opening of the Progressive Labour Party's conference on Monday night.

In doing so, she went some way to explain the slow progress of the Government, now nearing the end of its first year -- and the challenges facing the party within its own ranks.

Ms Smith's admission that some Progressive Labour Party members had lobbied for jobs and contracts while others had tried to mislead the public on their standing within the party in an effort to trade on its success -- influence peddling -- was a forthright statement which was not without political risk.

The risk comes because it raises the possibility that "cronyism'' has occurred. But Ms Smith's statements that Government does not hire civil servants and that contracts cannot be broken indicate that such efforts were rightly unsuccessful.

Nonetheless, coming on the heels of claims that the PLP was engaging in cronyism in the appointment of Hospitals Board chairman Raymonde Dill as general manager of the Bermuda Housing Corporation, one has to hope that no influence was brought to bear in that case.

Some PLP supporters will argue that such appointments are no different from policies practised by the United Bermuda Party when it was in power. If that were so -- and it should be remembered that the PLP refused to permit its members to serve on Government boards in almost all cases -- the easy answer is that many people hoped that in the "New Bermuda'', such practices would end.

Ms Smith also admitted that the new Government had found that the obstacles to building a new Bermuda were greater than it had assumed on taking office. This she blamed on problems with getting the Civil Service moving.

While the Civil Service was "talented, honest and enthusiastic'', its initiative was stifled and "its ability to respond quickly bound by outdated procedures and practices'', she said.

Ms Smith is right. The Civil Service -- in large part because of the intractability of its members, backed by its union and on occasion by the PLP when it was in Opposition -- has been resistant to changes which would make it more efficient and flexible.

In that context, the appointments of Mr. Dill and now Michelle Khaldun as Permanent Secretary of Education are to be welcomed. If, as good administrators and managers, they can bring about flexibility and efficiency, then their appointments will have been worthwhile. That will be the litmus test for their success because they are by no means experts in their fields.

In fairness, former Financial Secretary Sen. Walwyn Hughes and outgoing Tourism Director Gary Phillips could not claim to be experts in their fields when they were appointed either -- and both had successful records.

But in bringing in outsiders, Government -- with the approval of the Public Service Commission -- presumably is looking for a new broom which can help it to reform the Civil Service.

It is still not clear whether Ms Khaldun will maintain her role as chairman of the Bermuda Land Development Company. As a civil servant she should not, because it will be difficult to maintain her independence as a civil servant if she holds another position at the Government's pleasure.

The same applies to Mr. Dill's continued tenure as chairman of the BHB and the Small Business Development Corporation.

The Civil Service needs to modernise; but it cannot do so at the expense of its own independence from the Government of the day.