Recently in View From The Hill Category

Mid Ocean News (10 Nov. 2006)
UBP MP John Barritt's 'View From the Hill'

IT WAS like I said last week, Mr. Editor: Been there, done that. Several times. All the pomp and the pageantry and the promises that typically accompany the opening of our Parliament , and the reading of a Speech from the Throne, can wear a little thin after a time. This was afterall Throne Speech No.14 for me as MP, for those of you who are also counting, and the ninth under the PLP, although it was the first under their latest leader and now third Premier in four years, Dr. the Honourable Ewart F. Brown - or, as they now prefer to describe themselves, which they did in the Throne Speech: the third Progressive Labour Party administration.

Third time lucky, Mr. Editor? Or third strike and you’re out? That’s the question.

But first things first. We need to spot the difference between the third and the second and the first administrations, although we were warned in the lead-up to the run-off at the Wreck not to be on the look-out for that much in the way of innovation.

The warning came from Minister Paula Cox, and now Deputy Premier, who was supporting the Other Guy at the time. “It seems to me extraordinary”, Ms. Cox was reported as having said in The Royal Gazette, “that someone who served at the Cabinet table, not just as Minister since 1998 but in the role of Deputy Premier for the last three years, to see the fleshing out of ideas which in many ways replicated those already discussed and or actioned by the Cabinet in which he served.”

Touche.

I am not sure that I could have said it better myself, Mr. Editor. But the fact is that we will never know what was in the first draft of the Throne Speech that was written under the Most Recent, Second Former PLP Premier, and how that compares with the words which the Governor read for the New Guy.

But we can guess.

I am sure that, like everyone else, you noticed that which was missing. Gone were the words, Social Agenda, Sustainable Development, and Independence, which had featured so prominently in the Second PLP administration in which, as Ms Cox rightfully pointed out, the Doctor was the Number Two Man.

We were meant to notice.

Old Premier, old words.

He went, they went.

In their place, we didn’t so much get new words but a grab bag of goodies, some of which we have heard before and some of which will be need to be fleshed out, if not thought out. Costed out too, I hope; although you have to wonder where the money is going to suddenly come from to fund this latest rash of new programmes and ideas. It’s the speak now pay later plan, I suppose.

Social Agenda may have been replaced by Social Rehabilitation, but it seems to me that some of the same initiatives remain – or ought to. They are being dressed up differently. New Premier, new words.
But nothing can change the fact that the country has been crying out for a housing plan for eight years. Promises have not provided shelter.

For a majority of Bermudians, education has always been about more than bricks and mortar. But bricks and mortar, and more and more bricks and more and more mortar, followed by claim and counter-claim and a secret arbitration, and a bill of $120-million and still counting, and now eight years later the PLP wants to shift their focus (finally) from concrete and glass to teaching and learning.

For those who have been following, the Shaggy “It wasn’t me” defence was once again trotted out on the proposed new hospital. We were told that we were wrong to focus on location, we should have been focusing on healthcare priorities first. Well, excuse me, Mr. Editor, but who is we? It was the PLP Cabinet afterall that led us down that garden path when they went along with the choice of the Botanical Gardens as the best site. Oh, I forgot: I am supposed to remember that was the Second PLP administration this is the Third.

Hundreds of thousands of dollars later, and after many lost months, and now a change of leader, they tell us they think they have it right now. The PLP Government is now going to focus on what services the KEMH should provide before deciding costs and location. Sounded like a plan to me. Finally.

Hundreds of thousands of dollars later and no mention of Independence. Not a word unless you count the comment in the Throne Speech that Bermuda is “constitutionally advanced”. Nice of you to recognize that. But what people want to know is is we or ain’t we going to let the people decide the issue now?

A couple of portfolio changes, a couple of recycled Ministers, and the return of a couple of Ministers from the First Administration, and suddenly everything old is new again. Mistakes are also meant to be forgotten. I don’t know about you, Mr. Editor, but as one senior politician whispered to me at the conclusion of the reading of the Throne Speech (and he shall remain nameless so as to protect the guilty): we’ve seen it before and heard it before.

Mid Ocean News (03 Nov. 2006)
UBP MP John Barritt's 'View From the Hill'

WHAT’S it been then Mr. Editor? Sixteen weeks since my last report from the House on the Hill – and, yes, we’re set to come back. As a House columnist, I thought I would warm up readers with some random musings prior to The Big Day, the Opening of Parliament, which is not to be confused with De Day which was last Friday up at Devonshire Wreck; although the two are inextricably linked as all eyes will be focused on the new Premier – and the newest most recent one, assuming he shows – as well as on the new team who want us all to believe that they are truly and honestly a team again, after all the words and barbs of the preceding weeks – and I’m only talking about the ones that made the front pages of The Royal Gazette, Mr. Editor.

Call them united now: The new United Progressive Labour Party – or UPLP for short.

Not that I mean to make light of their division, Mr. Editor. Pardon me but I’ve been there and done that, and I have the tattered and torn T-shirt to prove it.

The official line is that it was an exercise in democracy.

A very good line that. It was more or less – depending of course as to whether you were in or you were out when it came to voting or part of the group that was voted out. A lot was said leading up to the vote in the exercise of one democratic right which cannot be taken back or re-written – and that was revealing too.

Some of the more telling remarks were made by Minister Paula Cox who actually had some strong, fighting words in support of Alex Scott when she announced her candidacy to be DP in The Royal Gazette.

“I think if people conducted themselves with more integrity and decorum and put the interests of the country first we would have less public blood-letting”, Ms. Cox was reported to have said. Ouch.

“Having looked at the platform [of Dr. Brown]”, she continued, “I didn’t see anything that was distinct of innovative, particularly because much of the attributes of the former Deputy Premier was that he was seen as a man of innovation”.

Ouch again.

It may have been a good thing for Ms. Cox that she was elected Deputy Premier in her own right. She’s obviously no Brown-noser. Nevertheless her appointment to the Cabinet and to Finance was no surprise. But perhaps the return of the Burch was. The Colonel had previously been the object of some strong criticism and derision by one of Dr. Brown’s vocal supporters, Julian Hall, who not so long ago described him as a public relations train wreck – or words to that effect.

But hey, I suspect that the good Doctor recognizes that the need to develop unity in the ranks was the prescription here. At least for now.

As former US President the late Lyndon Baines Johnson put it: in politics it is sometimes better to have them inside the tent rather outside – and no mention here of the bodily function to which the late President was referring, Mr. Editor.

On the other hand, the return of Ministers Bascome and Lister was no surprise. They were among the new Premier’s earliest and strongest supporters dating back to Day One – the day the doctor lost his first bid to be Leader and they were shown the Cabinet door.

Speaking of the PLP Cabinet, some of the public exchanges leading up to the vote had to make you wonder about who was actually making decisions at the Cabinet. We saw both the incumbent and challenger back off any number of important decisions in their lead up to their run-off: like the siting of a new hospital in the Botanical Gardens, or the on-again off-again maybe-on-again but off-again issue of independence.

It must have been everybody else at the Cabinet table. Or maybe they are all singing Shaggy’s hit song: It wasn’t me.

Time will tell. It’s uncertain as to whether the Throne Speech will. the Speech is meant to be the outline of the Government’s legislative agenda for the forthcoming parliamentary year – typically very long on words but in inverse proportion to what is actually achieved - and the document is usually drafted and to the printer the week before.

Mid Ocean News (14 July 2006)
UBP MP John Barritt's 'View From the Hill'

MAYBE, Mr. Editor, this is as good as it is going to get up here in the House on the Hill before we break for the summer recess. The agenda looked – and was – pretty light last Friday:

Amendments to the 1972 Fisheries Act, one of the purposes of which was to establish licences for recreational fishermen, the actual implementation of which Government decided to delay by amending the amendments.

l The substitution of a whole new Endangered Animals and Plants Act to replace the 1976 Act which was really an update on which both parties could agree – and did; and

A resolution to approve the sale of the leasehold interest in 11 Southside cottages for a term of 120 years in the form of a blank cheque: it did not state at what prices and to whom and on what terms
– to which we could not agree.

It turned out to be a full day though – thanks in part, Mr. Editor, to Ministerial statements which got us off to a slow start. There were five of them in total, the longest and largest and arguably most important of which, was that of the Minister charged with Government responsibility for Public Safety, Randy Horton.

A statement, any statement, on criminal activity, in view of recent events, was bound to be topical and timely – and welcome.

This one was 13 pages long and took the Minister almost half an hour to read. He started by talking about the tragic deaths of 17-year-old Derick Paynter and 26-year-old Travis Smith, the promising cricketer from St. George's who was Cup Match MVP the first year he played in the Classic; the drive-by shooting; handbag snatchings; break-ins and cycle thefts which statistics show are on the increase; not to mention the general lawlessness – which he did mention – which now manifests itself in town and country gangs.

Minister Horton wanted us to know that any suggestion that his Government "is doing nothing" to address the problems is "irresponsible and untrue". He listed the following:

A Police Task Force charged specifically with tackling handbag snatching and robberies, which becomes yet another special unit in a list that includes the Police Support Unit (PSU) which targets violent offenders, in addition to the Violent Crime and Traffic Enforcement Team and the Tourist Crime Unit, as well as the Serious Crimes Unit at Prospect and the Narcotics Enforcement Team and Community Beat Officers (and that presumably, Mr. Editor, is where all the policemen are, if you're wondering why we don't actually see more officers out and about, on the streets).

The employment of the services of a New Jersey police officer experienced in policing gang activity as well as a new Assistant Commissioner from the UK.

The introduction and use (finally) of CCTV cameras in the Court Street area and talk of plans to extend coverage into other areas of Bermuda like handbag snatch haunts in the Pitts Bay Road-Rosemont Avenue area (that's must-see TV, Mr. Editor, and if cost is a factor, why not scrap those plans for a Government station, please ), and

An admission that the Police Service is some 40 officers below full strength with plans to step up recruiting here and abroad.

Whew! Comprehensive you might think, Mr. Editor, except that the Statement contained no mention of the ugly, vicious and cowardly attack outside Docksiders earlier in the week. That was left to others – on both sides of the House – to condemn on the motion to adjourn. The commitment to crack down on crime was also called into question when, a few days later, we learned that the police, for all their special alphabet task forces, had still not been around to even interview the victim and get on with identifying the cowardly attackers.

Connect the dots, Mr. Editor, the public do. These are the origins for the growing lack of confidence in public safety – regardless of what the Minister says or what he says that the statistics say. Public perception can be difficult to shake.

But if you're a Government Minister you can always attack the Opposition and blame the messenger; and so it was that Education Minister Terry Lister went after his Shadow Neville Darrell with a misplaced vengeance in his Ministerial Statement – number two on the day.

The Opposition Shadow spokesman for Education had publicly questioned the graduation rates at CedarBridge Academy and given voice to the concerns of some of the teachers there. It could have made for an interesting and illuminating debate, Mr. Editor, but it didn't – and here's why:

The Minister got to launch his attack on Mr. Darrell (and answer the concerns) through a prepared statement.

Members are not permitted under the Rules to question or even respond to the statement or its content at the time of delivery, and
Mr. Darrell had to wait until the Motion to Adjourn to engage in debate – which he did – but that was some four or five hours later as it turned out.

The clash – if you can call it that, Mr. Editor – highlighted once again the continuing need for overdue reform of the House Rules. It's been almost 30 years since they were last reviewed and revised. There was the Minister complaining that his Shadow had asked parliamentary questions with the press before they were answered (which is contrary to practice, not the Rules), and the Shadow complaining that the Minister has in the past simply refused to answer some of the questions he has asked (which is contrary to practice, but not required under the Rules). The same Rules also require that the questions be submitted in writing ten days in advance and there is no provision that allows questions to be asked of Ministers on issues of the day, such as the issues that they raise in Ministerial Statements. Meanwhile, we might like to think we're a modern Parliament and they call themselves progressive. Go figure.

