Hold on to your hankies, people. You should know, Mr. Editor, that I felt sorry for Dale Butler last Friday on the Hill. I felt badly that the Speaker did not allow the Progressive Labour Party MP to bring into debate the most recent report of the Auditor General. Maybe I was also feeling sorry for myself: after all I, too, was hoping to weave some of the scathing report and its contents into my remarks. It's the other half of the question in any Budget Debate: how the money has been spent. Or misspent.

On the other hand, and upon second thought, the Speaker's ruling might turn out to be a good thing. It could give some much-needed impetus to the need for House reform and to overhaul the way we do the country's business. Or try to.

This isn't the first time the Speaker has made this ruling; previously, and typically, it was employed and enforced more often than not with MPs on the Opposition benches. This you might reasonably expect; the content is pretty critical of Government. The fact that a backbench Government MP – and former Cabinet Minister – also wants to address the Report openly is a welcome development.

It makes sense to want to talk about it. We have a billion dollar budget with a projected debt of just under a billion dollars and the Auditors General, both the current and the former postholders, have given back-to-back qualified audits on Government's finances. Concern is expressed about the way in which money is spent and accounted for.

We are told that the total expenditure for which Government has not been accountable now stands at $890 million, up from $485 million the year before. I won't even begin to get into lingerie from Victoria's Secret. But the Speaker's position is that the 2008 Report – which was only just tabled in the House last month – has been referred to the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) and, as a consequence, should not be the subject of debate in the House until PAC completes its review and reports back to the House by way of yet another report on the Report. Strictly speaking, the Speaker is entitled to take that view.

House Rules provide for the five-person committee, chaired by the Opposition spokesman for Finance, but on which Government traditionally has a majority of three, the duty of which is to examine, consider and report on the Government accounts and any reports thereon by the Auditor General.

This is important work. This should be a very active and busy committee. But it isn't, and we are hopelessly behind.

It is a point that has not been lost on the Auditor General. He was moved to underscore the point in his last Report. He referred to the Speaker's position. "Unfortunately", he wrote, "this means that unless the Committee's reports to the House are timely, discussion in the House on matters in my reports can be delayed until they are no longer relevant. It means that any timely discussion of my reports is forced into the media."

Ironic, isn't it? MPs can talk about it anywhere but on the floor of the House, including in this column of course. The last report which PAC produced was in March 2009 but that was for the financial years 2005 and 2006. You see the problem. If the past is any indication, by the time we get around to the 2009 report, it will be ancient history.

So what's the problem? Much of the time PAC is stymied by lack of a quorum. A majority of members must be present for a properly-constituted meeting. Government members can block committee work by simple non-attendance. Ask Bob Richards: he knows all about this; or his predecessor Pat Gordon-Pamplin.

Sadly, I also think that over the years the Legislature has not accorded this committee the standing it deserves for the important work it is supposed to perform – and by years, yes, I mean dating back to the years of UBP reign as well.

But we have got to turn the page. PAC ought to be meeting regularly; as regularly as the House in fact. Its meetings ought to be open to press and public. No Ministry, no expenditure, no programme should be above examination. If necessary, the committee should exercise its powers to subpoena people and documents. This way its work becomes timely and relevant and beneficial. There is nothing like exposure and explanation. This is also how we bring those responsible to account. It also makes less pressing and less urgent debate on the floor of the House. Instead we get ongoing action and attention between Reports.

The pressure to make this happen needs to come from backbenchers on both the Opposition and Government benches. The country relies on us -– no, depends on us – to perform this role. We cannot leave it to the Cabinet. Their work is meant to be subject to far more rigorous legislative oversight than is currently the case, and for obvious reasons. An active and robust Public Accounts Committee is a critical component to the financial oversight which the Legislature is meant to provide. Its meetings have to be open to press and public. This isn't just the view of another Opposition MP. Nor is it just John Barritt speaking. Again. This is the recommended benchmark of a modern, democratic Legislature. You could look it up, starting with the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, of which Bermuda is a member. It's very much on their list.

Oops! We did it again

Turnabout remains fair play on the Hill, Mr. Editor. Regrettably. I spent last Friday listening to the radio once again, this time as Shadow Finance Minister Bob Richards delivered his Budget Reply. My colleagues had decided not to share the printed statement with all MPs until he was three pages in. The memory of an elephant is not required to recall that the week before there was similar limited circulation of the Budget Statement by Government involving a half a dozen of us, myself included. I walked out in protest then too.

Last word on this to an angry Wayne Furbert who expressed his disappointment with me personally after I had complained about what the PLP had done. "I am sure you would agree", he texted, "that if we want them to change, and if we want people to change, then maybe we need to change. I hope you take this message back to your caucus". Consider it done.

Your thoughts? Write jbarritt@ibl.bm.