There is a reason why we should be careful what we wish for, Mr. Editor. As you know, I have been going on and making off for some time now about the need to develop a more effective committee system of the Legislature, and if recent developments in the House are any indication, this could soon take off in a big way.

First, there we were last Friday on the Hill debating FutureCare and the need to come to grips with spiralling costs, due in large part to what is euphemistically described as medical inflation. I voiced my concern that health care was fast becoming a national issue that will come to rival affordable housing for more and more Bermudians, and how I thought that we could use a committee of members to investigate, report and recommend solutions on an ongoing basis, paying close attention to what's happening in both the private and public sector.

The goal here wouldn't just be to hector, badger and embarrass, although there may be some of that from to time, this is politics after all, but more importantly to educate, and to get the facts out there on the challenges and on the options we face going forward. For this to work, and work effectively, meetings will have to be open to Press and public.

Meanwhile, we already have two very important standing committees of the House – Public Accounts and Private Bills – both of which should be working in the public spotlight, but are not.

Add to this a motion from former UBP now independent MP Wayne Furbert who is calling for a committee to probe campaign party financing. Then came a call late in the evening for a bi-partisan committee of parliamentarians to look into what could be done to tackle crime.

You could say this idea of committees appears to be catching on.

But there's a challenge here. The pool of potential members is limited. There are only so many parliamentarians to go around. There are 36 in the House and 11 in the Senate – and not all can serve. Cabinet Ministers are traditionally excluded from committees. They are part of the Executive whose policies and decisions will invariably come under scrutiny. There is also the issue of whether there is sufficient support staff. Committees will at the very least require recording secretaries and, on occasion, access to legal counsel.

There is therefore a limit to how many committees the Legislature can support each session. The positions have to be filled by backbenchers from both the Government and Opposition benches who may well have to end up doing double or triple duty which, for part-time politicians, could seriously interfere with their day jobs.

We saw too, the flourish with which a joint select committee on educational reform began – with public hearings no less – but from which we have heard little since.

Ultimately, it's a matter of commitment and priorities.

The Public Accounts Committee (PAC as it is known around the Hill) is required under the Rules of the House. So is Private Bills. Both should be open to Press and public.

I don't think anyone doubts the importance of PAC and the need to have this committee play a more active and robust role than it has to date. I can point no further than the recent revelations on the Dockyard project and the massive overruns. To my mind, it's just another in a long list of Government projects that could have benefitted from rigorous, sustained oversight by an independent body – before, during and after completion. Ongoing public hearings at various critical stages would help bring about not only the sort of checks and balances our system of governance sorely lacks, but accountability through transparency as well.

Yes, it sounds like hard work – and it would be – but it's a job that needs to be done. PAC can turn to the Auditor General for assistance, although I expect her office will need beefing up to keep up with a more active PAC. A new post of Contractor General has been proposed by my colleagues to help keep a close and constant eye on all major Government contracts.

I don't think we need to wait for any deeper crisis to strike a committee on health care. It is a big issue for a lot of us – and getting bigger. Our seniors are on the frontline right now and we see clearly the challenges Bermuda faces in the face of a perfect storm: rising numbers, rising costs and rising claims. It is past time we started looking at how we might do things differently and parliamentarians ought to become more expert at this – and through open hearings allow the public, whom we seek to serve, in on the dialogue.

Crime in Bermuda has already reached a crisis point. Three shootings over three weekends. Enough said. Well, maybe not. Members of the House had a lot to say about it on the motion to adjourn. It started with Mark Pettingill calling for a multi-party "think tank", which Randy Horton turned into a call for a joint select committee, which was quickly endorsed by former policeman now MP Wayne Perinchief and by Leader of the Opposition Kim Swan.

Cabinet Minister Derrick Burgess, subbing as the Acting Premier, actually called on the Speaker to appoint the committee forthwith. That's not quite the way it works. A member has to table a motion which has to be approved by a majority of the House. That could still happen as it certainly sounded like one of those things on which everyone was agreed. At least based on what was said by those who spoke. But not everyone did.

There is a lot to be said for listening too. As Yogi Berra famously said: you can observe a lot by watching. You can't see over the radio but the public gallery was pretty well near empty. Inside the Chamber, I counted just nine of us there at the end when the Speaker adjourned for the day. Luckily, no one called for the quorum. Proceedings can come to an abrupt end if there are fewer than 14.

It is not always a case of empty vessels, Mr. Editor. Empty seats send a message too.

WARNING: Committee – a group of men who individually can do nothing but as a group decide that nothing can be done. Fred Allen.

l Comments? Write jbarritt@ibl.bm.