It was an innocuous question really, Mr. Editor. The Minister responsible for Telecommunications Michael Scott had just given us a rather lengthy statement on the findings of a three-year survey on cell phones and other modern mobile devices. Fascinating stuff this, to some, I suppose. We learned for instance that:

• Ninety four percent of all households own a cell phone.

• The purchase of mobile devices was also on the increase, up to 55 percent in 2009 from 32 percent the year before.

• The most popular uses last year: e-mail (47 percent); social networking (21 percent); games (19 percent); GPS software (13 percent); downloading movies (ten percent); purchasing goods (eight percent); downloading podcasts (six percent); and bill payment (five percent).

• Three quarters of residents communicate via text messaging and more than half of them text daily.

I happened to listen. So I asked what I thought were the obvious questions when we got to the new Question Period: Given the obvious popularity of these ubiquitous devices, what is the Ministry's position on their use while driving? Or does the Ministry not have one?

I don't know and you don't know because the Minister wouldn't tell us. He muttered something about driving on the roads being the responsibility of another Ministry – Transport – and as a consequence he declined to answer the question. The Minster for Transport, the Premier, happened to be there at the time, but he deferred answering as well. He had not given the Ministerial Statement. The Speaker agreed and we moved on.

So much then for all that fancy talk about joined up Government: not in this case anyhow. The more is the pity actually. I wasn't trying to be difficult, but I was trying to take advantage of the new rules and liven up Question Period with a little debate on what I regard as a topical issue in light of their growing and prevalent use by drivers, young and old, on Bermuda's roads, and the crackdown on what is regarded as a dangerous practice in other jurisdictions.

Of course, I could have taken the issue up later on the motion to adjourn, which would not have been until after the debate on the Mincy Report and the plight of young black males, which would have been after 11 o'clock at night when most members were gone, metaphorically and literally, myself included. It was after all a take note motion and no vote was required.

However, and as you well know, Mr. Editor, we don't always get answers to our questions whether they are asked on the motion to adjourn or in Question Period, or even where they are asked in writing on ten days' notice. You will recall those outstanding parliamentary questions about the $800,000 municipalities' review and the terms of the Coco Reef lease. They were asked in February and still have not yet been answered. While they may not be innocuous questions, they certainly are not that difficult to answer. Once again, and this time for the record, those questions were:

Municipalities' Review

1. The names and address of all those firms that submitted proposals in response to the Request For Proposal of Government ("RFP") for the oversight, management and implementation of the integration of the municipalities?

2. The details of all the proposals, including the projected and/or estimated costs of each one?

3. The terms of the successful bidder, Attride-Stirling & Wolonecki and McKenna Long & Aldridge, including the services they propose to provide, the total number of estimated hours to complete the RFP project, and the applicable hourly rate or rates?

Coco Reef Lease

1. Why was the lease between the Bermuda College and Coco Reef Resorts Ltd. re-negotiated, including specific reasons for any changes between the new lease and the original June 12, 2003, lease?

2. When will a copy of the renegotiated lease be tabled in the House of Assembly and made available for review?

3. What have been the total base and yearly turnover rents paid and received in 2008 and 2009 under the June 12, 2003, lease, as well as the total reimbursements for water, air conditioning and electricity utilities along with the number of hospitality students that have been trained in each year under the "practical training component" of the 2003 lease?

The silence to date has been deafening. Our questions have simply been ignored. There is no sanction for refusal to answer. The way the system is meant to work is this: parliamentary questions are answered or not, and if not we expect the reasons for refusal to be given for the record. The Speaker can try to use his office to intervene, but to date there has been no progress to report on that front. The public is meant to draw its own conclusions – please do – and apply the ultimate sanction come election day, should they remember. In the meantime, the Auditor General can also draw her own conclusions – please do – and make each or either of the matters the subject of special investigation and report. The drawback here is the length of time it will take to undertake the investigation and to provide a report to the House which in turn then refers it to the Public Accounts Committee for further review, and further investigation and further report back to the House, and, as the Speaker will remind us if we try, there will be no talking about the report and its contents in the House (outside's OK though) until the Public Accounts Committee does report back to the House which, if past practice is any indication, will be about a year or so down the road, when the whole matter is viewed, ho hum, as ancient history, and the horse, as they say, has long since bolted the stable.

Is it any wonder then, Mr. Editor, that we have a system of government, and a Government, in need of some serious reform?

Questions or comments? Write jbarritt@ibl.bm