This brings me nicely to two of the other Ministerial Statements, Mr. Editor, delivered by the Premier. One of them was on sustainable development and the development of a plan that started in March 2005 and is now about to be shared with the public for their further input, and by the way, he said, if you want to help cut down on traffic congestion take the bus to work once a month like he said that he is going to do to "lead by example".

Hmmn.

If we are talking of leadership by example how about cutting back voluntarily on the numbers of cars on our roads, starting with some of those GP cars? But it was the second statement that particularly caught my attention. The Man was giving us an update on the Public Access to Information legislation; PATI, for short – pati-cake pati-cake, bake me some legislation as fast you can. Well, actually, it won't be that quick, Mr. Editor. The Premier is hoping he might be able to table something next year.

OK we'll see – but don't hold your breath. We've had promises like this before. Remember, for instance, the amendments to the Parliamentary Election Act and provision for absentee balloting? A draft was tabled before we broke for summer last year.

We haven't seen or heard a whisper since. The need to provide for absentee balloting was first raised by the UBP by motion in the House back in November 2002 when the then PLP Government under Dame Jennifer promised they would get on with it: one election later, and another fast approaching, and still nothing.

What's an Opposition to do? Our leader Wayne Furbert tabled a motion last week deploring Government's failure to get on with it. We can but try.

They're not into it

TRYING is what it can be, Mr. Editor, when you do try. Take, for instance, the debate on the Southside cottages. The written resolution simply called on the House to approve the sale of the leasehold interest for 120 years.

There was a plan attached which showed the 11 cottages and prices for each one, ranging from a low of $775,000 to a high of $1.1 million. The Bermuda Land Development Act – which we only recently amended – requires the prior approval of both Houses of the Legislature (Down the Hill and Up the Hill) "for any lease or letting".

There were no leases attached. There were no commitments to prices – the attachment was only that, an attachment – and no information on to whom the cottages would be sold, and on what terms.

This, Mr. Editor, is precisely the sort of information we expect to see when it comes to the sale of Government property. It has also been the practice with previous sales – under different but similar legislation.

There was no explanation or justification for this deviation from transparency – and ultimately lack of accountability. Face it, Mr. Editor. They're just not that into it.

There was also some question as to how they arrived at the prices. They seemed awfully high for Government housing given the current crisis.

"This is not a sale of affordable housing," explained the Minister In Charge in the House, Minister Without Portfolio, Walter Lister. Apparently, the sale proceeds are going to be used to fund the construction of the failed Bermuda Homes for People project, the lottery that was but wasn't.

Defending the proposed sale prices, Minister Lister said they were going to be set ten per cent below market price. "Ten per cent is a bit of relief," he claimed.

"But for whom?" shot back UBP MP Trevor Moniz, "that's what we want to know." Quite.

We don't know and you won't know unless they tell us – and they won't.

Good time

SUMMER recess may be on us quicker than we think, Mr. Editor. No new legislation was tabled on Friday gone. We're down to two Bills – Ministry of Finance matters which ought not to detain us for any length of time – and three motions.

It's hard to see how this will keep us busy beyond this week. To mangle a line from Mr. Berra, Yogi of baseball and now AFLAC commercial fame, we may not know when we will rise for the summer but we're making good time.

Mid Ocean News (07 July 2006)
UBP MP John Barritt's 'View From the Hill'

UNFORTUNATELY, Mr. Editor, there is nothing like getting the day off to a bad start. It does little for the disposition and there’s every chance it will influence (badly) the rest of the day’s events - and that, sir, is exactly what happened last week in the House on the Hill.

Telecommunications Minister Michael Scott was leading the debate for Government on amendments to the Criminal Code – stiffer penalties for sexual assaults and other related offences. He wasn’t just standing in for the Attorney General and Minister of Justice (who sits in the other place, down the Hill). We were told that he was, in fact, the Acting Minister because Senator Mussenden was abroad.

But that’s not why the trouble began.

It started shortly after Minister Scott began reading from his prepared Brief when he told us Government intended to make further amendments to the amendments. He said that the changes were as a result of representations from the Judiciary with whom, we presume, they consulted after drafting and after tabling the legislation in the House.

The purpose of the original amendments were to increase the maximum sentences judges and magistrates can hand out. However, it was apparently the considered view of the Bermuda bench – after they were asked - that magistrates should not have the power to sentence offenders to any longer than five years imprisonment. So initial attempts to give them sentencing power of up to ten years were to be scrapped. Government also intended to add a couple of new offences which had apparently been overlooked the first time around; two offences were to be dropped from the initial list as well, as we later found out.

I have said it before, Mr Editor: It’s not brain surgery that we are being asked to perform each week on the floor of the House on the Hill, but it would be nice to have better notice of what we are being asked to approve, especially when we were being asked at the last minute to cut and paste legislation.

The first we learned of the amendments to the amendments was halfway through the Minister’s presentation when he directed the Government Whip, Ottiwell Simmons, to share copies of the changes with us. The trouble with that was that were insufficient copies for all of us on the Opposition benches - and no, Mr. Editor, I don’t know what they knew on the PLP side of the aisle or when they knew it if they knew it.

It did not get any better either, Mr. Editor, when the Minister finished reading from his Brief and sat down, he said, to hear the views of other members.

He heard them alright, but it was not what he wanted to hear.
The Opposition had not yet even received their photocopies and when we did – as we were subsequently to learn –we were missing a page.

A comedy of errors?

Farce is more like it.

There we were, Mr. Editor, going back and forth, complaining that this was no way to do the country’s business. I remembered the caution of former colleague and senior politician Jim Woolridge: no bull in a hurry ever made a calf. This is how mistakes get made – and missed. In this case, if there was going to be calf, there was a risk it would be two-headed with two different sets of amendments flying around, one of them icomplete.

Bull-headed is how Government appeared to those of us on the Opposition benches as speaker after speaker on our side exhorted the Minister to do the right thing and rise and report progress to give us time to study the changes and consult; in short, to give us time to do our homework.

Mid Ocean News (02 June 2006)
UBP MP John Barritt's 'View From the Hill'

OKAY, you’re right, this was not our finest hour. But it happens, Mr. Editor … and last Friday it happened in the House on the Hill.

Two speakers: one long and the other short; the first for and the second against; and then a form of parliamentary brinkmanship of wait and see. Each side waited for the other to speak first; the Opposition looked to the Government; Government to the Opposition; and when no one rose, the Speaker had no choice but to bring debate to en end.

In the end, myself (and others) were caught looking.

It happens – and, Mr. Editor, this isn’t the first time debate has collapsed in this way in the House on the Hill, and I doubt it will be the last, absent any serious changes to the Rules – which is to raise once more the subject of reform, a favourite subject of mine, as you know, but not of the powers that be; although perhaps now it has piqued the interest of a few more members of the listening – no, scratch that – watching public.

Of course what was surprising, to some, Mr. Editor, was that this happened with this particular Bill, most especially in view of all the advance publicity which it had received, its purpose, and the controversy it had attracted. But therein probably also lies the explanation.

That this was a Private Member’s Bill in the first place spoke volumes too. It came to us not as a Government Bill, but as an amendment to Human Rights Act proposed by one of their backbench and former Cabinet Minister.

Its purpose was to make unlawful discrimination on the grounds of a person’s sexual orientation – just like it is unlawful to discriminate against others for example on account of their race, religion or political beliefs or because they were born out of wedlock: in short, the Bill was looking to extend and ensure equal protection for all from discrimination under the law.

Ms. Webb put the case when she spoke first – as she was required to do as the private member who brought Bill. She took just under 90 minutes and gave a comprehensive account of the need and the reasons for the Bill.

The public gallery to her immediate right was pretty full for the debate, and it included a number of the more prominent and visible and vocal members of Bermuda’s clergy. So full, in fact, that it prompted Ms. Webb to wonder aloud that she couldn’t remember the last time the gallery was so packed. “I do”, shouted out Ms. Pat Gordon-Pamplin, whose memory, Mr. Editor, is as strong as her voice. “That would be when the residents of Mary Victoria came up here to flog Glenn Blakeney and the Government [for their plans to build more homes in the neighbourhood – which were subsequently abandoned]”.

On the other hand, Mr. Editor, the Chamber wasn’t so full for the whole time Ms. Webb was speaking – not that that is that unusual when it comes to debates in the House on the Hill. Members do have a habit of drifting in and out from time to time, and they are able to keep an ear on what’s going on inside the Chamber through radios in the communal committee room and in our respective caucus rooms. Meanwhile, the Speaker had informed us at the start of the day that three members had written to say that they would be absent for the entire day, abroad, for various reasons: namely, Ministers Michael Scott and Terry Lister of the PLP Government and Mrs. Louise Jackson of the Opposition UBP.

Mid Ocean News (26 May 2006)
UBP MP John Barritt's 'View From the Hill'

HANDS up then anyone who thinks the House on the Hill is often no more than a rubber stamp. We’ll pause for a moment, Mr. Editor, to allow readers to pick up their newspapers before I share with them how events last Friday were a classic example.

There were four pieces of legislation which the PLP Government wanted to amend. It made sense to take them up on the same day. We were told that we were being asked to give Government, and three quangos, Bermuda Housing Corporation, WedCo and the Base Lands Development Company, the power to grant leases for periods of up to 120 years with the proviso that any lease longer than 21 years must come to both the House and the Senate for approval by way of resolution.

Minister Without Portfolio Walter Lister led the debate for the Government. He was subbing for the real Minister who isn’t a House anything except spectator. He’s a Senator who sits in a place down the Hill which we on the Hill are required to refer to as “other”.

But Minister Lister came prepared. Sort of. Someone somewhere in the service which we call civil, had put together a brief which he could read to us.

This was his first point: the overriding objective was to have the power to grant leases up to 120 years across the board.

Okay, but why?

What we heard was this:

1. The advice they had was that WedCo and BLDC could only give leases for up to 21 years, and the BHC leases up to 35 years; and
2. Prospective and potential developers were “clamouring for longer periods” to obtain a return on investment.

Minister Lister, a former chairman of WedCo, as he reminded us, said that during his tenure the West End body was “prohibited on a number of occasions” from granting leases longer than 21 years. Some of us always thought that WedCo had the power, it was just that it has to first obtain the approval of both houses of the Legislature.

Never mind. According to Minister Lister, the legislative change “proves once again that Government is listening”.

Really. You have to wonder, Mr. Editor.

A senior PLP MP serves as chairman of WedCo, which is charged with development of the Dockyard area, but complains in its annual reports that the body is being thwarted in attempts to encourage development by the inability to grant long term leases, which can be cured by a relatively straightforward and simple amendment, and it takes this long to act. The last time I counted, Mr. Editor, the PLP are well into their eighth year in power.

The listening part may be easy; the acting part isn’t, I guess.
Still, inquiring minds wanted to know: what can Bermuda expect to see as a result of the legislative changes? Who were these people who were clamouring for leases of up to 120 years and what do they have planned?

The questions were asked but there were no answers.

Sure, PLP MP Ottiwell Simmons conceded, “one hundred and twenty years is a long long time”. But, he said: “people will be better off”.
Meanwhile, his PLP colleague Glenn Blakeney chastised the Opposition for even taking up the points of why – and what for. “They need to take the veil off their rose-coloured glasses, Mr. Speaker”.

But not one of them, Mr. Editor, not even the Minister in charge, could tell us why Parliament was being asked to now give the Housing Corporation the power to not only grant leases up to 120 years, but mortgages as well.

