SURPRISE, surprise, Mr. Editor, contrary to predictions it wasn't such a long day on the Hill after all. We broke up last Friday before five o'clock which made for an early day. But that's not say it wasn't eventful. It was.

The highlight for me was the Progressive Labour Party Government's refusal to support the development and implementation of a drug testing programme for parliamentarians. We broke up not long after debate broke down ? which was when PLP whip Ottiwell Simmons attempted to stifle any debate on the issue of drug testing by seeking to have the Opposition motion withdrawn.

Incidentally, Mr Editor, the motion read as follows:

"BE IT RESOLVED that the Members of this Honourable House of Assembly shall lead by example to rid Bermuda of the scourge of illicit drug use, alcohol abuse and/or drug dependency by submitting to mandatory drug testing (no less than twice per calendar year) And, that accordingly the Rules and Privileges Committee of the House be instructed to forthwith develop and implement a programme for the said testing".

As the member responsible, I had just begun introducing the motion when Whip Otti was on his feet, first requesting and then demanding withdrawal. But the Opposition wasn't having any of it. There was no need for any further delay. The drug-testing proposal had been on the agenda since its introduction in mid-March and it was cast in terms similar to a motion which the House unanimously adopted in the previous Parliament ? i.e. the one before the last election.

This time though, it was a no go for the PLP.

Odd this, Mr. Editor, but only Otti spoke for the PLP on the motion. The Whip explained that they were voting against because a drug-testing scheme would cost money and the Rules of the House forbid Opposition members from moving motions or bringing bills that will require expenditure from the public purse.

Say what? Yes, that was the stated reason ? and even the Speaker, Mr. Editor, was surprised at that tack: at the very least it was inconsistent with the approach the PLP Government took the last time the motion was before the House and passed with their approval. But they are now, I suppose, a new New Bermuda team.Undeterred, Otti persisted for the PLP and insisted on a vote on his motion for withdrawal. The Progressive Labour Party clearly wanted to kill it the whole idea ? with no debate on whether it is or it isn't a good idea. The Speaker acquiesced and a vote was on: seven members of the PLP just happened to be absent but they won by the narrow margin of 14 to 13.

Makes you wonder ? does it not ? where a PLP Government does stand on drug testing: fine for others but not necessary for them? What about a policy of zero tolerance on drugs? Is it or is it not Government's position? Meanwhile, may I point out that it is open to one of their members to move a similar motion if they are truly worried about infringing the Rules, or alternatively they could take up the Opposition's offer to fund the cost of testing.

Smoke and mirrors, Mr. Editor, smoke and mirrors.

Old UBP

EAT and some light featured in an earlier debate on increased contributions and benefits for seniors. Government members led by Finance Minister Paula Cox trumpeted the nine per cent increase in benefits, while Opposition Leader and Shadow Minister Dr. Grant Gibbons wondered whether adequate consideration had been given to the funding of pensions.

He thought the time had come for an analysis of what our future seniors might expect to receive under private pension plans (now mandatory) and those who will depend chiefly on a Government pension.

Whatever the position, Opposition spokesperson for Seniors Louise Jackson told the House that what they were receiving wasn't enough ? to which the PLP's Mr. Simmons (yes, the same Mr. Simmons the Whip and a senior himself) replied that Government pensions were designed to be supplementary and not a principal source of income in our twilight years. Ouch, Otti: it sounded, well, so old UBP.

Like molasses up a Hill

RIBBLE is the only way to describe the pace at which legislation continues to come to the House. One more short piece last week, a one-page Order which will allow for the introduction and use by the police of a particular type of alco-analyser ? and it's about time too, Mr. Editor.

The problem and need for correction was discovered last May and highlighted by the Police Inspector in his recent report on the Service. The Inspector said it required urgent attention ? and that was more than 12 months ago.

What this means is that there are two pieces of Government legislation on the agenda, the other being what looks like a straightforward, housekeeping amendment to the Professional Surveyors Act.

The three remaining items are Opposition motions ? and no, we didn't take up the Berkeley motion last Friday, Mr. Editor, as we wait to see whether Government moves to also stifle debate on that one. The other motions spotlight in one case the plight of farming and farmers, and in the other the health of health care in Bermuda today.

PS on PQs

Qs were ? as promised ? an order of the day. Unfortunately, time ran out before any of them could be taken up orally in the House. You will recall Mr. Editor that parliamentary questions have to be taken up by 11 o'clock and if not the answers in writing are handed over.

Government Ministers were successful in helping to fill the first hour ? we start at ten ? with a plethora of lengthy Ministerial statements.

What we missed out on then was an oral exchange on Cuba relations between Minister Butler and Shadow Jackson, as well as Education Minister Terry Lister on the selection process employed for the new Bermuda College President. Not all questions were for oral answer and some of the written responses have already made their way into the press. Stay tuned. There may be more.

Laughing matters

AUGHS are not always easy to come by on the House of the Hill. Some of the humour is intentional, some of it not. A couple of examples for you, Mr. Editor:

In a heated moment during debate on the motion to adjourn Minister Webb is complaining about Opposition criticism of the PLP Government which she finds continual and consistent.

"And that member is so anti-PLP," claimed Ms Webb, pointing to Michael Dunkley. "No, I'm not," he protested from across the floor. "I always say good morning to you."

A bemused Mr. Speaker chimed in: "I don't know. I think the member is cordial."

Next up also on the motion to adjourn: Minister Randy Horton is looking to respond to the Opposition's Maxwell Burgess after he criticised the Government's track record on the promotion of Bermudians.

Mr. Burgess had been unrelenting in his criticism and was accused of having a "Napoleonic complex" by Mr Horton ? who is, Mr. Editor, no small man. It was later when Mr. Horton was accused of getting personal that Mr. Burgess claimed he had ignored the remark.

"Went straight over my head," he said to the delight of everyone in earshot.