CHRISTMAS, Mr. Editor. You know it's that time of year again on the Hill when there cometh the usual last-minute crush of legislation which Government wants to rush through the House so we can all get out early for the holidays. It makes for three sittings within seven days so that today, the 12th of the month, can be our last day …. 'til next year.

Don't get me wrong, I am not averse to working hard, but … but whatever the reason, this is not the best way to conduct the country's business. Cramming for Christmas.

Legislation does not get the scrutiny it should. It's worse when you're rushing. Some of it can be quite important - not that not all legislation isn't important : it's just that some is more important than the rest - and the way in which some laws are drafted can make for a very challenging read. Even for lawyers.

Consider the titles alone of the legislation which the Legislature is being asked to approve in the two sittings scheduled for this week:

Pesticide Safety Act 2008 (22 pages of 41 clauses)

Optometrists and Opticians Act 2008 ( 24 pages of 33 clauses)

Bermuda Monetary Authority Amendment (No. 2) Act 2008

Post Office Amendment Act 2008

Insurance Returns and Solvency Amendment Regulations 2008

Insurance Accounts Amendment Regulations 2008

Bermuda Bar Amendment Act 2008

Proceeds of Crime Regulations (Supervision and Enforcement) Act 2008 (27 pages of 41 clauses)

Hotel Concession (The Fairmont Hamilton Princess Hotel) Order 2008

Still awake?

You just read the titles. Imagine having to read through the actual legislation and to make sense of it if you are not the Minister responsible and you are without recourse to the drafters.

It's no easy task - if it's done at all. It isn't just a matter of finding the time (when wrestling for instance with three sittings in seven days) there is also the need to understand how any proposed new legislation fits in with what we have, and this invariably involves a close comparison of the old and the new.

It can actually be hard work.

But the way we proceed hardly facilitates understanding.

Pity the poor public (that's you dear reader) who haven't a clue what's about to become law (unless you are in an effected business which has had the benefit of prior consultation, which is not always the case, before the legislation came up the Hill to the House) and more than likely won't know until after the legislation has been taken up (if you're lucky and the press have done a good job of reporting the debate, if there was any, assuming they remained awake and attentive: they have my sympathy), all of which comes, as I say, after the fact and when it's too late for the public to make effective representations.

We could change that. All it requires is the will and - and this may be the hard part - the support and a push from the Government of the day.

I've always thought the Private Bills Committee has a pretty useful approach. This is a standing bi-partisan committee of the House chaired by the Deputy Speaker. Typically they vet bills for incorporation by private act. The drafters come along to answer any questions. The pity is the meetings are held in private.

Public Bills deserve no less, in my view. There ought to be a Legislative Committee, made up of equal members from both sides of the House, whose job it is to review drafts, clause by clause if necessary, and to seek explanations and answers from those who drafted the Bills - and of course these meetings should be open to press and public.

This approach will serve two good causes: (1) it will promote knowledge and understanding, and (2) it will cut down on time wasted going through this tedious exercise on the floor of the House.

It might also help bring about greater public access and input - a desirable development, if you ask me. Here's two good reasons why:

l The devil is in the detail and mistakes do happen. This way they can be more easily spotted and corrected without embarrassment on the floor of the House and the defensiveness that can arise as a result. Just last Friday we had a motion requiring the sale of Dockyard seabed, while at the same time seeking approval for its development by way of license. Selling or leasing: which is it. surely it couldn't be both. An equally puzzled Minister thankfully withdrew the motion … for further review and subsequent (better) explanation.

l But why the rush when there is no compelling urgency or emergency? The question arises this week in connection with amendments to the Bermuda Bar Act and a concern that the Bar was given insufficient time to properly review the legislative nuts and bolts, after having approved of the proposed amendments in principle.

We could do a much better job in giving advance notice and it's high time Bermuda caught up with the rest of the world. A Legislature website of coming attractions is critical and long overdue. Bills, motions and minutes should be posted for review. Voters would then also have the opportunity to make representations to their representatives on the basis of what is actually proposed.

It will force members to step up their game - and could lead to more responsive representation.

More active parliamentary committees might well build bridges for backbench MPs from both sides of the House, to work together, in the public eye, for a cause other than political advantage- as is the case in other modern parliamentary jurisdictions.

Less across the floor and more around the table could be the start we need for the birth of a whole new culture on the Hill. (I can hope, can't I?)

I raise this, by the way, Mr. Editor ,not just as a result of last Friday's clash on the motion to adjourn - although there was that. On the other hand, there will always be disagreements among people who hold different views on what should be done and how. People do differ, and always will, some quite sincerely, and genuinely, and on matters of importance.

But I take the point of those who say that they would have preferred to have heard us disagree on matters of greater concern to the people of Bermuda, like, for instance, on what the economy holds for Bermuda next year, and the Low Income Threshold Report along with the recent study produced by the Bermuda Employers Council which suggests that if Bermuda is to continue to grow we are simply not going to be able to produce a sufficient number of Bermudians to fill the jobs created, and even then, we may be further challenged to fill the better-paying jobs given the current quality and standard of education in Bermuda. There's plenty there to debate. Or not.

Final word this week, Mr. Editor, to a reader elsewhere who wrote: "Our political system appears to have lost its way.

While the new US President-elect Obama (right) is preaching and practicing pragmatic, bi-partisan politics, (we) continue to be subjected to irrational, self-centred, personality-driven politics.

"The system is broken and it needs repair.

"What we need are leaders who are willing to put the needs of country ahead of personality, ego and ideology. We need co-operation, compromise and thoughtful action. Unfortunately, I fear more of the same."

I could not have said it better. Or could I? To be continued.