Mid Ocean News (19 May 2006)
UBP MP John Barritt's 'View From the Hill'

Here's a Government that can talk by the mile and move by the inch

FOR a moment there, Mr. Editor, I thought we were on to something last Friday – maybe even a breakthrough in the House on the Hill.

Government and Opposition appeared to be working together. The day’s agenda was going to include an Opposition motion –and at a reasonable hour. The PLP had indicated through their whip that they only intended to take up two pieces of legislation and they were looking to the United Bermuda Party to bring on their motion to consider the benefits of whistleblower legislation for Bermuda.

The motion – in my name – had been on the Order Paper since late November, but the opportunities to take it up had been quite limited. Unlike some other jurisdictions, we have not had a history and practice in Bermuda of the Government and Opposition working together to agree on a set time for Opposition motions. It just doesn’t happen and the Opposition takes up its motion when it can, which is often at the end of a long day , sometimes in the dead of the night, when members are tired and uninterested and irritable and hungry and restless and unprepared. It rarely makes for productive and scintillating debate.

So there I was on my feet shortly after three in the afternoon leading off a very serious and important and timely debate initiated by the Opposition: and that was that the House take note of whistleblower legislation in other jurisdictions, and in particular the Public Servants Disclosure Bill of Canada, and consider the benefits of enacting similar such legislation for Bermuda.

If you’re thinking there must have been a catch, Mr. Editor - because there usually always is in politics – well, you’re right .Why Government were happy for us to take up our motion soon became apparent when Cabinet Minister Randy Horton led off the debate in reply for the PLP. They had their own angle on this one. They had in mind a debate not on our motion but their own, as Minister Horton quickly moved an entirely new motion really, although he tried to call it an amendment.

The PLP wanted everyone to take note of Government’s criminal law reform programme to date “and the Government’s commitment to further reform that will include whistle blower legislation”. Someone somewhere in the swivel service had prepared a brief and that was the approach which Minister Horton just had to get it out – which he did, even though the so-called amendment was withdrawn.

It wasn’t long before the gloves were off, either.

The PLP Minister questioned the Opposition’s motives for bringing forward the motion at all – which overlooks the fact that the Auditor General has been recommending such legislation for two years now and that it comes on the heels of another damning Annual Report on the state of Government’s finances.

“We will never be fooled or misguided by the Opposition”, declared Minister Horton, “and neither will the people of Bermuda”.

That moment was gone – and debate was on.

It ended five or so hours later when Mr. Horton’s Cabinet colleague, lawyer Michael Scott, moved once again to amend the Opposition motion.

The PLP now preferred that the motion read that we take note of the Whistleblower legislation of other jurisdictions “and within the context of Government’s criminal law reform programme consider the benefits of such legislation to Bermuda.”

The Speaker asked us whether we objected – and why would we? The PLP were desperate to make a change that really didn’t amount to much of a change. Sadly, the recommended legislation is still (only) to be considered.

The PLP Government had failed to actually commit to its introduction. Instead all they did was opt to have the last word on their amended motion which was adopted without objection. It looked once again like all talk and no action proving once again how the Government can talk by the mile and move by the inch – and invariably in opposite directions.

No micing, Mr. Editor

STILL, UBP MP Grant Gibbons thought he saw what he termed “a ray of hope” in the prepared PLP presentation. Dr. Gibbons noted that it was only recently that the Attorney General was reported as saying that “further cross-Ministry work is required before a definitive position can be reached on whether there is a need for such legislation”. On top of that, their official responses to date to the repeated calls for the legislation by the Auditor General in his last two Annual Reports have been lukewarm, at best.

Mid Ocean News (12 May 2005)
UBP MP John Barritt's 'View From the Hill'

AFTER an eight-week recess, Mr. Editor, it looked like we were in for House Lite. The PLP were proposing to take up on only two items on the agenda, both of them minor and pretty straightforward and unlikely to engender much in the way of debate – particularly when they also had the support of the Opposition United Bermuda Party.

But unlike the beer commercial, Mr. Editor, Lite on the Hill doesn’t necessarily mean less filling..

It wasn’t the legislative agenda that kept us there until after six in the evening. There was plenty else to keep members going, starting with a slew of Ministerial statements – there were seven-up in total– which took a total of six different Ministers just about an hour to read … to us and the listening public.

When it comes to Ministerial statements, Mr. Editor, listen is all any of us can do – aside from the odd interpolation from those of us who have a front row seat in the House. The Rules provide no opportunity for questions or debate.

But listen we did, intently, to the first statement, that of Minister for Finance, Ms. Paula Cox - and it didn’t take us long to cotton on as to why the Minister was taking so much time to explain the role of Auditor General in the governance of Bermuda. The Minister knew what was coming.This was also the day the Auditor General happened to publish his latest Annual Report, this one for the year 2005, and, as we now all know, it wasn’t exactly complimentary.

But the Finance Minister’s statement gave us a clue.

For instance, Ms. Cox told us that:

• The Auditor General tends to focus on what’s wrong and not what’s right (mind you that’s his job);
• That “a sea change” in financial accountability had been launched within the civil service;
• That reform and improvement in financial reporting had been “jump-started” with the re-establishment of an Internal Audit section;
• That there were now a total of 25 qualified accountants on the job in Government; and
• That this new wave of accountability had been enhanced by the establishment of the Office of Ombudsman and by “the introduction” of a Freedom of Information Bill - which, incidentally, hasn’t actually been introduced: what we have had is a Discussion Paper and while legislation was promised, we were told that actual implementation would be 3 to 5 years away .

Mid Ocean News (16 Dec. 2005)
UBP MP John Barritt's 'View From the Hill'

HERE we go again, Mr. Editor, the usual last-minute rush on the House on the Hill as Government piles on the legislation on the eve of the Christmas recess. It's back to the future, you could say, bah, humbug, as it seems that the more things don't change, the more they stay the same. Surprise, surprise.

Your Progressive Labour Party Government tabled ten new pieces of legislation last Friday and told us to be prepared to do them all this week along with six other items they just happen to have on the agenda.

You want some idea of how ridiculous that is, Mr. Editor? In the six sittings we have had since Parliament was opened by another P in November, we have tackled a total of 11 pieces of legislation, and that includes the gert big, mammoth PACE Act for which we set aside an entire day.

We're being asked to take them up on a week's notice – when the usual practice is to give members two weeks to review and consider – and over a week in which we scheduled the special sitting on Monday to tackle PACE (the Bill, not the speed of debates). There are some important matters too, in those ten new pieces of legislation, which merit a good airing in the House:

There is what appears to be enabling legislation for tax information exchange agreements with other jurisdictions; and,

Amendments (finally) to the Timesharing (Licensing and Control) Act; and,

Changes to the Motor Car Act which will see the introduction of "passenger trucks" as well as trucks for hire; and,

A re-write of the Hotel Concession Act which apparently hasn't turned out to be the great shot in the arm for tourism that it was once proclaimed to be.

They're just four of 13 Bills we may be taking up in a day – lucky us. It could turn out to be a long last day before Christmas as we in the Opposition try not to rubber stamp our way through the country's business.

Meanwhile, some extraordinary effort was at least attempted with PACE. A whole day was set aside. But it was always going to be heavy going, especially when it came to clause by clause examination of the Bill – which is what members are expected to do in the House on the Hill.

This Bill has 103 clauses. It is 109 pages long. In the end, we agreed to examine and approve it by section (six in all) and members raised questions about any of the clauses as we went along. It wasn't scintillating and, frankly, it wasn't as thorough as it should have been and could have been. The irony? PACE is intended to raise standards and to increase professionalism when it comes to policing in Bermuda. Like I said in the House, if you want the job done you have to give the people responsible the proper tools, resources, money and support.

Oh my, Mr. Editor, doesn't that sound familiar?

No made-up makeover

YIKES, Mr. Editor. Now we know why they delayed answering our questions about Clifton. We thought the costs were running into the hundreds of thousands – and I suppose they were, but little did we know that they were $1 million and counting.

A further $450,000 will apparently be spent on the new home for the Premier as the PLP budgeted the sum of $1,459,836 for the housing project. That compares to the last estimate we had of $500,000 in March from their former Housing Minister, Ashfield who DeVent from the Cabinet at the request of P, the prospective tenant.

Instead of the answers last week when we should have received them, we got a press conference instead. I suppose they wanted to give the impression they were explaining without having been asked (not true), and the impression they wanted to give is one which they could try to spin to advantage (true).

Nice try, but the headline the next day in the Royal Gazette said it all: "Premier's $1.5m makeover." It also made room for Saturday's too, arising out of another set of PQs (parliamentary questions) which had set down for answer by my colleague Michael Dunkley about four suspended police officers, two ousted prison officers and one sick firemen: "Dunkley: Why is $750,000 being wasted? Taxpayers face big tab for suspensions, sick leave."

This, Mr. Editor, on top of other recent disclosures of PLP spending – the African Diaspora Conference ($162,000) and the Bermuda Independence Commission ($335,000) – and people start to get some idea of the PLP priorities when it comes to spending the People's Money, funds collected from the taxpayer.

No wonder then that they want voters to think of Clifton as the People's Home – what does that make Camden then? The People's Second Home? – and that the money is an investment in property owned by the Government.

By the way, and just for the record, Mr. Editor, here are the answers to our PQs on what's planned for Clifton, which we received in the House on Friday, the day after the press conference, one week after they were supposed to have been given:

Internal renovations (House & Apt) $786,611
Furnishings (House & Apt) $240,000
Exterior works $276,000
Infrastructure $78,000
Professional Services $79,225
Total: $1,459,836

That, Mr. Editor, was their accounting of the budget, and no, they did not tell us for whom the apartment has been renovated. We asked as well for an itemised list of expenditures to date and this is what we were also told:

Salaries $14,282
Consultants $73,712.50
Interior Designer $9,648.16
Maintenance Materials $32.05
Contractor Payments $772,379.17
Building Section $163,663,02
Total: $1,033,716,90

If we want to know any more about the People's Home, I presume we'll have to ask again. Meanwhile, I can tell you there are a group of seniors just up the road, Mr. Editor, who will wonder how it is that the PLP Government couldn't find the funds to invest in actual Homes for People to spare them dramatic increases in rent. I suspect too, that they are not alone.

Mid Ocean News (09 Dec. 2005)
UBP MP John Barritt's 'View From the Hill'

ASK and you shall receive. Well, not always, Mr. Editor – and at least not always in the House on the Hill. Parliamentary questions last week for the Government from the Opposition stand as a case in point.

If you travel in and out of town via the Middle Road in Devonshire, you will have noticed a recent upsurge in work on one of Government’s more visible housing initiatives –the property known as “Clifton”, once home to whomever held the post of Chief Justice but more recently earmarked as the new residence for the Premier. So the Opposition went to work too, and asked Government the following questions for answer last Friday: -

* What’s the nature and extent of the work being undertaken at Clifton?
* What was the budgeted cost for the work inside and out?
* What’s been spent so far and on what ?

We have been hearing all sorts of figures, in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. But we didn’t get the answer we were expecting. The fact of the matter is that we got no answer at all. There was no explanation either in the absence of written answers.

Just silence.

We checked and double-checked and discovered that the questions had been received in time –nine “clear” days in advance, Mr. Editor, in accordance with the Rules – and that they had been passed on by the Clerk for answer, also in accordance with past and current practice.

So we wait - and waiting is apparently all that we can do, too. There is no mechanism in the Rules to compel the Government to answer, and no sanction if they do not. The Speaker could intervene – if he wanted to - but again the Rules neither authorise or require him to do so.

