. John may be reached at jbarritt@ibl.bm