Pushback is feedback too, Mr. Editor, and there are those who think I went overboard last week on the need for greater parliamentary scrutiny by way of the affirmative resolution procedure.

Fair is fair. Let me share with readers what the critics say: First, the Progressive Labour Party didn't invent the negative resolution procedure. True that. It's been around for donkey's years, yes, dating back to the days of the United Bermuda Party; maybe longer. But it doesn't matter. Approval by way of the negative resolution procedure has its place, but I just don't think it should be employed where public funds are involved. Like with the waiver of the cruise ship passenger cabin tax on the strength of an agreement reached by the Minister for Tourism and approved by the Minister of Finance.

But the criticism does not stop there. There is a further limb to the argument which is much more interesting and challenging. It goes like this: the use of the negative resolution procedure does not eliminate Parliamentary scrutiny altogether. Any regulations or orders or notices made by this means can still be brought to the House on the Hill for debate and approval. This is true, and I said so last week. But it requires extra vigilance and more work on the part of backbench MPs and, so the line goes, the Opposition should get on with the work it is supposed to do and not depend on the Government to do it for them. That's what the Opposition are paid to do etc. etc.

Ouch! It's like my father used to say when I was growing up: the only place success comes before work is in the dictionary, and there is no substitute, and never will be any substitute, son, for hard work.

OK. But this works only if the system is working. It isn't.

Here's how the negative resolution procedure is supposed to operate. The Minister responsible is required by law to lay copies of any statutory instruments, subject to this procedure, before both Houses of the Legislature – the one up on the Hill and the one down the Hill – "as soon as practicable" after they have been made. That's pretty straightforward and clear; although as soon as practicable can be stretched to accommodate regulations, orders and notices made when Parliament is in recess. Once tabled, any member can put down a motion to debate the subject matter and if the motion is made within 21 days after the instrument has been tabled in the Legislature it can be revoked if a majority agrees.

So there is the opportunity for scrutiny, roundabout though it may be, assuming copies are actually tabled as soon as practicable after they are made. However, a little research shows that this isn't always the case; just the opposite, in fact, if last year was any indication.

I did a quick check of Bermuda laws online and totted up 75 listed regulations, orders or notices for the year 2009. I also perused the Minutes of the House of Assembly for 2009 and found that only 15 were recorded as having been tabled or laid before the House. Now I may have missed a few here and there, but I think we get the picture. The law requires copies of statutory instruments to be laid before the House which is – no surprise here – entitled the Statutory Instruments Act 1977, and this rule appears to be honoured more in the breach than in the application.

It will always be difficult to take up something which is never brought to your attention.

Despair not however. All is not lost for those with a keen eye for these sorts of things. The law also requires that all statutory notices be published in the Government Gazette. Publication comes in two forms. There is the Official Gazette, a hard-copy compendium which is bound, printed and published by Government, but which is unfortunately – the last time I checked – over six months behind in publication. I do not know the circulation of this small magazine, but I do know that in all my years as a Member of Parliament, and, yes that includes when the United Bermuda Party was in power, MPs have not been sent copies as a matter of course. That leaves then the second source: perusing the notices which appear each week in The Bermuda Sun newspaper and which form part of the Government Gazette as well.

So, yes, there is a way to spot these things and to subsequently bring them up on the floor of the House. But you have to ask yourself – do you not? – whether this really is the preferred way to conduct the country's business. You already know my answer when it comes to public funds.

Cruise ship waivers should be done like Hotel Concession Orders. On the floor of the House and on notice. Like the one we did last Friday for the Grotto Bay Hotel. It went through in a breeze; in fact, there were some very glowing tributes for the Bermudian-owned hotel and from both sides of the House. Members, along with the public, got to know exactly what was promised in return for a potential half a million dollar tax break.

The way things are once again serves to underscore the need for a Legislature website and how very useful this could be. Everyone, and not just MPs, would have access to what new laws are proposed, what has been adopted and when, whether by negative or affirmative resolution.

I don't know about you, but it strikes me as just a tad ironic that the Corporation of Hamilton with a website has beaten us to the punch on this front, the very body said to be in need of reform and integration into Government – at a projected cost of $800,000. I imagine a website for the Legislature would require but a small sliver of that. Wonders, Mr. Editor, never cease.

More comments, by all means write jbarritt@ibl.bm

Thought du Jour:

"It isn't that they can't see the solution, it's that they can't see the problem." – G.K. Chesterton