You know the old saying Mr. Editor. There's no sense beating your head against a brick wall. So let me have a go at dismantling that wall. When it comes to proposed reform of the House of Assembly, PLP MP Dale Butler and I share some common ground. In this article, I propose to concentrate on that which we have in common rather than on our differences, which may not be as great as rabid partisan political supporters might make them out to be. So for those readers who are looking for the usual barbs and political missiles in reply to Mr. Butler, you're in for a bit of a disappointment.

My Parliamentary colleague from the PLP made a number of good points.

He was right to remind me (and your readers) that it is all very well to call for reform now that the United Bermuda Party is the Opposition and that when we had the chance and the power to effect change in the House which we are now recommending, we did not; although it is fair to point out that the Rules of the House were reformed during the thirty years the UBP had a majority in the House. However, the fact of the matter is a review of the Rules - and reform - hasn't been undertaken in maybe 20 years. It's overdue.

I rather like his idea that Parliamentary committees could be transformed into "action teams" that tackle the bigger and tougher issues facing this community. He cited alienation, housing, employment, lack of school achievement, lack of scholarships and bursaries, and seniors, to name a few, to which I would add medical cost and care, pensions and tourism. Mr. Butler said the committees could be expanded to allow interested members of the public to participate as well. That's not a bad idea either.

However - and there always seems to be a however - Mr. Butler put his finger on one of the stumbling blocks. Where will MPs find the time to serve on these sorts of committees? We are after all part-time politicians: we get paid a part-time wage and we get to keep our day jobs. Does this mean we will need full-time politicians who will be paid a full-time wage commensurate with the work they are expected to undertake? It could be.

I recognised the growing need shortly after I was first elected to the House of Assembly. I was appointed a member of a Joint Select Committee to review Parliamentary Salaries (yes, there was the odd committee appointed under the UBP) just months after the 1993 election. Members were clamouring for an increase. There hadn't been one since April 1987. While a majority on the committee opted for a catch-up cost of living increase of 27.91 per cent, I penned a minority report with my party colleague Pamela Gordon (then a Cabinet Minister) in which we proposed a ten percent increase with a strong recommendation that an independent evaluation be undertaken of the job MPs are required to fulfil in modern Bermuda. This is what we had to say in part:

"The role of Parliamentary representative is becoming a full-time job with its consequent demands on both our and our pocket books. This is particularly true for Cabinet Ministers who, in most instances, have had to become full-time politicians.

"We would be less than honest if we did not admit that this trend towards full-time politicians will likely continue. In some ways the trend is voter driven. Voters do expect us to be available at all times and to be devoted to our work, inside and outside of Parliament. This is the way it should be. But it leaves members very little opportunity to earn a living, unless of course they are paid a full-time Parliamentary wage."

Neither Ms Gordon nor I liked the idea that parliamentarians should decide their own salaries. We came up with what we thought was a sensible way of proceeding on a difficult issue, concluding that: "Whilst we appreciate that the buck stops here in Parliament (no pun intended) we do believe that it would be helpful to have an evaluation undertaken by some recognised, independent body. If nothing else, it will serve to educate both members and the public on not only the work which Parliamentarians perform but the value of that work. We also believe that it will meet the concerns of the public and that is, that not only will fairness have been done, but fairness will have seen to be done."

We got some support from our colleagues in the House, but sadly we remained a minority. The majority opted for the more immediate 28 percent increase. Sadly too, the real issue remained - and still remains - unresolved. Are our MPs full-timers? Should they be? If so, what wage should they be paid?

I still believe the best way to proceed is to start with an independent evaluation - an audit of the jobs we fill (Cabinet and backbench, Government and Opposition) and comparative salaries in the private and public sector, here and abroad.

But then there's a chicken or egg question: which comes first? The track record of committees of the House (under UBP and PLP) is not good. I won't go on at length about what's happened to the referrals of drug-testing and Rules reform to the Rules and Privileges Committee. It looks like they have gone there to die. MP Trevor Moniz could also give you an earful on the difficulties he had in moving forward with the House committee on the Register of Members' Interests.

Personally, I think we put our case in better shape with the public by moving ahead with committees now. We already have one standing committee, Public Accounts Committee, chaired by the Opposition, which is reasonably active. There is absolutely no reason why it should not be open to the public and the press. It is there to review Government spending and the Auditor General's annual reports thereon.

Opening up the work of this committee was one of the key recommendations in the call for reform of the House Rules. Committees should be open. There are no state secrets at stake; only the public purse.

One of the other key recommendations was the establishment of a business committee - two representatives from each party with the Speaker as chair - to coordinate the agenda and passage of legislation in the House. The thinking here is that such a committee might allow us to better organise sittings, prompting members to focus on those items on which we agree and those on which we disagree and to plan accordingly. And who knows, perhaps the need for time limits on speeches might fall away - an idea which, I confess, was a radical recommendation. As Mr. Butler points out, perhaps too radical.

On the call for a Question Period, it's long overdue. As others have pointed out, a Question Period - which allows for contemporaneous questions and answers on the issues of the day - is a staple feature of almost all modern parliaments.

But, as Mr. Butler also points out, there is another stumbling block - attitudes that have been shaped by what happened, or didn't happen, in the past. You didn't do it when you had the chance, so why should we? I concede the point. I take the hit. Score one for the other guys. But the question remains: what are we prepared to do for the people of Bermuda, who live in the present with an eye to the future and who watch, hopefully and expectantly, that we will do right by them. What will serve the people of Bermuda best - now and in the future? May the dialogue continue.