Meanwhile, this is the same PLP Government that has before the House a Paper on how to provide for better public access to information – which, if all goes well, will see a legislative scheme for disclosure up and running by the year 2011.

I have to tell you Mr. Editor, at the risk of repeating myself, that we don’t so much need legislation as we need the will from the PLP to share information on a timely and a regular basis – and I am not talking about the kind of information that’s likely to be shared on must see Government TV.

I’m also talking about answering the hard and not so pleasant questions – particularly on the floor of the House in the sunshine of public scrutiny.

On the other hand, Mr. Editor, perhaps the PLP thought that one spending shock per week is all the voters can take. Give the Premier his due, he did after all answer in writing one other – again straightforward question – which we asked: the cost to the taxpayer of the Bermuda Independence Commission? $335,252.66.

I don’t suppose nine “clear” days were needed to research that answer.

They certainly weren’t needed to answer three other questions which had been asked about the terms of the consultancy contract which had been granted to Colonel David Burch by the Minister whom the Premier subsequently dumped – the youngest black male in his Cabinet, Ashfield DeVent.

In his new capacity as the Minister Who Replaced Ashfield, the Colonel told everyone at the bottom of the Hill, in the Senate, less than a week later, that he had been hired for eighteen months at the rate of $12,500.00 a month or $150,000.00 a year, and that he had in fact been paid $26,346.16 over the 67 days he was employed – a rate of just under $400 a day.

Colonel Burch gave the information by way of a Ministerial statement in that “other place” – as we in the House are required to refer to the Senate – rather than just have the answers shared in the House where the questions had been asked.

The word up from the Minister who replaced Ashfield was that he will soon be hiring a replacement consultant – but the new person will only be paid $8,000.00 a month.

By the way, it also sounded very much like the new Minister was aggrieved that we singled out just his consultancy agreement this time around. After all, he said, there were close to 100 other Government contracts but we asked only about his.

Good suggestion.

We’ll make a point of asking the necessary PQ.

It seems, Mr. Editor, if you don’t ask, they won’t tell.

Mid Ocean News (02 Dec. 2005)
UBP MP John Barritt's 'View From the Hill'

ALL in a day’s work, you might say Mr. Editor: One piece of legislation designed to curb bad habits on Bermuda’s roads (we hope), a set of regulations to increase landing fees for all planes landing at our airport (we expect), and two take note motions – one of them on Government’s plans to step up protection of the marine environment around our shores, and the other on an accounting of the accounts of Government, i.e. how they spend the money they collect each year in taxes. Then to top the day off we had one or two dust ups on the motion to adjourn - Berkeley again - and we weren’t done until after nine o’clock in the evening.

It was all pretty civil too – until members got to that motion to adjourn.

We started on the road to co-operation with the Bill to introduce the demerit or points system for Bermuda’s road users. Offences are going to be assigned points. You rack up a dozen and you’re done: off the road automatically, all vehicles, up to six months. This was another initiative which found favour with the Opposition. Not surprisingly. As the UBP spokesman for the day, Wayne Furbert, pointed out the points system was first muted in a Discussion Paper on Traffic and Road Safety produced by the UBP back in December 1997. He ought to know too, he was the Transport Minister at the time.

The wheels of government grind slowly. Seven years later it’s finally on the road to implementation.

Debate focused on how it will work – and whether it will. One key ingredient doesn’t require legislative change. It requires commitment. More policemen on the roads at the right times at the right places if we are truly going to get on top of bad driving habits in this island. That won’t necessarily be sufficient either. We need follow-through too. While technology makes possible coordination between the courts and TCD - between the two of them they will be keeping track of the accumulated points –human application will still be required to make the scheme work.

But there’s hope. The changes won’t automatically become law. There’s provision in the legislation for the Minister responsible to delay its implementation – and for good reason.

Explained Minister Dr. Ewart Brown: “We will embark on a sustained period of public education on this Bill to both advise the public of its contents and importance and to also allow our police service and courts to become familiar with the proposed system”.
Good. We would like to see this new law work.

The price of freedom

NOSTALGIA was the catch of the day when we took up the Government White Paper on the Marine Environment and the Fishing Industry (?) in Bermuda. Government Whip and recreational fisherman, Ottiwell Simmons, dropped the first line.

“Please Minister”, he pleaded, “don’t let the environmentalists become so serious about the environment that they take away all of its joys and pleasures”.

Mid Ocean News (25 Nov. 2005)
UBP MP John Barritt's 'View From the Hill'

Poor planning, plain and simple - or as one wag said: 'It's a good job these guys aren't running the country'

WOULDN’T you know it, Mr. Editor. We sit on the Monday for 16 hours to get through the Throne Speech debate, finishing up at three thirty in the morning on Tuesday, and then on Friday of the same week we’re all done after four hours and out for the day by two o’clock in the afternoon. Go figure.

But let me give you a little help along the way. It’s poor planning, plain and simple.

I told you last week how we could easily have spread the Throne Speech debate over two days, possibly three, and still have gotten on with any bills or motions or business the Government wanted to take up. It’s done elsewhere and it’s a practice that we’ve followed before.
But the Government a.k.a. the PLP get to call the shots. They wanted the debate over in a day – even if it went into the early morning hours. We presume that they didn’t want to subject themselves to the Opposition spotlight for more than a day, although the official line from the PLP was that they have lots of business they want to get on with, and they want to get it done before we break for Christmas.

Business, huh? What business?

We learned on Thursday that the PLP intended to only take up three of their seven items on the agenda – all of them quite simple and straightforward and unlikely to engender much in the way of debate. As it was the Opposition actually supported all three: amendments to the Motor Car and Auxiliary Bike Acts so as to permit the refusal of vehicles licences in cases where there are unpaid court fines as well as regulations for what we hope will become widespread use of defribrillators.

There were four other items which could have been taken up by Government which they chose not to do: the introduction of the demerit or point system for traffic offences (which the Opposition has also proposed); new landing and air navigation fees (the cost of flying in and out of here); and the PATI paper (PATI? Don’t tell me you have forgotten already: Public Access To Information). They have all been held over, I’m guessing, to give us something to do this week.

Three new pieces of legislation were tabled:

* The Clean Air Amendment Act which, according to the Bill’s Explanatory Memorandum, is designed “to enforce the Ministry’s enforcement capability”.

* An amendment to increase the number of people who can serve on the Bermuda Hospitals Board; and

* A Taxes (Rates) Amendment Act which will see cruise ship passengers become liable to a daily departure tax rate of $20 per day or part of any day.

The Minister Without Portfolio Walter Lister also proposed three take note motions. He wants us to take note of the financial statements of the golf courses for the year ended March 31 2001; for the BLDC for the year ended March 31, 2004; and for the Housing Corporation for the year ended March 31 2005. It’s nice to see this new-found enthusiasm. We wait to see the purpose.

Bottom line, Mr. Editor: Perhaps the pace will now pick up, and we’ll soon find the House in better order. However, as one observant wag was overhead to say on the way out the door on Friday : “It’s a good thing these guys aren’t running the country”.

Point.

Mid Ocean News (18 Nov. 2005)
UBP MP John Barritt's 'View From the Hill'

CALL me crazy, Mr. Editor, but there I was at two o’clock in the morning rising to my feet in the House on the Hill to deliver my own Reply to the Government Throne Speech. It took me about 50 minutes. But you have to wonder whether anybody was actually listening at that hour aside from the reporter from The Royal Gazette whose job it is to listen, or at least to appear to be listening, and to make sense of it all for the newspaper the following day. Good luck to him, Mr. Editor, along with a good night’s sleep, I hope, before he started typing up his notes.

And I wasn’t the last speaker either. That distinction fell to George Scott of the PLP who spoke after me for just under half an hour.
So for those of us who were still there at that hour - not everybody does stay to the bitter end: can you really blame them? – we didn’t make our way off the Hill, in what appeared to be varying states of consciousness, and back home to our beds until three thirty or so in the morning.

So here I am the next morning writing this column and thinking – as I hope all of my colleagues were – and please no cracks about how thinking can be a dangerous thing – that there must be a better way to do the country’s business.

Of course there is.

One of the practices around here over the years has been to spread the Throne Speech debate over at least two sittings - and look to adjourn each day at a reasonable hour. This would appear to be give more members an opportunity to speak at reasonable hours as well. In fact, we did do just that as recently as last year, and while we rose fairly early in the night on the first day I seem to recall that we went rather late into the night on the following Friday.

The challenge is to get members to limit the length of their speeches, voluntarily.

Mid Ocean News (10 Nov. 2005)
UBP MP John Barritt's 'View From the Hill'

THERE we were, Mr. Editor, back from our summer recess, sitting under the shade of the Big Tent on the manicured lawn of the Cabinet Office, listening as attentively as we could to a Prince; no, not the Prince who plays basketball for the Detroit Pistons, and not the son of Michael Jackson, and not the artist who was formerly known as Prince. No, this Prince was the real deal: Prince Andrew, His Royal Highness, the Duke of York, British royalty no less, and the occasion was, as most people know, the opening of Parliament and the reading of the Throne Speech.

I think the Prince later said that it was his first time – reading a speech for the Throne on behalf of his mother, the Queen, not just in Bermuda, but anywhere. It was my first time too – listening to a Throne Speech in my capacity as MP being read by someone other than the Governor of Bermuda.

I thought the Prince did a pretty good job too, reading a speech which he had not written. That was done for him by our Man in Bermuda, the P and his Cabinet – and that of course is the way Throne Speeches are done. They are an outline of what the Government plans to do in the parliamentary year ahead.

The Prince also showed a pretty good sense of humour ( and some local insight as well, I thought) when he misread thirty months as thirty years for the time which Government plans on taking to build 330 new rental units.

The still, solemn atmosphere of the occasion was punctuated with almost instant, unabashed laughter all around when the Prince said it would take thirty years, and when he promptly corrected himself, not once, but twice; and more emphatically actually the second time around, Mr. Editor, when the guffaws continued in some, but not all quarters.

If he didn’t know then why the mistake was so funny, I’m certain someone filled him afterwards – and it would not necessarily have had to have been the Shadow Minister for Housing, Wayne Furbert, such is the PLP track record on housing after seven years in power. People have heard the promises before.

I was going to say that this was also the first time that I can recall enjoying a really good laugh at the reading of a Throne Speech. But on reflection, Mr. Editor, that would be quite disingenuous of me as a member of the Opposition.

The difference is that you don’t normally laugh out loud. That isn’t done – and it certainly isn’t expected.

The ceremony is after all a serious and special occasion on the political (and social) calendar, replete with all the pomp and pageantry that goes with the parade that marks the re-opening of Parliament: the Bermuda Regiment soldiers resplendent in black and red striped trousers with white tunics, led by the stirring sounds of their world-reknown Band; a horse-drawn landau with the Prince and H.E. in stiff, starched whites; and MPs and Senators as well as a host of other officials and dignitaries making their way into the shade of the Big Tent by way of a red carpet laid over the lawn; and let me tell you, Mr. Editor, negotiating carpet draped over grass is no easy feat ( pun intended) – it can bunch easily and my sympathy goes out to those of my colleagues who wore heels. The last thing you want to do it trip and fall flat on your face on such occasions. Luckily for us the paparazzi in Bermuda are not so overwhelming.

Ask The Colonel

THE Prince of course had the only real speaking part and the Throne Speech took about 30 minutes – although it might have seemed longer to those, like the soldiers in the Bermuda Regiment, who were at attention in a surprisingly warm, November sun. Spare a thought for them, Mr. Editor: we were seated in the shade and they were standing ...the whole time.

Some quick thoughts then on what I heard and on two items that stuck out. I defer to the Official Reply of the Opposition which comes next week from Leader the Hon. Dr. Grant Gibbons.

