Veteran United Bermuda Party MP John Barritt's call for parliamentary committee meetings to be opened to the public is quite correct; it is mind boggling in this day and age for Bermuda's elected representatives to think it is acceptable to carry out the public's business in secret.

It is important to note that this is a tradition that precedes the election of the Progressive Labour Party in 1998, and the UBP was apparently equally happy with the arrangement.

But that does not make it right that it should continue.

What's even more amazing is that the Public Accounts Committee has itself voted in favour of opening its meetings, only to be overruled – by the Rules and Privileges Committee, naturally meeting in private.

Some MPs may argue that the committees do table reports in the House of Assembly and that some of these are debated, but that is no substitute for the public having the right to attend committee meetings themselves.

And the logical extension of that argument is that the House itself could meet in private and then release reports, minutes and decisions, but one would expect that that idea would never survive once it was aired.

Mr. Barritt has chosen to make his views known to the Foreign Affairs Committee of the UK House of Commons, which would likely have some sympathy for the argument, since it holds its meetings and hearings in public.

Indeed, committees in the British Parliament are a vital part of the checks and balances role of Government and also are able to hold Government officials and civil servants accountable.

It is worth noting that the UK Ombudsman and Auditor General both report to committees of Parliament, unlike Bermuda's. It might even excite some Government MPs who have expressed their displeasure with Bermuda's Auditor to know that a parliamentary committee exposed the financial misdoings of the UK's Auditor General which led to his resignation.

What effect Mr. Barritt's submission will have on change in Bermuda is not clear. It is likely that the FAC will be deeply respectful of the rights of a fellow Parliamentarian and would be reluctant to tell the Bermuda House of Assembly how to order its business. But a gentle nudge in the right direction would do no harm.

Mr. Barritt also rightly raised concerns about corruption and welcomed suggestions about the introduction of "Integrity in Public Service Legislation" in Bermuda.

At the same time, there is a desperate need for anti-corruption laws in the Criminal Code to be updated.

This was promised by former Premier Alex Scott but seems, along with proposals for a Whistleblower Act and Public Access to Information legislation, to have fallen down the priority list.

It may well be that there is no corruption in Bermuda now. But justice must be seen to be done and it is reasonable to suspect that law enforcers will hardly bother to pursue an investigation when there is little likelihood of a prosecution, let alone a conviction, under Bermuda's legislation.

Just as importantly, Bermuda cannot claim to stand with other modern jurisdictions when it lacks laws as fundamental to transparency as the holy trinity of freedom of information, modern anti-corruption laws and whistleblower protection.