The rules of the House of Assembly are to be reviewed which may cut back on MPs waffling and see powerful public committees being set up which could call people to give evidence.

Government yesterday accepted an Opposition motion to review the rules, but Chief Whip cautioned that this did not guarantee it would accept all of the suggestions.

Shadow Legislative Affairs Minister proposed limiting the time MPs could speak on bills to 20 minutes, although there would be no time limits for the responsible Minister and his or her Shadow.

Mr. Barritt also proposed MPs being able to ask and get immediate answers from the Premier and Ministers, rather than having to table questions in writing which are answered ten days later.

And he said public committees should be set up to call and question witnesses on issues such as the proposed sale of Bank of Bermuda to HSBC.

Mr. Barritt said the rules of the House had not been properly reviewed since the 1970s and there needed to be an overhaul to function more smoothly.

Even if MPs are limited to 20 minutes to speak on legislation ? which applies now during the Motion to Adjourn free-for-all ? it would still leave just over ten hours of debate, not including the Minister tabling the bill and his Shadow.

Calling for questions to be answered promptly, Mr. Barritt said: ?You must table a question by noon on Wednesday and it gets answered ten days later, making them almost history by the time they get answered.

?In other parliaments they ask questions on the issues of the day and they (Ministers) become subject to questions and further explanation.

?It would make for an engaging and in some instances lively debate because we would be debating issues of the day, rather than something asked ten days previously.?

In supporting powerful select committees which could call witnesses, Mr. Barritt said: ?The system I would like to see as a legacy for our children and grandchildren would be a parliament which isn?t just about us coming to speak, but it has committees giving people the opportunity to participate in the issues of the day.

?This would become more than an echo chamber, which it is sometimes.

?Members, despite our differences, would work together bringing a more open process and accountability.?

Government Whip Mr. Simmons said: ?We support this motion. We believe the rules of the House need to be reviewed.

?We don?t, however, commit ourselves to supporting all the amendments put forward.

?We think it is right and wish that the two parties should confer together on issues such as this, and we believe some of the suggestions in this document (from Mr. Barritt) could get the support of both parties.

?By cutting the speeches down we are pleasing our best audience, the people outside this chamber listening on the radio who expect us to say things without a lot of repetition.?

In the true spirit of cutting back on the hot air, the parties agreed that only Mr. Barritt and Mr. Simmons would speak on the motion.