On Independence: The Premier and his Government are going to continue to push the issue – surprise, surprise – notwithstanding what the polls are saying. They are promising more public meetings to “educate” the public about the conclusions of BIC, to be followed by a Green Paper ( a discussion paper for Parliament) and then by a White Paper outlining Government’s proposals for an independent Bermuda. No mention of decision by referendum or general election or simultaneous general election and referendum or general election followed by referendum or …. or what? My guess is that people are going to get this education whether they want it or not. In the meantime, we will have to vote with our voices and our feet.

A Government Information TV channel: I wonder who thought this one up and why? I mean if the true intent is to simply promote Government services and programmes, it can’t be cost effective. Surely it’s easier and less expensive to buy the time on the local stations? I was going to say just ask the Colonel – and I will. But wait a minute, Mr. Editor, this latest brainwave came wrapped with the explanation that this will also be a means “to increase Bermudian content on the airwaves and provide an opportunity for young people to enter the field of public media”.

Something fresher than Fresh, I presume ? I wait with interest to see who did the costing research on this one, and whether we will ever see a copy of the study which recommended this course of action.

You have to wonder too, who will be watching: Those waiting in lines maybe, like at Immigration and Customs at the airport?

Speaking of television, if given a choice, I would have thought that maybe the time had come to explore televising the proceedings of Parliament. This is becoming fairly standard in most jurisdictions and a part of the development of accountability and transparency for better governance. As The House Turns, All My MPs etc. etc.
But all jokes aside, Mr. Editor, it’s a show that might actually draw some viewers and have some (positive) effect on parliamentary performance.

3 x 35 = 2

TRADITION has it that when the House first meets no other business is taken up other than the reading of the Throne Speech. Excepting for that quaint feature, Mr. Editor, of congrats and obits – and after a three month recess there were a lot of people and events to be remembered. It took members well over an hour to get through this portion of the agenda, even though each MP was (as always) limited to three minutes in total: I mean it can take up two hours, give or take, if all 35 speak to the limit.

Some of us sought to use our three minutes wisely by associating ourselves with the congratulatory remarks or condolences of previous speakers. Just like PLP Whip Ottiwell Simmons tried to do when he began by saying that he wished to associated with “most” of the condolences which he had heard thus far.

“Most?”, inquired Minister Terry Lister, leaning back in his seat to ask his question of Mr. Simmons, adding: “Which ones then do you not wish to be associated with?”.

We all got the point – smiles all around.

Remembering 11/11

NO Ministerial statements, Mr. Editor – and why would there be? The Throne Speech is meant to be The Statement of the Government. Their day in the sunshine, you might say. But we might reasonably count on a raft of them when we next meet. That’s when Dr. Gibbons will get to present the Opposition Reply – and the Reply doesn’t come up on the order paper until after Ministerial Statements which can, in both number and length, distract and delay from what the Opposition has to say. Watch for it.

By the way, the House won’t be meeting again until Monday the 14th. It can’t be Friday as usual, as this week it is Remembrance Day when we remember those who fought and those who died so we could actually enjoy the freedom of a Parliament - no matter the day we meet.

Enjoy, Reggie

BEST wishes in retirement, Mr. Editor, to former MP and Senator Reggie Burrows of the PLP. He was one of those who was remembered on Friday in congrats and obits for his 37 years of service in the Bermuda Legislature. I was reluctant to join in ( but did anyhow) as we thought he had retired when he quit membership the House on the Hill in 2003, only to return as a Senator for two years. Reggie assures that this time it is for real and there were those on both sides of the House who were moved to wish him well. I can’t help but think that if all members, myself included, had the temperament of Reggie Burrows – or even half of it, Mr. Editor – the House on the Hill would be a very different place. Televised or not.

So much then, for the system, being to blame.

Mid Ocean News (04 Nov. 2005)
UBP MP John Barritt's 'View From the Hill'

IF at first you don’t succeed, Mr. Editor, try, try again. On the other hand it’s often good political advice to put down the shovel and stop digging when you are in a hole. Either way it is never over until it’s over, and it doesn’t look like the P’s push for independence is going to end any time soon. For those who have been following along, and God bless you if you have been able, we now appear to be moving into options that remind me of the football pools and the permutations punters play to pick a set of sure score draws that actually never do occur.

To summarise, in recent weeks we seem to have gone from decision only by general election; from no jurisdiction ever made the decision by referendum to, sorry, our mistake, maybe there have been some after all; to decision by general election and referendum on the same day; to decision by general election followed by referendum.

On the bright side, it looks like there’s at least some shifting towards what people prefer – a referendum; assuming, Mr. Editor, that it is shift and not spin from The Man who put the extra P in PLP.

I guess that we will hear more on the newest version in the Throne Speech which, while read by the visiting Prince, will have actually been written by the P and his Cabinet, not to mention how BIC also gave them the perfect cue to prolong a debate on independence which BIC could not get off the ground except possibly among the captive audiences of schoolchildren who had no choice.

After all their work BIC came up with a six-pack of recommendations which - surprise, surprise – also serve as six good reasons to encourage the PLP Government on: -

1. The PLP Government should open dialogue with the people of Bermuda on the topic of independence and present its proposals on “the type of government and constitution and all related matters”. BIC: The Sequel, I presume – which also assumes the proposals of the PLP Government will be different than those which the PLP party made to BIC under the auspices of The Man Himself. Go figure.

2. The PLP Government should consult closely with international business companies to remove “any uncertainties” that might arise from a debate on independence and to make sure “myth is separated from reality” by keeping them fully informed. Good idea, close consultation: but shouldn’t this be standard operating procedure with all of us? When it comes to separating myth from reality, Mr. Editor, whose myth and whose reality are we talking about? How about some listening too?

3. Go back to the UK Government and ask them to reconsider withdrawal of British citizenship upon independence. At least that’s an acknowledgment of its value, but haven’t the British already made their position clear, not just to us on any number of occasions but to others as well? They may wonder of course what part of NO we do not understand.

4. The state of race relations in Bermuda needs to be improved, although we do not necessarily need independence for that to happen. BIC suggests “a process of truth and reconciliation” but gave no details on what they had in mind. The P has told us he has plans on this front which will be unveiled in the Throne Speech and I assume he has in mind something more than lessons on how to operate a Blackberry (or write a column).

5. Get from the FCO a list of all Bermuda’s treaty obligations. I don’t know about you Mr. Editor but I would have thought that might been the sort of work which would have been undertaken by a Commission appointed to inquire into independence.

6. I felt the same way too, about this sixth and final recommendation: Government should conduct a review of all international opportunities that currently exist (in international organizations of which we are members) and “the many additional prospects should Bermuda proceed to independence”. The many? But apparently not so important or so obvious or so great to be investigated and reported on by BIC in its Report.

So much then for the comprehensive, fact-finding approach which we were promised by P when he first appointed the Commission. Turns out it ain’t.

Like so much about the report and its findings, Mr. Editor, its selectivity and its language, the discerning reader may hear the voice of Jacob but sense the hand of Esau..

Getting it

BY the way Mr. Editor, before concluding on BIC, let me pause for a moment and see if I have got this straight. I did read - with more than just a passing interest - that advertorial which ten of the fourteen Commissioners paid to have published in The Royal Gazette last week.

They explained to us that BIC only published in the Appendix those submissions to which reference was made in the body of their Report. If there was no mention, the submission was relegated to a the summary found elsewhere in the Appendix. The UBP submission was on the need to decide the question by way of referendum and how it had employed for that purpose in other jurisdictions. But as BIC had asserted in the body of the Report that it found no instance of where a referendum was used to decide the question of independence (which they now say was a mistake) the submission of the Opposition wasn’t mentioned and thus didn’t qualify for publication in the Appendix.

Oh, a kind of convenient Catch 22, I guess: If you’re in, you’re in; if you’re not in, you’re out – mistake or not.

Mr. Editor, I could not make this stuff up if I tried.

Fallen soldier

ASIDE from more on independence in the Throne Speech, I expect the PLP will continue with the Social Agenda theme.

We might hear something on housing. Last year there was the promise of a new Housing Initiative Team, and the promise of a housing programme. Instead what we now have is a change of Ministers. Now I have had my disagreements with Ashfield DeVent, and he has faced up to the criticism, but from where I sit he looks very much like the Fall Guy to me. He gets appointed by P to take on the Berkeley mess (which P created when he was the Minister responsible) and Ashfield takes the heat for axing Pro-Active ( which was a collective Cabinet decision) and soldiers on with a housing programme (which never actually materialised), and stand up for the struggling Bermuda Housing Corporation following the scandal and criminal investigation and millions of dollars being written off, (all of which he inherited from his predecessors in the PLP because it happened on their watch).

Lucky guy, Ashfield.

But who ever said politics was fair? It isn’t.

A ThreePeat

A couple of other items to keep an eye out for –important holdovers from last year:

Parliamentary Election Amendment Act: a move to introduce (finally) absentee balloting which, in the last version which was tabled, didn’t actually provide the right to vote by absentee ballot to everyone. If the amendment isn’t amended, you still won’t have a vote if you happen to be traveling abroad on either the day of the vote or the advance poll.

PATI: the much ballyhooed public access to information paper which does not seem to have excited the masses. Not surprisingly, I think: the information which most people today want are straight answers to their questions .We are being told that this legislation may not be in place until 2011. I’m all for it, Q, but we are not inventing the wheel here. For instance, there’s a draft Bill in circulation in the Caymans.

P.S. I like the idea of a Whistleblower’s Act too. That shows where you really stand on disclosure, transparency and accountability.

PACE: This bill – Police and Criminal Evidence Act – wasn’t taken up before we rose for the summer. It is modeled on the UK Act and their experience and trumpeted as part of the tough new PLP Government package on law and order. What will be interesting to see is whether or not the PLP have in fact been tough in face of behind the scenes criticisms from attorneys of the Bermuda Defence Bar. One of the more contentious, but significant parts of the Bill, in the fight against crime, was the inclusion of a provision which allowed magistrates, judges and juries to draw adverse inferences from defendants who choose to remain silent in certain circumstances when accused of a crime. Did they or did they not back down? Inquiring minds will soon know.

Horsefeathers

FINALLY, Mr. Editor, speaking of independence, the BIC report and the Throne Speech, the following tale comes to mind. It isn’t original, but it is apt.

It’s about the young boy who was eternally optimistic. Too much so. Or so his parents thought. While they sincerely admired his optimism, and regarded it as a good trait, they thought that he also needed to learn that life also had its difficulties as well as its challenges and thus its disappointments. So one Christmas when his expectations were high, they put horse droppings in his stocking.

When on Christmas morning the young boy discovered what was there, he was visibly crestfallen. But not for long.

“Oh, Mum and Dad”, he shouted out – unable to contain himself any longer. “ I know what this means: it means that there must be a pony around here, somewhere!”
There wasn’t – and there isn’t.

Remember, remember, the fifth of November.
Happy Guy Fawkes Day No. 55 everybody.

Mid Ocean News (28 Oct. 2005)
UBP MP John Barritt's 'View From the Hill'

LIKE you, Mr. Editor, I am never surprised by the growing number of people who seem to have the answer to our problems, but not the solution. Independence for Bermuda, and those who push for it, appear to fit comfortably into that category. BIC included. Let’s go to the Report for an example of what I am talking about. This time it is about the way in which we govern ourselves – or, more accurately, the way in which we allow ourselves to be governed. The passage to which I am referring is found in a chapter entitled “Findings of the Commission” in a short section headed “Political”:

“The Westminster style of government has served Bermuda well; however, the challenges facing Bermuda today demand a change in this inherent adversarial approach”.

