Mid Ocean News (12 Aug. 2005)
UBP MP John Barritt's 'View From the Hill'
It isn't just the books we need balanced, it is the exercise of power
EXECUTIVE accountability, Mr. Editor, is no easy thing to achieve. But it’s worth pursuing in my books, if not for ourselves, then for those who follow after us, not to mention those whom we seek to serve. I liked the way in which my colleague Wayne Furbert explained it when he sent up a kind of SOS during one of our many debates in the House on the Hill on one of those many damning reports of the Auditor General: what we need, he said, is a system to help save ourselves from ourselves.
A system, Mr. Editor, of checks and balances – and, no, I don’t mean those kinds of cheques. I mean a system of governance that helps keep a close check on the cheques our Government writes – and to whom, and for how much, and why - and it isn’t just the books we need balanced, it is the exercise of power.
We need two things to make this a reality, assuming there is the political will to move beyond the mere mouthing of the words of “transparency” and “accountability” and “the sunshine of public scrutiny”.
They are: (1) More opportunities in the House on the Hill to do the job, and (2) the election of people who will do the job.
Voters typically decide the latter. But continuing on from where I left off last week, Mr. Editor, I want to share some more of my ideas on the former.
In my view, we need to revise and refine our parliamentary procedures to ensure that there are sufficient, adequate mechanisms in place to enforce the accountability of the executive (read Cabinet) to Parliament. That is the way it is supposed to be – and last week I highlighted one of the long-standing committees of the House on the Hill, the Public Accounts Committee (PAC, man, for short), which was originally established to keep a close eye on Government spending. It requires no major overhaul. It just needs to be beefed up by:
* Increasing the number of members from five to seven;
* Opening meetings to press and public; and
* Giving PAC the power to summon witnesses, including Government Ministers.
Implement these changes and the committee, chaired by the Opposition spokesman for Finance, will soon command attention – and possibly action as well. Remember, Mr. Editor, this is the committee which is supposed to be stimulated into action by the annual and special reports which are made to the Legislature by the Auditor General – and there have been a truckload of the latter in recent times. They have included: Bermuda Housing Corporation (May 2002), Berkeley Institute Senior School Capital Project (October 2002), Stonington Beach Hotel Lease (April 2004), Accountant- General’s Department, Department of Immigration and Government Credit Cards (May 2005).
They didn’t paint a pretty picture either. Hands up then, if you think there have been more questions than answers under the current regime? Now pick up your newspaper and face it - we need to put more bite in the system to make it more effective.
The same complaint may yet be made with respect to the recently-established office of Ombudsman , which is touted as a new and important addition to our current system of checks and balances on Government, which it could be, up to a point, bearing in mind the statutory limitations on the nature and scope of the Ombudsman’s powers of investigation. Cabinet Ministers and Junior Ministers are off limits.
The most critical thing here is that the Ombudsman will operate independently of the Government of the day and report directly to the Legislature – much like the Auditor General. Good stuff. But to my mind the Ombudsman will be that much more effective if there is a standing committee of MPs who can work through her reports and her findings and her recommendations, much like PAC is supposed to do with the work of the Auditor General. Unfortunately, the PLP Government made for no such provision in the legislation which governs the Office of the Ombudsman, which otherwise has the potential to be something progressive.
It’s about time
GREATER accountability and transparency could come from a number of small changes too. Like the adoption of a modern day Question Period, a standard feature today in so many other parliamentary democracies. Here we still have this quaint old requirement that questions be handed in ten days in advance, and the answers reduced to writing if the questions are not taken up in the House on the Hill before eleven o’clock in the morning. I mean what’s up with that, Mr. Editor?
As a result, over the years we have had the sad, sorry and silly spectacle of Government members filiblustering through lengthy Ministerial statements, congrats and obits, so questions won’t have to be answered orally; and, incidentally, down the Hill, in the Chamber we call Upper, speeches of congrats or condolences are the last orders of business on their agenda. Speaking of Ministerial statements, Mr. Editor, I was interested to learn at a recent Regional Conference of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association (CPA) held here in Bermuda (we played host to members states from the Caribbean, the Americas and the Atlantic) that other jurisdictions not only make provision for a Question Time, but allow members to ask questions of Ministers on issues of the day, including the right to follow-up on matters raised in Ministerial statements. It’s about time we set aside some time to make this happen.
Better in The Bahamas
COMMITTEES need not be where ideas go to die. We also learned at the recent CPA Conference how they can be used effectively. A delegation from The Bahamas led a discussion on the role of parliamentary committees in a parliamentary democracy. They are apparently a staple feature down there --- just as they are in other jurisdictions. Their equivalent of PAC is not just headed by the Opposition spokesman for Finance, it is controlled by the Opposition which is given a majority of members on the committee!
