I write to share with you a development in the House of Assembly last Friday which has so far gone unreported and which, I believe, was the objective of those in the Progressive Labour Party Government who conspired to abuse Parliamentary practice and procedure.

In the circumstances, I make no apology for drawing attention to what they tried to hide. Here are the facts: On behalf of the Opposition I had set down three Parliamentary questions for answer last Friday.

They had been delivered in writing before noon on Wednesday, November 6, in accordance with the rules of the House, thereby giving the Premier nine clear days in which to prepare her answers.

As it turned out, the Premier was never called upon to answer those questions. PLP members successfully filled the first hour of business with Ministerial statements (two from the same Minister) along with congratulatory and obituary speeches so as to avoid having to answer the questions on the floor of the House; that is the sunshine of public scrutiny, along with any supplementary questions that might arise out of the answers given.

We on the Opposition benches couldn't help but notice how PLP members dragged out their speeches and, in some instances, exceeded the three-minute maximum permitted under the rules; and, regrettably, the one or two who did exceed the limit were indulged by the Speaker. (The record shows 13 of them spoke, compared with five of the UBP, and they stopped just after the clock struck 11 o'clock.)

Members know if the questions are not taken up by 11 o'clock then only prepared written answers have to be given and the opportunity for debate through supplementary questions is denied. However, it has also always been the practice in such cases to then hand in the written answers to the Clerk of the House who in turn makes them available to the MP who asked the questions, and subsequently incorporates them into the minutes of the House.

Not so last Friday: I was told by the Clerk that he had been told that he would not be receiving the answers until Monday. There is therefore but one obvious conclusion: The Premier never had any intention of answering the questions in the House on Friday and her colleagues had been put under the whip to fill that first hour so as to make sure that intention became a reality.

No big deal, you think? Well, here are the questions and answers for which the Premier and her colleagues chose to employ such tactics.

Question 1: Will the Premier please inform the Honourable House of Assembly how much Government paid for the production of the pre-recorded address of the Premier, the Hon. Jennifer M. Smith, JP, MP, which was broadcast on VSB and ZBM television channels on Thursday, February 21, 2002? (Answer: A total of $3,644.00 was paid for the production.)

Question 2: How much did Government pay VSB and ZBM (each) to broadcast the address? (Answer: The cost of the broadcast on Bermuda Broadcasting Company was $2,200.00. The cost of the broadcast on DeFontes Broadcasting Company was $750.00.)

Question 3: What attempts has Government made to recover the above costs from the PLP in light of the ruling of the Broadcasting Commissioners of 26 August, 2002, that the address did not qualify as a Government broadcast under the Political Broadcasting Directions 1980? (Answer: There was no finding by the Broadcasting Commissioners that the Premier had not acted in good faith in her intent to act within section 3(3) of the Directions namely: "3(3) Nothing in these directions shall, however, be deemed to prevent the Premier or a Member of Government broadcasting to the people of Bermuda in order to provide them with information or an explanation of events of prime national or international importance and seeking the cooperation of the public with such events".)

Therefore, it would not be appropriate to recover the costs from the Progressive Labour Party, as there was no finding by the Commissioners that the Progressive Labour Party, was in any way involved with the broadcast."

So, we learn that a total of $6,594.00 of the taxpayers' money was spent on that infamous `Address to the Nation' by the Premier; and that of course doesn't take into account the countless civil service man hours which were spent on drafting the speech and arranging for its broadcast. But what's more is that we learn that the leader of our Government has decided that she and her Government should be excused from breaching the Political Broadcasting Directions because she acted in `good faith'.

Now there's a defence many who appear in our courts would like to employ for similar result. But that's not the real world. Neither is it leadership by example for the community at large. I ask your readers not to forget that the Broadcasting Commissioners laboured long and hard on whether the broadcast qualified as a Government or political broadcast; indeed the Government was represented at the hearings by an attorney from the Attorney General's Chambers plus the Attorney General herself and a second Cabinet Minister the Hon. Alex Scott, to argue the case for the Premier.

By unanimous decision, the Commissioners ruled the address did not qualify as a Government broadcast. It was never a question of whether the Premier had or had not acted in good faith; in fact, that was never an issue at the hearings.

Thus, the inescapable conclusion: if it wasn't a Government broadcast it could only have been a (party) political broadcast, and political broadcasts should be paid for by political parties.

Taxpayers should not be called upon to foot the bill. But is anyone surprised? Just look at the length to which the Government under Premier Jennifer Smith will go to avoid the sunshine of public scrutiny which they promised upon their election; the length to which they will go so as to avoid accounting for the consequences of their actions and their decisions.

I could go on but I won't. I think the people get the picture and thank you for letting me keep the people in touch.