We could quibble about the use of the word “style”. But I think we know what BIC meant. It’s the system – and the Westminster system of parliamentary government is decried because, in the eyes of the Commissioners, the political parties (I assume they mean both PLP and UBP) spend too much time in the Legislature trying to score political points, and, further, according to BIC, the fundamental issue of what’s right or wrong for the country takes a back seat to the political balance sheet.

Strong stuff, Mr. Editor – and who am I to disagree? But the criticism is not new. We have it heard before – for some long numbers of years in fact, and not just under the PLP but the UBP as well. Speaking for myself, I think we do not spend enough time actually debating the issues of the day: too much time and effort in the House of Assembly has long since been given over to the laborious reading of lengthy statements and prepared briefs by Government Ministers. This worst trait is best illustrated when the annual Budget rolls around in February when you can see for yourself just how choreographed and predictable and tedious debate has become. But I digress. Back to the Report and the Commissioner’s recommendation:

“The challenges facing Bermuda today require that there be a change in this style of governance.”

A change in the style of governance: what’s that got to do with independence, Mr. Editor? Nothing, in my view. But as long as we are on the subject let me make a few of my own observations and, yes, this won’t be the first time I have gone on about the need for parliamentary reform in Bermuda. We can change the way in which we govern ourselves now. We don’t have to wait until independence. All we need is the will to change and a willingness to act. But the PLP Government has shown itself to be steadfastly uninterested, if not flat out against any suggestion of parliamentary reform. Attempts to bring about reform in the House of Assembly have either been rebuffed or allowed to languish without action within the Rules and Privileges Committee, a committee headed by the Speaker and controlled by a PLP majority.

This isn’t rocket science. Nor is it radical surgery. We have fallen well behind the modern practices and procedures of other parliamentary jurisdictions whether they are to the west of us, the east, the north or the south.

Meanwhile, selected local parliamentarians traipse off annually on all expenses paid trips to conferences and seminars organized by the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, of which Bermuda is a member, where they are exposed to presentations on changes and improvements which have been made to the Westminster system of government, all of which have been designed to bring about and have brought about better governance.

Mid Ocean News (21 Oct. 2005)
UBP MP John Barritt's 'View From the Hill'

FIRST the sugar, Mr. Editor: I actually thought the BIC Commissioners presented a pretty fair summary of the opinions for and against Independence near the end of their Report – see pages 62 through to 66 inclusive entitled "Opinions Offered in Oral and Written Submissions".

In fact, Mr. Editor, you might even say that that they appeared to have gone out of their way to be fair as they seemed to have made a point of listing an equal number of opinions for and an equal number against Independence.

But the rest of the Report, Mr. Editor, was in my view not so even-handed. The early critics alighted on the obvious. There was little or no fairness when the Commission chose to highlight "Myths and Misconceptions" and "The Benefits" to Independence, but gave no separate and equal treatment to "The Drawbacks" and "The Facts".

Mere superficiality? I don't think so, Mr. Editor, when compared to the reported analysis and findings in the rest of the Report; and most especially when you bear in mind that the Man Who Set Up The Commission, aka "P" The Premier, told us at the outset that the appointment of BIC was to be "a comprehensive, fact-finding, analytical and reasoned approach".

You can, of course, read the Report yourself to make up your own mind (don't wait for the movie), but it seems to me that what the Report does is traffic in opinions and is itself an opinion on the way in which Bermuda should go on this question of Independence.

We don't just get facts, but the facts which BIC thinks important – even if they get some of them wrong. The biggest clanger was the assertion that the Commission in its research could uncover "no instance" where the issue of Independence was determined by means of referendum. Some research, Mr. Editor – which tells you a lot about the scope and the depth of the work which the Commission undertook.

This calls into question not only their objectivity but their credibility when you consider that the entire UBP submission was not only about the need for a referendum, but even went further and actually catalogued for the Commission those countries which had decided the issue of Independence by way of a referendum.

But there's no sense letting the facts get in the way of an opinion, Mr. Editor, when you are on a mission to convert – and, of course, as we also now know the UBP submission didn't even rate inclusion in the published Appendix. Such was the disdain, it seems, for a submission the Commission didn't want – or didn't want to hear. Or to read either, it seems.

We might understand BIC's apparent disdain for the UBP, Mr. Editor: First, the Opposition UBP didn't agree to put one of their own on the Committee (few lambs ever volunteer for the slaughter) and, secondly, the UBP declined an invitation to make an oral presentation to BIC (we all knew that when BIC wanted an opinion, they gave you one). We cannot, however, excuse BIC's disdain for the facts.

Subtract and Divide

Take another example: in the section entitled "Race" under the heading "The Divide" we get a mention of the polls. Good. The reported polls in Bermuda have been reporting some consistent positions on the issue of Independence. But here's what you find in the Report: "Recent polls indicated that an overwhelming percentage of the White population oppose Independence".

Okay, that's worth noting and worthy of comment too – which the Commission gladly does, to the extent of even quoting one of their own presumably as proof of the truth of what they believe.

What really gets your goat is that this was the only finding on which the Commission elected to report – and the omission of other, equally significant poll results, once again reveals a lot. Those same polls have consistently shown that a majority of Bermudians are against Independence, and that while an overwhelming percentage (80 per cent) of white Bermudians are against, a pretty good majority of black Bermudians (58 per cent) feel the same way.

That majority, which cuts across racial lines, is deliberately ignored. Yet, later in this same Report, we find this poignant lament: "Bermudians have been focused for many years on the issues that separate them, potentially because they have failed to embody successfully that which they share."

Well, excuse me, Mr. Editor, guilty as charged: in reporting on the polls, the Commissioners in their Report chose to focus on that which separate Bermudians and not on those positions which they reportedly share.

The fact of the matter is they couldn't bring themselves to acknowledge in the Report even the existence of this strong majority of black and white Bermudians who have been pretty consistent in their opposition to Independence for Bermuda, not to mention the equally strong majority of white and black Bermudians in favour of a referendum to decide the issue.

Mind you, Mr. Editor, and to be fair, there was one instance in the discussion on Race where there was some attempt to acknowledge a shared position of white and black Bermudians – even if it was in a kind of a back-handed, snippy sort of way.

I quote the passage in full: "There is, however, one fundamental theme that seems to be common to both Blacks and Whites, albeit with some variation. Bermuda has developed into a very materialistic society. (The emphasis is mine).

"Successive governments have tended to define the measure of success of the economy and society in starkly material terms. Consequently, there is little evidence that any real effort has been made to initiate meaningful programmes to truly bridge the manifest racial divide.

"Bermuda, whether Independent or not, will have to ensure that the historical legacy of racism and its effects are addressed. Both Blacks and Whites do, however, share the concern of how Independence will affect them materially.

"It would appear that what will satisfy both Blacks and Whites is the assurance that the constitution of an Independent Bermuda will be one that is strong, inspires confidence and truly attempts to represent the interests of all citizens."

Dollars and sense

Materialistic, huh? But really, Mr. Editor, wasn't that one of the points of the exercise – if not the point for many: what will Independence cost? Can we afford it? What will it bring by way of improvements not just to our way of life but our standard of living, and what might be the risks?

And no one need apologise for engaging in this type of analysis. Most Bermudians, black and white, undertake such analyses every day. Can we afford this holiday? Can we afford to send our child away to school this year? Can we afford to purchase a home? How will we finance them? What can we reasonably expect in terms of expenses and can we make provision should the unexpected (and the worst) occur? What might we have to give up to make it happen?

The approach is not so much materialistic, Mr. Editor, as realistic – and when it comes to dollars and sense, realistic, frankly, is to be preferred in my books. On the price tag, the Commissioners also got it right when they stated in their opening paragraph under "Estimated Costs of Independence": "The final cost of Independence can only be determined when Bermuda has made the decision to go Independent and the Government of the day has made various policy decisions on the scale upon which an Independent Bermuda would conduct its affairs."

True that: BIC can speculate all it likes on estimated costs, giving us a range from a low to a high or, as people have said in the past, depending on whether we travel the route of the Volkswagen or that of the Rolls Royce.

But who is to say what the number of embassies there will be and the size of the missions? Although the good people of Bermuda know how this really works. Governments promise this but deliver that and the expenses rarely go down but up ... and up ... and up ... and ...

The voters have had some very real and recent experiences under the PLP Government to which they can point – and we don't have to look far to see how the millions mount whether it be the Bermuda Housing Corporation scandal and the millions of dollars that had to be written off there according to the recent reports of the Auditor General, or the Berkeley construction project where the overspends are in the tens of millions of dollars and still counting.

Not to mention the general funding of the operation of the Government and the style to which the PLP Government has grown accustomed. I take the following three line items from the annual Government budgets over the last seven years to illustrate the point:

Travel: A reported expenditure of $2,055,00.00 in the financial year 1997/1998 compared with an estimated expenditure of $5,138,000.00 for the current financial year 2005/2006 – an increase of $3,083,000.00 or up 150 per cent.

Cabinet Office: From $1,953,000.00 in 1997/1998 to $3,128,000.00 in 2005/2006 – an increase of $1,175,000.00 or up 60 per cent.

Professional Services: From $29,267,000.00 in 1997/1998 to $47,097,000.00 in 2005/2006 – an increase of $17,830,000.00 or up 60 per cent.

You wonder too, about the priorities of a Commission which projects that as much money will be spent on Independence celebrations (from a low of $500,000.00 to a high of $1,000,000.00) as will be spent on the careful and comprehensive work that would necessarily be expected to precede Independence through a constitutional conference and legislative review (the costs of which are estimated to run from a low of $350,000.00 to a high of $1,000,000.00).

Mind you, Mr. Editor, the Progressive Labour Party in their submission took no stab at costs, probable or otherwise.

But that's not so surprising. We must understand that there are those among us who want Independence regardless of the price. For them costs are not an issue.

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).

Mid Ocean News (05 Aug. 2005)
UBP MP John Barritt's 'View From the Hill'

Is anybody listening? Parliamentary reform in Bermuda is long overdue

THERE you have it, Mr. Editor, Parliament is down and out now that we have risen for the summer recess – and, yes, that’s right, we won’t be meeting again for another three months. That’s more than enough time to pause and reflect and take stock of the work which we perform in the House on the Hill, which means that it is time to get serious and take up a favourite topic of mine: parliamentary reform. In my books, and you have heard me go on about this before, it’s long overdue.

More next week, Mr. Editor, on what further changes can be made to not only provide for greater accountability and transparency, but for greater participation by both MPs and the people they represent.

I can see how that might be so: Parliament may well be viewed by those outside its chambers as a small, relatively exclusive club of 36 members, with its own language and practices, most of which seem designed to exclude rather than include voters between elections.

Mind you, Mr. Editor, there are a good number of people who follow the debates closely, and while some of them might eschew the clash that comes from confrontation on the Hill from week to week, the fact is they also enjoy the entertainment that political theatre can bring to the local scene. There are only so many shows in town and this one comes to you live on the radio.

Don’t get me wrong either. Debates are important to the political process: parties set out their respective positions and voters get the measure of their MPs from what they have to say (or don’t say) on the issues of the day.

Mid Ocean News (27 July 2005)
UBP MP John Barritt's 'View From the Hill'

Maybe Reagan had it right . . . politics is more show business than it is the people's business

SO it was Mr. Editor, that the House on the Hill went down for the summer on Friday, not so much with a bang as with a whimper (not counting the closing clash of the motion to adjourn).

But all in all, it was anything but the End which late Ronald Reagan would have recommended. The actor turned politician was convinced that politics was a lot like show business. Keep the plot simple, he recommended, start off slow and end with a really Big Finish.

