THE House on the Hill was really rocking, for a time, Mr. Editor, after Dr. Grant Gibbons delivered the Opposition's official Budget Reply. His comments about corruption and integrity and scandal and conflicts of interest touched a nerve.

Government's Whip Ottiwell Simmons first took up the complaint when he expressed surprise and shock over the comments. Mr. Simmons proudly pointed out that Scotland Yard had even been called in to investigate the Bermuda Housing Corporation at one stage ? and found nothing criminal.

Which sorts of says it all, I thought, Mr. Editor. However, he may have gone too far when he suggested that the probe had resulted in a clean bill of health, "without qualification". Well, obviously Mr. Simmons hasn't yet read the Special Report of the Auditor General (or if he has, he's forgotten).

But we can forgive him for that, Mr. Editor. After all we were forbidden by the Speaker from talking about the BHC in the House on the Hill (for almost two years) as there was an ongoing criminal investigation, we were told, and now we are prevented from talking about the Report because it sits on the Order Paper as a motion for future debate, and the House Rules won't allow debate on the report and its contents until the motion is taken up, and the motion is the name of . . . Yes, you guessed it, the Man who Got Rid of Ren?e, the Premier.

Ren?e, though, was back with a vengeance and waded into the debate with a vigorous defence of her colleagues, and herself (there was that story the week before about her $200,000 commission from the investment of Government funds managed by a firm in which she has a stake as a part-owner).

Her defence included an offensive on members of the Opposition, and firms in which they are or were involved, and how those firms obtained business from the Government. One major difference of course, Mr. Editor: we aren't the Government of the day ? and haven't been for the past seven years ? and we aren't awarding the contracts.

Still, Ms Webb put it out there for consideration ? and review ? the matter of conflicts of interest (we are part-time politicians, with full-time egos, mind you, and second jobs) and the matter of how these conflicts ought to be handled and resolved going forward.

Declarations at the Cabinet table?

A Register of Interests?

How many people out there think that really sufficient?

Government Minister Without Portfolio Walter Lister may have inadvertently put his tongue on an answer. He, too, got up to decry the Opposition Reply and their use of what he termed "skulduggery tactics", and drew our attention to an article by former Jamaican PM and now retired Opposition Leader Edward Seaga which Mr. Lister had come across in the latest edition of (A Commonwealth Parliamentary Association publication members are given for free).

Lister Number One (he's the elder of the three in the House on the Hill) told us that Mr. Seaga warned readers to be on the lookout for "the silver tongues of persuasion that make the sailors cheer while they sink the ship".

I think, Mr. Editor, he was accusing us of trying to scuttle the PLP ship, although no doubt Dr. Gibbons thanks him for the silver tongue compliment.

But that's not my point. I read the article and I don't think Mr. Lister quite got Mr. Seaga's point either. Here's the relevant excerpt ? it's that good:

Demagogues.

Silver tongues.

Dazzling new projects.

More funds.

Sound familiar, people?

Mr. Seaga's recommendation: The creation of a series of impeachable offences reviewable and punishable upon application to the High Court of Jamaica. Ouch!

Meanwhile, the latest dazzling new project here ? after the dismal but sad failure of the Berkeley empowerment contract which was meant to be dazzling ? seems to be this recycled drive to Independence. As for the cost of Big BIC, Mr. Editor, as of the date of writing the Finance Minister still hasn't told us how much money has been set aside in this year's Budget.

DISCLOSURE when it does happen can be very revealing. For example: Deputy Premier Dr. Ewart Brown still can't figure out why the Opposition is always on about Government travel and complained about it, yet again on the floor of the House.

He suggested that it was some sort of "an obsession", and that perhaps the UBP needed the services of a psychiatrist. Well, here's the cause of the obsession taken straight from PLP Budgets. Travel appears as a line item in the Budget Estimates.

For the fiscal year 1998/1999 travel was costed at $2,436,000.00. For the forthcoming year 2005/2006 it has more than doubled: The Finance Minister is anticipating travel totalling $5,138,000.00. I ask you, Mr. Editor, is it heads we need examined or travel expenses? Or both?

THAT was some Economic Debate we had last Friday, Mr. Editor, if you measure it by the clock. We were up in the House on the Hill talking at one another for more than 12 hours, and still only 21 of the 36 members got to speak as 15 of us decided the hour was just too late, at midnight, to get to our feet and chip in with a contribution.

For those who keep count of these things ? and I do, Mr. Editor, in my role as Opposition Whip ? the average length of speeches was just over 30 minutes, ranging from a low of 17 minutes (Neville Darrell and Jon Brunson, tied) to a high of one hour (Ren?e Webb), not counting, of course, Opposition Leader Dr. Gibbons whose Official Reply took almost an hour and a half which, while long, was still short of the Finance Minister's Budget Statement the week before.

Just think, if the 14 who didn't speak, had spoken, at the average rate of 30 minutes, we would have been there until after dawn on Saturday. Actually, I did think about it, Mr. Editor, and it was one of the reasons I decided not to get to my feet after the midnight hour.

MAYBE that's why I have been a little longer and a little more serious this week, Mr. Editor. If you want funny, here's a quick selection of Parliamentary Believe It Or Nots from the House on the Hill last week:

Minister was on his feet searching for ways to compliment his colleague the Finance Minister. "This is the best Budget I've seen since I've been . . . since . . . since", he was saying (realising perhaps that he had to be careful as Ms Cox's late father was responsible for six previous PLP Budgets).

Former Premier and now Deputy Speaker Ms was in the chair and came to his rescue. "Since the last Budget, Minister, since the last Budget", she offered. Mr. Horton agreed ? and said so.

Government Whip wanted to share his disagreement with some of the observations that had been made by two previous speakers for the Opposition UBP, and .

"Now with respect to my two good friends over there," began Mr. Simmons.

"Which two friends are they?" inquired one of his colleagues.

Mr. Simmons named the two, adding: "You should know that all my good friends are ladies". (Or did he claim all ladies are his good friends?)

Transpourism Minister was being urged by Opposition members to act on call for a Tourism Authority.

"Ren?e was for it," shouted out one Opposition member, an observation which caught the attention of Premier .

"I rest my case," said the Man who saw off Ms ? with a smile.

Finally, the line of the night: It was late and Shadow Minister for Housing MP was in full flight, having delivered a stinging attack on what little the PLP Government had achieved, particularly in affordable housing. This time, though, Mr. Furbert wasn't calling for the resignation of the Minister. He wanted to go further ? and he did.

"Mr. Speaker," he declared. "The Premier should relieve himself and relieve himself now."

Fortunately, Mr. Editor, the Premier was out (of the) House at the time.