One of the resolutions for the New Year in the House on the Hill is a proposed revision of the Rules. This is not a wish, Mr. Editor. It is a fact.

A motion to make this happen was introduced on the last day that we met before the Christmas recess – and, yes, we still won’t be resuming for another two weeks: and for those who are wondering, it is not so unusual to be out for so long. In fact, it’s become pretty standard over the years, and tradition has it that we return for the Budget which, one little birdie has told me on the QT, won’t be presented until Friday, February 19.

But back to the Rules: the motion seemed to have been overlooked in the news and excitement of the last day. It calls on MPs to examine proposed amendments to the Rules – the name for which is also to be changed to “Standing Orders”: more modern nomenclature – for “consideration and adoption”. They have had the revised draft since the House broke for the summer.

The motion for adoption was put by Deputy Speaker Dame Jennifer Smith who co-authored the revisions with myself. This in and of itself might be regarded in some quarters (maybe many) as a remarkable achievement: two members from opposite sides of the aisle in the House, working together, to produce a change in the way we do business on the Hill. Certainly, it shouldn’t be overlooked.

Not that we agreed on everything. We didn’t – and shortly I will highlight for you one of the big sticking points. But first, some of the changes we did agree on:

4Provision for the election of Speaker by a secret ballot should there be more than one candidate

4An express requirement to attend meetings of the House unless excused by the Speaker

4 A set Question Period of up to 60 minutes in length, after the period set aside for congratulatory and obituary remarks, in which questions may be asked of Ministers on issues of the day and without prior notice

4 A time limit of up to 30 minutes per member after the lead member for Government and the Opposition have spoken on a bill – with provision to transfer time from one speaker to another if members wish

4 The annual Budget debate to be extended by wo further days

4 The introduction of an electronic Hansard and other additional provisions for e-communication in the House, which await the construction of a website for the posting of bills and minutes - and hats off here to the Corporation of Hamilton which appears to have beaten the Legislature to the punch.

But back to one of the sticking points – possibly the biggest. We were unable to secure agreement on opening up committee meetings to the press and public. This is a real pity, a tragedy really: opening up committee meetings is one of the recommended benchmarks for democratic legislatures urged upon members by the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association.

I understand this constitutes a departure from past practice and the way things have been run around here for years. But it is also a long overdue departure and one which we must make if Bermuda is to keep pace with modern practice. Heck, I would have even settled on starting with just two standing committees: Private Bills and Public Accounts.

There is no good reason why the public should not be let in on what private bills are being proposed for adoption in the House, and why. Just the opposite, in fact: there’s every reason why they should.

Ditto, Mr. Editor, for the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) – and I need not go on at length, again, need I, about the importance of this committee. It is critical to the budgetary oversight which the Legislature is meant to provide. It is the very vehicle by which this work is to be accomplished - assuming it meets regularly and in the sunshine of public scrutiny.

Around here even meetings are a problem, apparently. They often fail to get off the ground for lack of a quorum. There are five members, three from Government, two from Opposition. A quorum is a simple majority of members. The chair is the Opposition spokesman for finance, and I am pleased to report, as always, that this is one of the recommended benchmarks which Bermuda has had in place for decades. However, the work of this committee can be stymied should Government members decide they cannot make a meeting – and this does happen. Just ask Bob Richards; or before him, Pat Gordon-Pamplin; or before her, Grant Gibbons. The late Eugene Cox had his complaints too when he was Shadow Finance Minister.

There had been a recommendation a few years back – from PAC itself, if you can believe it – to increase the majority of the committee from five to seven: four Government, three Opposition. Government majorities on committees are standard, by the way.

This has been adopted under the revisions. The problem is a quorum remains a simple majority.

I rather liked how they addressed this problem in Guyana where they have their share of issues between Government and Opposition. If a meeting which is convened cannot be held for the lack of a quorum, members of the Committee there are given 48 hours notice of the holding of another meeting at which meeting the MPs present comprise a quorum provided at least one member of the Opposition is present. Not bad: But I couldn’t get this one to fly either.

One small change proposed: Committees themselves can decide on their own whether to open their meetings to press and public. This may or may not mean a change in the way they do their business on the Hill: Government enjoys majorities on committees. But this tiny revision is not the clear statement on policy which the Legislature of Bermuda should be making to bring us into line with modern and recommended practice.

Members have had the summer to think about it. Perhaps there has been a change of heart among those in Government. For the record, I don’t believe we need another CPA conference to make this happen. What is required of us, Mr. Editor, is clear.

Comments or ideas? Write jbarritt@ibl.bm.