But give the Government their due. They at least tried. Their Man In Charge led the charge when he began the last day’s proceedings by reading not one, not two, not three, but four prepared statements that took him just under an hour to get through. They were clearly designed to impress us all, not so much by their length, although there was that, but by their contents.

For those who do pay attention on the Hill, it was déjà vu all over again. The same format was employed last year when we broke for the summer at the conclusion of Year One of the Reign of William Alexander the Great and Not So Great Scott - depending of course on your point of view, Mr. Editor, although to Renee He is simply to be known as The Man.

Mid Ocean News (22 July 2005)
UBP MP John Barritt's 'View From the Hill'

PLEASE, Mr. Editor, let’s have no suggestions about turning off the power for the House on the Hill on a regular basis but the fact of the matter is that things went pretty well when we had to make up for the loss of Friday on Monday and did what was originally meant to be two day’s work in one.

It did mean that we didn’t get home until after eleven o’clock at night – for those members who stayed until the end and not all do, Mr. Editor – but the day’s work saw the passage of six pieces of legislation and debate on one Opposition motion (which was curtailed again), and this after the usual assortment of Ministerial statements (three of them, all of them on the BelCo blackout), some congrats and obits (the Fire Service and BelCo featured prominently, but for congratulations not condolences), all of which was roundly capped by a skirmish on the motion to adjourn.

I don’t expect that it was any kind of record, but the pace definitely picked up and makes a summer exit before Cup Match a distinct possibility. I couldn’t say the Chamber was electric either, but I can confirm that the air conditioning was working – and that helped.
The first sign of any political heat was generated about mid-day when Health Minister Patrice Minors took us through a Bill which brings an end to the National Drug Commission.

It’s going to be lights out for the NDC as a quasi- independent statutory body in the war against drugs. With the repeal of the National Drug Commission Act, it will become just another non-statutory advisory body within the Department of Health within the Ministry of Health and Social Services. Like the Road Safety Council or the Water Safety Council or the Air Advisory Board or the Trucks Advisory Committee within the Ministry of Transport, explained the Minister, as she sought to re-assure members, in the face of fierce criticism of the move by the Opposition, that the work of the NDC would not be stymied.

We were told the move was part of a holistic approach. That word again, last uttered by the Member Who Could Not Be Named to describe the PLP approach to Bermuda’s housing crisis. Hole-istic is more like it – an approach with holes in it. Minister Minors took offence and thought that we were making light of a serious matter. She explained that in her dictionary holistic meant treating the whole person and not just the symptoms of the disease and that the co-ordination of treatment will be improved through integration into the health system of Bermuda.

Mid Ocean News (17 July 2005)
UBP MP John Barritt's 'View From the Hill'

TALK was tough last Friday, Mr. Editor, when both sides of the House on the Hill spoke in support of legislation to crackdown on thugs who carry weapons, mostly in gangs. Hard work too, for those members of the House, Mr. Editor, who stuck it out for the eight or so hours it took us to see the Bill through.

The crackdown came in the form of changes to our Criminal Code which was first introduced almost 100 years ago (yes, that’s right, it was originally an Act of the Bermuda Legislature dated 1907), although there have been amendments from time to time down through the years. But this time MPs were being asked to approve a mixed bag of changes, 47 pages worth, ranging from revision of our counterfeiting laws, to the wholesale incorporation of provisions of the UK Theft Act, to the offence of aggravated vehicle taking. The amendments also included that very simple change which will allow jury trials to continue where jurors fall ill or are discharged providing the number of jurors doesn’t dip below ten, in number. But the provisions which pre-occupied members and took front and centre in the debate were those which were aimed at stamping out machete madness.

From the outset, there was broad agreement that something has to be done.

Mid Ocean News (15 July 2005)
UBP MP John Barritt's 'View From the Hill'

TWO sittings in four days, Mr. Editor, Government sure was in a hurry. To catch a cab? Not really. To catch up? Again, no, not really.

For my money – the usual two cents' worth – the special sitting on Monday was simply to get GPS by the House on the Hill, by the taxi drivers and by the community, and to keep the Opposition and the fuss to a minimum, demonstrating yet again that all's fare in politics.
I mean we all understand that this was the third time around for this Bill but to spring a surprise sitting for its passage? Now that's extraordinary. We in the Opposition were not told there was going to be a sitting on Monday until the Thursday morning, a mere four days before.

Third time lucky then? Luck had nothing to do with it. This was by design. Numbers were bound to be down. Members are part-timers and have other job commitments. A Monday sitting on four days' notice is most unusual. The Government made but one concession: we started at two o'clock in the afternoon rather then the usual 10 a.m. This was no shared ride, Mr. Editor. It was never intended to be.

Only the Minister himself spoke for the Progressive Labour Party Government in support of the Global Positioning System Bill, along with the one backbencher, George Scott, who has an interest in a firm which is intending to supply the product.

Mid Ocean News (01 July 2005)
UBP MP John Barritt's 'View From the Hill'

Premier joins the attack and tries to dismiss the Opposition with spin

TRUST me, Mr. Editor, I am not making this up: but for the second consecutive week there were two pieces of legislation (agreed), one take note motion (no vote required), a short motion to adjourn, and we were done for another day in the House on the Hill. It was déjà vu all over again, as Yogi once famously said – and just to be clear, Mr. Editor, that’s Mr. Yogi Berra of baseball fame, and not the cartoon bear of TV fame.

Now that said, we still weren’t off the Hill, and out of the House, much before nine in the evening. It wasn’t the legislation that detained us. It was the Opposition’s take note motion on anti-corruption legislation in other jurisdictions and the question of whether there was any benefit to enacting similar legislation in Bermuda. That’s where we had some debate. Sort of. You see only three members from the Government benches spoke, and I bet the first two, who did speak, were wishing the third had not. Renee was at it again, Mr. Editor, speaking out after the dream team for this debate of Scott & Scott (a.k.a. the Premier the Man and his Ministerial namesake, Michael) attempted to open and close the defence for the Government.

It was the Opposition Leader Dr. Grant Gibbons who started it all. It was his motion and he spoke first. He had a sample piece of legislation from Jamaica (The Corruption Prevention Act) for members to consider. He described it as “no nonsense legislation” “draconian even” which set some pretty high standards which had to be followed by all public servants in Jamaica.

The Premier, The Number One Scott, in reply saw no need for any such legislation in Bermuda. There was no evidence of any corruption in Bermuda or, as he put it at one stage, “no corruption of any significance”, and again at another stage of his speech “not that rampant”.

Mid Ocean News (24 June 2005)
UBP MP John Barritt's 'View From the Hill'

Pensioner Otti hits back as the Opposition Leader says seniors are taking a beating

HO-HUM, Mr. Editor, just another Friday in the House on the Hill, two small pieces of legislation, both of which were agreed, a take note motion, and we’re done.

That’s not to say there wasn’t any debate. There’s always some, Mr. Editor, and last week it started on the proposed new increases for contributory pensions - benefits up 3.5%, contributions up 4.75% - and ended on the motion to adjourn.

The Minister of Finance and her Shadow got us off to a good start on contributory pensions, and with pensions the spotlight fell once more on Bermuda’s seniors.

The increase is annual, and while Finance Minister Paul Cox said that she didn’t want to make “more of this than it is”, she then went on to describe the increase as yet another indication of what the PLP Government is doing to improve the lot of seniors in Bermuda. Them’s fighting words to MP Louise Jackson, Mr. Editor, who could not be restrained from speaking, ever, on the plight of seniors, and we’ll come to what Mrs. Jackson had to say in a couple of paragraphs.

But first let’s be fair to the Minister of Finance. Ms. Cox did concede the increase wasn’t that great - “miniscule” was a word she used at one stage – but also said that the PLP weren’t just mouthing “empty political rhetoric” (her words, Mr. Editor, not mine) and pointed to the absolute exemption on land tax for seniors, the roll back on stamp duty on death for the primary family homestead (not that they could take it with them), and increase to $1,000.00 worth of prescription drugs free annually under HIP.

Her Shadow, Opposition Leader, Dr. Grant Gibbons, wasn’t too impressed.

Mid Ocean News (17 June 2005)
UBP MP John Barritt's 'View From the Hill'

BRACE yourself, Mr. Editor, I am, because it very much looks like we are in for a long drawn out summer session in the House on the Hill. Legislation is trickling into Parliament at such a slow pace – like molasses going up the Hill, you might say –that as a consequence there is little to keep us occupied from week to week. Last Friday was yet another example. There were two small pieces on bus and ferry fares – which were straightforward and agreed – and we were done with all of the eligible Government business around eleven o’clock in the morning, just about an hour after we started; and that was after Ministerial Statements (3), congrats and obits as well.

I suppose, Mr. Editor, that we could have called it a day there and then and had an early start to the long holiday weekend. But we didn’t, courtesy of the Opposition motion brought on by David Dodwell of the UBP on the need to develop a legislative scheme for economic empowerment.

As it turned out, the emotion which the motion engendered made for a lively debate and kept us there until midnight. The pity was that it was only a take note motion. No vote was required. The draft legislation which Mr. Dodwell had presented could only be discussed: the Rules of the House do not allow the Opposition to introduce Bills which will require the expenditure of Government funds. This Bill – the Economic Empowerment Act 2004 (it was originally introduced last December) – among other things called for:

* The establishment of an Office of Economic Empowerment within the Ministry of Finance (which would cost money); and, perhaps more importantly,

* A commitment by Government to a two-year plan to allocate 20 percent of its annual expenditure on goods and services to small businesses (money again, Mr. Editor, estimated at around $60-million).

But it wasn’t so much what the Bill provided - or didn’t, as the case may be – that got the House hopping, as it was the subject of economic empowerment. There were 15 speakers in all, but only two of them Ministers: Paula Cox from Finance, who went first for the Government, and Michael Scott. But it was the ex-Minister who came between them and who stole the spotlight when she castigated her PLP colleagues for their failure to adopt and implement a systematic plan of economic empowerment for the one group that requires economic empowerment, black Bermudians, or to use her now famous words, “people who look like me”. So give her her due, Mr. Editor, Ms. Webb is proving to be anything but Walk Away Renee following her departure from the Man’s Cabinet.

Mid Ocean News (10 June 2005)
UBP MP John Barritt's 'View From the Hill'

UGH, Mr. Editor, but agreeing with Government is like, well, working to a scoreless tie and a tie, like they say, is like kissing your sister. At least that’s the way it felt for this Opposition member when we found ourselves in agreement with the PLP Government on the proposed new mechanism for determining members’ salaries.

An amendment to the 1975 Ministers and Members of the Legislature (Salaries and Pensions) Act was the only major piece of legislation down for debate – not that there was much else in the way of Government business for MPs to work on in any event.

The objective here is to establish an independent panel to review salaries and make recommendations by the end of this year. The panel is obliged to take into account:

* the remuneration for legislators in other jurisdictions;
* rates of remuneration for senior civil servants;
* economic considerations; and
* any other factors which the Board considers appropriate.

I expect, Mr. Editor, that you get a sense from this as to what the direction the panel is being asked to explore.
The Man Who Led The Debate, a.k.a. the Man, spelled it out even more clearly for those who were listening.

“Bermuda is described as a wealthy country, if not one of the wealthiest in the world today”, remarked the Premier during his presentation, “but it is headed by one of the poorest Premiers”.
It may have sounded like it, but the Premier didn’t just make the pitch for himself. He invited people to look around the Chamber, i.e. at those seated in the House on the Hill.

“It’s no longer made up of people from the landed gentry who step off a yacht to come to the House”, he commented.