The Bahamian Legislature has also found it useful to employ select committees of members to tackle and report on controversial and difficult issues of the day. For instance, head of the delegation, MP John Carey, a Parliamentary Secretary for Works & Utilities, (apparently even independence did not warrant elevation to the title of Junior Minister), told us that one of the more controversial was a committee established to investigate the lending and mortgage practices of banks in The Bahamas – which has used its investigatory powers to summons bankers and other officials to give testimony.
According to Mr. Carey, the effectiveness of such committees invariably depends on those members who are appointed, but they do at least give ordinary men and women the opportunity to appear and give voice to their concerns as well as a means by which they can become involved in their Parliament.
On the right track
WE in Bermuda are not quite there … yet. From time to time though, we appear to be on the right track. When the House on the Hill went down a couple of weeks ago and rose for the summer, a host of items were held over, some of them, deliberately, for review and comment over the recess. Among the items are: -
* Police and Criminal Evidence Act – all 100-plus pages;
* Parliamentary Election Amendment Act – provision for postal balloting;
* White Paper on Marine Resources in Bermuda;
* The PATI Paper (what forgotten already? Public Access To Information); and
* The Opposition’s Court of Appeal Amendment Act – giving the prosecution the same rights of appeal as the defence.
What we need here at home is a Public Bills Committee which can drive the consultation process and make interaction with Parliament a reality. Where warranted, there could be detailed examination of major and/or controversial legislation and representations invited from members of the public. This committee, comprised of members of both the Opposition and Government - although the latter would obviously have the majority - would have access as well to those who drafted legislation.
Any questions about style, form and substance could be addressed before the Bill reaches the floor of the House on the Hill. We would then see debates where there was disagreement in principle, and where there was agreement there would be co-operation and explanation on the floor of the House (now there’s a change). It wouldn’t necessarily guarantee that every Bill received a thorough airing or thorough examination, but at least the opportunity for that to occur will have been provided.
Cat’s got their tongues
FINALLY, Mr. Editor, what about this: time set aside specifically for Opposition motions? Heresy, you think? But it is done elsewhere. Like the UK, for example, where they actually set aside a day or days for this purpose - and if you don’t believe me you can look it up in Erskine May, the bible of parliamentary practice and procedure. The idea is to give the Opposition a chance to put the Government of the day to the test, presumably on important issues of the day, and in turn the Opposition, the so-called Government in waiting, gets put to the test as well. According to Erskine May : -
“The convention is founded on the recognised position of the Opposition as a potential Government, which guarantees the legitimacy of such an interruption of the normal course of business. For its part, the Government has everything to gain by meeting such a direct challenge to its authority at the earliest possible moment.”
The comment is found in the section headed – wait for it, Mr. Editor -“Censure Motions”. The PLP like to run from those. For instance, we all recall the sorry, sad spectacle when the PLP attempted to prevent the Opposition from even presenting a censure motion on the Minister Who Could Not Be Named – an attempt which the Speaker subsequently quashed.
But if that wasn’t bad enough, when the motion was taken up, deploring the failure of the Minister, Whose Name We Now All Know, to keep his promise to the people of Mary Victoria, Prospect, he and his colleagues moved to vote it down after just two speakers – and the Speaker acquiesced. Some debate.
Once apparently wasn’t enough. A couple of weeks later the PLP cut off debate again – this time on a simple take note motion on Financial Assistance - using their majority to muscle the Speaker and in turn muzzle the Opposition. The Rules provide that the Speaker can resist attempts to shut down debate where it appears that any such motion is an abuse of the Rules of the House “or an infringement of the rights of a minority”.
But, hey, let’s not all beat up on the Speaker. The tradition here in Bermuda is that the Speaker is drawn from the party that wins the Government, and upon his elevation to the chair (we haven’t had a “her”, yet) is meant to renounce and abandon all party allegiance and affiliation, and rule as an independent thinker. I don’t know about you, Mr. Editor, but that seems a bit like expecting Tweety Bird to take control of Sylvester the Cat. In some jurisdictions, they make provision for the appointment of a Speaker from outside the elected Chamber. Such a proposal actually came up for the consideration of the most recent Boundaries Commission, but a majority of the Commission thought the idea was outside the terms of their remit.
Pity that.
But here’s another thought: maybe it ought to be part of the remit of a comprehensive review of parliamentary practices and procedures of Bermuda – and, no, we don’t need independence to make this happen, it is within our power now, helped by a little independent thought.
Time out
Do have a nice summer, Mr. Editor, while I take a little time out.
Any comments or suggestions? It’s jbarritt@ibl.bm.
