CALL it the Christmas rush, Mr. Editor, three meetings in seven days for the House on the Hill. Why the rush? The usual: a shipload of last-minute legislation and a desire by Government to get off the Hill early for the holidays.

Why, the way things look now we could well be on our Christmas recess following this Friday's sitting ? and I appreciate how some people might regard that as merry.

But it doesn't always make for a merry House, depending of course on which side of the fence you happen to sit. The official notice came late last Wednesday night that Government had decided that we would sit on Monday of this week ? in addition to the usual Fridays, last week and this. That was four days' notice to take up legislation which had been tabled less than a week, with more legislation to come to be taken up seven days later.

This, of course, is legislation which the Cabinet has seen and decided upon for some time, and maybe, just maybe, so has the Progressive Labour Party back bench. But the Opposition? Sorry, boys and girls, but we're stuck with the limited time the Government chooses to give us.

The usual practice, by the way, is to give members two full weeks to review and consider legislation before taking it up for debate. But there are, and always have been exceptions, typically in cases of emergency or by prior agreement.

I have not been made aware of any emergency and it's hard to have agreement when all you're given is short notice. Like it or lump it, as Opposition you get on with it, and keep a wary eye out for what might be being slipped through by a Government in a hurry.

As Yogi Berra once said ? he of baseball, not cartoon fame, Mr. Editor ? when he realised he and his family were lost on one of their driving trips across the country: "I don't know where we're going but we're making good time".

All for a Big O

A GOOD time isn't something that happens often in the House on the Hill. But we came as close as we can get last Friday during debate on the Ombudsman Bill. The Opposition and Government by and large agreed that the establishment of the post would be a good thing for Bermuda. It's not going to be cheap either: the Premier said the estimated start-up cost for year one would be $600,000.

That looks like the minimum, Mr. Editor, when you consider the annual budget of the Auditor General is over $2-million. But who's to say how busy the new Big O will be? The Opposition was concerned that the Act excludes the Ombudsman from investigating "any administrative action taken by the Cabinet or by a Minister or a Junior Minister".

The Premier insisted that didn't mean "their product could not be challenged or changed". But if Ministers and Junior Ministers cannot be questioned by the Ombudsman under the Act ? and they can't ? that means their swivel, civil servants are going to have to answer for them instead. Sound fair, Mr. Editor? Or should I say, Mr. Ball?

There were also concerns about the Premier having the right under the Act to initiate any change in the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman, and the absence of any provisions as to how any report of the Ombudsman is to be received and acted upon by Parliament. We were told by the Premier to wait and see how things go. Amendments from the Opposition to address some of these points were rejected and the Bill went through unopposed.

In an unusual move, the Premier concluded by complimenting the Opposition for the "responsible manner" and the "cordial way" in which they had conducted the debate. An ebullient Premier had been spared any rough ride and no doubt found it easy to be gracious.

Remember those elephants, Mr. Editor? And how the grass suffers whether they make love or war? Or as one wag was once reported to have said: When the Government and the Opposition take the same side, what wrong will be wrought on the unwashed?

Today's special

SUCH sweetness and light did not feature in the debate Monday on the abolition of special juries. The Premier from his seat had some very sharp remarks for the two Opposition members who spoke in disagreement.

The Man was challenged to rise and speak on his feet. But he didn't. Only the member in charge, Minister Michael Scott, spoke for the Government and a spirited debate ended after just three speakers. A pity that ? when this was only one of a raft of recommendations made by the recent Justice Review, but the only one rushed to the Hill before Christmas.

Politricks, huh?

DISAGREEMENT, Mr. Editor, can make members disagreeable: or is it that disagreeable members make for disagreement? We had one of those flash points on Monday when Opposition MP Trevor Moniz called for a quorum immediately after the luncheon interval.

It was in the middle of the debate on special juries and the Opposition was putting the Government to the test. It's their Bill, it's their extra sitting, it's up to them to have their members present. A quorum calls for 14 members plus the Speaker. They had five minutes under the Rules to make up the numbers ? and they did after starting out at two o'clock with 11.

Calling for a quorum is one of the few options available to an Opposition to test and challenge the Government.

Another is motions. We had been trying for weeks to introduce a motion endorsing the report and recommendations of the Auditor General into the affairs of the Bermuda Housing Corporation.

The report as produced in May 2002 and released to the public in August of this year by the Premier after two long years of criminal investigation. (Remember how Governments used to kill things by referring them to committee? Now we can add delay by criminal investigation). But the Speaker refused to allow the Opposition to bring the motion.

It was his view that the report was a Government report (the investigation had been requested by the former Premier Jennifer Smith) and no motion would be permitted until the Government tabled the report in the House.

The Premier finally did so on Monday ? surprise, surprise ? along with his own motion ? surprise, surprise ? that the House "take note" of the Report. He dropped the recommendations part.

Clever that, and cute. The Premier now controls whether or not we will debate the report and when. You gotta love the way the system can be worked, Mr. Editor, to the advantage of . . . whom? Hands up if you think it's the people we serve.

The Shadow and I

NOW that you've picked your newspaper back up off the floor, there was also a lot the two sides agreed on, much of it housekeeping legislation which had wound its way up to the Hill from practitioners in the industry looking to keep Bermuda competitive in the financial services industry. Sailing through unopposed, but the subject of occasional gripping discourse between the Finance Minister and her Shadow, were, among others:

Amendments to the Companies Act: the first lot of them in two years.

Amendments to the Trust (Special Provisions) Act: to make Bermuda law trusts that much more "bullet-proof".

Increased fees for the Bermuda Monetary Authority: and no, said the Minister, we are not building a BMA empire for its growing role as regulator. Hmmn.

Any wonder then, Mr. Editor, that only the Minister and her Shadow spoke ? and members listened, dutifully, of course.

Certifiable?

CERTIFICATION of trades and vocations under a new Act attracted support but also a lively debate. Members on both sides seemed generally pleased that such workers are going to have to be certified if they want to work in Bermuda.

Minister in charge Terry Lister told us that it could effect some 15,000 to 20,000 workers in Bermuda. The current plan is to start with electricians and auto repair workers first, and to try to capture eight of 21 identified trades in 2005.

The Minister gets to designate the trades. The Act requires that they be: (1.) essential to the economy and (2.) there be a degree of risk or physical harm to others "from the improper application of the materials and methodology of the occupation".

There was no mention, Mr. Editor, of whether politicians are likely to qualify.

Doing the Hookey Pookey

MOTIONS to adjourn sure can take on a life of their own. Monday was a prime example. It wasn't long after six o'clock in the evening when Maxwell Burgess rose to chastise the Minister for Education who, in an interview on the radio that day, said that Government wouldn't employ drug-sniffing dogs in the public school system ? as had been done recently at MSA.

It touched off a four-hour debate ? and on the motion to adjourn members only get a maximum of 20 minutes each to speak. There was lots of bark and some bite too, as the Opposition called on the Government to get tougher on drugs.

Said one member as he rose to speak around ten: "The hour is late, Mr. Speaker."

"You wouldn't think so," he promptly observed.

The best line of the night went to PLP MP Glen Blakeney who came up with a new one when he accused the United Bermuda Party of "hookey pookey". As far as we can guess, Mr. Editor, this must fall somewhere between the hokey pokey and hanky panky.

Well, bear in mind, Mr. Editor, those of who stayed to the end did have to go without supper.