WITH apologies to Olivia Newton-John, do you hear your body talk? ? in this case your Legislative body known as the House of Assembly, aka the Lower House which, in fact, sits atop the Hill not below it.

For those who remember the catchy hit song, a bouncy and much younger Ms Newton-John was telling us to get physical and while our MPs don't get physical on the floor of the House ? at least not yet, Mr. Editor ? they do get verbal.

So if you can learn a lot from listening, last Friday's debate on the Education Amendment Act was, if nothing else, instructive.

Education Minister Paula Cox, who also doubles as Bermuda's top law officer, aka the Attorney General, guided through the Bill which will permit principals (and if they fail, the courts) to crack down on parents who are failing in their parental responsibilities.

Those parents of students found wanting could face compulsory counselling and/or parenting classes, and if that doesn't work out, criminal conviction with fines up to $200.

Mr. Editor, you might think this legislative proposition is further evidence that Bermuda truly is another world. But not so, according to the Opposition United Bermuda Party Shadow spokesman for Education, Neville Darrell. He described the amendment as part of a growing trend around the world of legislative finger-pointing, this time at parents, as legislators seek to hold them responsible for actions of their children.

Now parenting is no easy task. But if the problem is unruly students, is this the solution? No, no, no, explained Minister Cox, who was at pains to point several times that her Government's proposal was no panacea; and, for those without a dictionary, the member responsible for Education turned to a couple of convenient stand-by clich?s to further explain ? this was no magic wand or no magic bullet.

What we were told was that it was a step in the right direction, to encourage greater and better parental involvement in the education of their children ? and the Opposition UBP supported it.

How did it come to this? There were no shortage of theories. Maxwell Burgess was quick off the mark and forthright in his assessment: the trouble began, in his view, when we took the strap (corporal punishment) out of the classroom.

UBP colleague Wayne Furbert turned to Proverbs: spare the rod and you have spoiled the child. (Well, Wayne, that got me thinking ? and scores of others as well, I bet: is that what's gone wrong in the House of Assembly? Black Rod has over the years been relegated to ceremonial occasions only, like the opening of Parliament. But that's another story, Mr. Editor, for another time perhaps.)

But back to parenting: there are only two requirements ? a male and a female who are capable and willing to copulate. Procreation is what occurs afterwards ? and no, Mr. Editor, I will resist the temptation to amplify on this occasion with common local clich?s.

On the other hand, as someone once pointed out, if you want to interact with people on our roads by driving a car you have to first pass a series of tests; even practice-spins require a learner's permit. We accept this: a person ought to know what they're doing before they get behind the wheel of car.

It was not surprising then to hear the UBP's Cole Simons call for mandatory parenting classes in our schools ? and he meant classes for the students before they become parents. You have to think, maybe we have reached the stage where parenting should be in the curriculum with the three Rs.

It certainly looks that way: again Neville Darrell shared some facts and figures with members. The recent Bermuda Census showed that in two-parent households, both parents are generally employed. Single-parent families represent more than 40 per cent of all our families. Single-parent mothers represent around 90 per cent of all single-parent families.

Said Mr. Darrell: "These statistics are important since the number of parents living with a child is usually an indicator of the amount and quality of human and economic resources available to that child."

And he added: "Family conditions with respect to divorce and family cohesiveness are listed by one of the largest law enforcement agencies in the United States (the FBI) as factors known to affect the volume and type of subsequent juvenile crime occurring from place to place".

It's enough to make you stop, listen and think.

Is this legislation just the beginning of a new trend: where parenting fails, Government steps in?

Minister Cox was careful not to overplay the significance of the move. It was a simple matter of giving principals the power to deal with parents who don't do what is expected of them.

But it's not so simple. We have not yet seen the rules setting out what will be expected of parents ? they were not shared with us by the Minister for debate ? and it's only a breach of these rules that gets them in trouble with the principals.

And, as Opposition Leader Dr. Grant Gibbons wondered out loud, are principals really going to able to cope with this added layer of responsibility which includes giving the offending parent "a hearing" before deciding on a course of action? What kind of a hearing? With or without lawyers?

Haven't our principals already got enough on their plates? It's a whole new world, all right, but not that other world what we thought before was another world.

Bin there, done that

ONGRATS & OBITS in the House is a quaint tradition, peculiar to Bermuda maybe ? but quite popular among members. They each get three minutes to eulogise the living and the dead shortly after morning prayers. You might not think so, but it can be quite competitive ? to get in first. We got a good example last Friday.

Maxwell Burgess was first up to congratulate author James Martin on his recent publication and lecture that week in Bermuda. It appears that this didn't sit well with the Government Minister responsible for Telecommunications and e-Commerce who had organised the speaking engagement.

Playing second fiddle, Ms Ren?e Webb said that she at least attended the lecture, with some of her colleagues, and saw none there from the UBP ? which, she said, happened also to be the case at the recent Fire & Ice charity event where at $350 to $500 a table her colleagues made "a good showing".

Well, the UBP's Trevor Moniz would have none of it and stood his ground when joining in the congrats. He informed the House that he had attended the two-hour lecture as the shadow spokesman for Telecommunications and e-Commerce, standing in a standing-room audience.

"Oh, I forgot," blurted out Ms Webb. "I forgot. I thought you were Independent or something."

Giggles and chuckles all around ? on the Government benches.

To howls of "apologise" from the Opposition benches, Mr. Moniz told us to forget it: "She's not going to apologise."

"That's typical of that member," he told the Speaker, "instead of apologising for her mistake she behaves in a very rude and aggressive manner."

The din in the Chambers came to an end with the Speaker's gavel ? and we moved on from congrats and obits. Only a motion away . . .

HREE motions continue to sit on the Order Paper, one of them calling for review and reform of the House rules (the full report can be found elsewhere on the www.ubpdev.com web site). The other two are take note motions which means they call for all talk and no action.

That's a pity when it comes to the motion of Suzann Roberts-Holshouser representing St. David's: she wanted a motion that called for St. David's to be named Bermuda's tenth parish.

Unfortunately, the Speaker has ruled that the motion may only be a take-note because an actual decision would lead to Government spending and the Rules prohibit any member other than a Government minister from bringing forward any item that will result in expenditure of taxpayers' money.

Undeterred, MP Suzann is pressing on with the idea and a petition in support. Question now is whether it will get done before Christmas. As they say: You go, girl.