“Today”, he added, “most of them step out of small cars or off Mobylettes”. He didn’t mention Peugeots (automobiles or bikes, take your pick), but we knew he wasn’t talking about those of us who don’t sit around the Cabinet table.

Mid Ocean News (03 June 2005)
UBP MP John Barritt's 'View From the Hill'

OUCH, Mr. Editor. The Royal Gazette got it right, it was a dressing down and there was no joy for me last Friday in the House on the Hill. Quite rightly too, my critics will say – and I will come back to one of them shortly. You put yourself in the firing line, Mr. Editor, you can expect to be shot at. With apologies to Sir Winston, the key thing here is not what happens to me, but what happens to the motion which sparked the uproar. The Speaker has given us some hope that the motion will still go forward, at least that’s the way most of us who were listening, heard it.

We await His further direction – and whether or not the PLP will continue to duck and deny the obvious.

In the meantime, I come on to one of my critics: he who writes a column in another newspaper. The phraseology, Mr. Editor, is parliamentary apropos: for instance, when members in the Lower House on the Hill refer to debates in the Upper House down the Hill we are required to refer to the Senate as that “other place”. It’s respectful.

Back then to that other column: it was asserted, not suggested, mind you, but asserted, that it was the wording of the motion which prompted government objections and that the objectionable wording was my use of the actual name of the Minister. It wasn’t that the PLP was trying to dodge a debate, he claimed.

Nice try, neat theory, but nonsense.

Listen to the tape: the Government Whip objected because he thought I should be having a chat first with the Minister (Who Cannot Be Named), who was then joined by the Premier who accused me of misleading the House because the Minister (Who Cannot Be Named) had consulted with the residents of Mary Victoria Road before proceeding with plans to put more homes in their neighbourhood.

Neither of them objected because I had actually named the Minister concerned - or that I had changed the motion. How could they? The wording would only have been known to the Speaker, the Clerk to the Legislature, and myself. Motions are not seen or shared with the other side ahead of presentation – at least as far as I am aware, that hasn’t been the practice in the 12 years I have been in the House.

But – as I confessed – I did actually name the Minister when I read the motion; and the motion, as re-drafted by the Speaker, referred only to “the Honourable Member responsible for Housing”.

My error, Mr. Editor – for which I apologised.

I appreciated too, the Speaker’s acceptance that it was an honest error and one which he had neither spotted nor taken up with me when I moved to introduce the motion.

To borrow one of the Speaker’s favourite quotations – which he used again this time around – from Alexander Pope: “To err is human, to forgive divine”.

No will, no way

BRUSHING up on the Rules of The House has been one positive development for members, inside and outside the Chamber.
The columnist critic (Who Shall Not Be Named) argued that my introduction of the name of the Minister (Who Cannot Be Named) introduced a personal flavour to the motion – a practice, he said, frowned upon in Parliaments everywhere.

It got me thinking.

But wasn’t it the Minister (Who Cannot Be Named) who agreed to a previous motion, that was subsequently agreed to by the House, that he would enter into “constructive dialogue” with the Mary Victoria residents, and who then followed up this commitment with a personal letter to each of the residents, promising them “further consultation”.

I think I was also misled by precedent. I recalled two motions of censure during my years in Parliament: the first by the Opposition PLP on the then Premier David Saul (Who Was Named, in the motion) and then by the Opposition UBP on the late David Allen (Who Was Named, in that motion).

Speaking of motions of censure, the bible of parliamentary practice and procedure, Erskine May, informs inquiring readers that a set period of time is actually allotted at Westminster for the Opposition to bring on such motions, from time to time. This is also a staple feature of the Canadian Parliament in Ottawa where in recent weeks the Opposition party has been taking full advantage of its right to bring on motions probing and testing the strength of a minority Liberal Government.

I have long said that the Rules here need to be overhauled and I have made attempts for change in the past on behalf of the Opposition, but they have gone nowhere …. except to the Rules and Privileges Committee for further study and review ( and, Mr. Editor, I presume that you are familiar with the expression of death by referral to committee?)

You work with what you’ve got though, Mr. Editor. Trouble is, with the Rules we have we operate on the body politic with blunt instruments. Reform is long overdue. I think it has been well over 25 years since the Rules were reviewed and updated to put us in step with modern parliamentary practice elsewhere: yes, Mr. Editor, I think it did happen when the UBP was in power. But unless there is a political will, it’s no way.

The Hunte for change

LET me give you but one more example of the sort of reform we in the Opposition have been talking about. I happened to attend one of those BIC forums at which people who dared, were invited to ask questions. A questioner was concerned about the costs of having embassies overseas – and the (likely) further escalating costs after establishment. Head of the visiting UN delegation, Sir Julian Hunte, sought to reassure him that costs were closely monitored by Finance Ministers and, under the Westminster system, by a Public Accounts Committee of the Legislature which met regularly and publicly and which could summons civil servants to account for themselves and their expenditures. He was of course speaking of the practice in his home country of St. Lucia and that of other modern, parliamentary democracies. He could not have been talking about Bermuda. Our Public Accounts Committee meets only in private and then only when and if it can get a quorum of members.

It’s time the work of this important committee saw the light of day and its powers were beefed up to fulfil the watchdog role it is supposed to play.

The irony here? We don’t need to be independent to make it happen.

Light and less filling

DEBATE on the day was, Mr. Editor, rather civil. You do really have to go out of your way to get into verbal fisticuffs on take note motions – and that’s all we had: first on the history and state of musicians in Bermuda ( and no, the House on the Hill was not alive with the sound of music, although the tone was good) and secondly on the need to curb smoking in Bermuda (consenting adults only, Mr. Editor, preferably in private, behind closed doors). A couple of good lines from each debate:

*The first from the Minister Who Cannot Be Named: he was waxing on about how Bermudians need to loosen up and be themselves. “It must have something to do with our colonial mentality”, he said, describing it as the “stiff upper lip” syndrome. “There just seems to have been a stifling of expression in this country”, he concluded.
I bet that struck a responsive chord with the residents up in Prospect.

*The second from my colleague Michael Dunkley who actually brought some draft legislation to the House, increasing to 18 years the age at which tobacco can be purchased as well as limiting the places where people can smoke. He invited the Government to run with his legislative suggestions and make the necessary changes to the law. There is a long-standing Rule, Mr. Editor, which prohibits the Opposition from bringing legislation that will require expenditure from the public purse. The offer was not taken up. Mr Dunkley was told that Government had its own legislative timetable and that there was other, more important legislation being worked on.

“What legislation is more important than this?”, asked MP Dunkley – rhetorically, of course.

In any event, he continued, adding at the urging of his colleagues: “Show me what legislation, show me any legislation ‘cause we are not seeing any up here”.

Any legislation is right. None was tabled on Friday gone and the order paper remains very legislatively light ... and decidedly less filling.

Mid Ocean News (27 May 2005)
UBP MP John Barritt's 'View From the Hill'

People of this country are entitled to know what's going on, and why

SHORT day, short week, short column, Mr. Editor? Not on your life. It may have been brief last Friday in the House on the Hill but it was explosive. We wanted to move a motion of censure against the Minister responsible for Housing, Ashfield DeVent, on account of his failure to keep his promise to consult with the Mary Victoria/Alexandra Road residents before proceeding with plans to construct more homes in their Prospect neighbourhood.

Here was the motion I was asked to present on behalf of the Opposition: “This House deplores the failure of the Honourable Member Ashfield DeVent in his capacity as the Government Minister responsible for Housing to honour his commitment to consult with the residents of the Mary Victoria Prospect area before proceeding with plans to construct further homes in their neighbourhood, that commitment having been given in a motion approved by this Honourable House on the 8th day of March 2004 and subsequently confirmed by the member himself in a letter to area residents dated March 23rd 2004.”

I was subsequently informed – by telephone before Friday - that the Speaker had reviewed the proposed motion and amended it to the extent that he had deleted the reference to the March 8th motion and the March 23rd letter, but otherwise it was a go.

This is the amended version the Clerk handed to me after proceedings began on Friday: “That this Honourable House deplore the failure of the Honourable Member responsible for Housing to honour his commitment to consult with the residents of the Mary Victoria Prospect area before proceeding with plans to construct further homes in their neighbourhood”.

Yes, Mr. Editor, while reading the motion, I did identify the Honourable Member responsible for Housing as Mr. Ashfield DeVent. But who else, Mr. Editor, were we talking about?

But back to the real issue. This was a motion that the Government moved quickly to kill, first through PLP Whip Mr. Ottiwell Simmons (who was telling us it was unparliamentary and that I should take the matter up privately with the Minister: what a quiet cosy chat with me over tea? It’s the residents whom he needs to speak to, Mr. Editor, not me), followed by the Premier, the Man himself ,aka no more Mr. Nice Guy, who accused me of misleading the House and the public, declaring that the Minister had consulted the residents.

Those were their objections and very quickly the Speaker was suddenly putting the matter to a vote of whether the motion should even be allowed. It struck me that the Government was intent on applying their parliamentary muscle to muzzle a motion which they didn’t like. I struck back. Not just for attention but for explanation.

The people of this country are entitled to know what’s going on – and why.

The way we see it, the Opposition is entitled to bring censure motions against the Government; in fact, you might say it’s the Opposition’s duty to do so where and when warranted. They are after all expressions of disapproval and the opportunity afforded the Official Opposition to bring them on is something of a tradition under the Westminster system. You could look it up, Mr. Editor, in Erskine May, the bible of parliamentary practice, which is what a lot of people have been doing.

We stood our ground – and walked - as the Official Opposition.

We didn’t want people to overlook the reason we brought the motion forward. The promise to consult was made on the floor of the House. It arose out of another one of those stormy debates we had on the Hill back in March 2004. Shadow Minister for Housing Wayne Furbert had brought a motion calling for the rejection of any further building of homes in the Mary Victoria, Prospect area.

It was the Government which changed the motion – through Mr. Simmons, in fact – to a watered-down take note motion: -

“That this Honourable House take note that it is premature to reject any further building development of new homes at Mary Victoria or Alexandra Roads due to the negative impact economically, socially, and psychologically, given that the Minister has clearly indicated that he is prepared to enter into constructive dialogue with the affected stakeholders with a view to effecting a compromise”.

An alert Leader of the Opposition Dr. Grant Gibbons added the words “and in the spirit of compromise will cause the planning application to be withdrawn pending compromise”, to which Minister DeVent agreed.

You could look it up, Mr. Editor. It’s there on the record.

As I remember, the Mary Victoria/Alexandra Road residents went home happy that night. They were expecting “constructive dialogue” with the Minister, and it wasn’t long after that debate that the Minister sent each of them a letter, underscoring his promise: “I will honour my pledge to withdraw the application pending further consultation with you and your neighbours”.

While some have been scrambling to look up the Rules of the House (and that’s a positive development, Mr. Editor), I hope they will also take the time to look up the meaning of “consultation” in their dictionaries. You can be sure, Mr. Editor, that the residents of Mary Victoria and Alexandra Roads know what the word means. Talk to them. Not me. It hasn’t happened and the Minister, who speaks for the PLP Government on Housing, has been called to account for a broken promise… by the Official and Loyal Opposition.

Pearls of wisdom

WHAT no humour? Well, Mr. Editor, this hasn’t exactly been funny. But a sense of humour is important so the last lines on this (for now) go to two constituents of mine whom I happened to see over the weekend.
The first one asked quite matter of factly: “How are you?”
“Not bad”, I replied, “not bad, thank you”.
There was a pause and then this comment with a broad smile: “You referring to your health …or your behaviour … or both?”.
Then after church on Sunday, this pearl of wisdom: “Like my mother used to say, God bless her, you stand up for your rights and lay down for your wrongs”.

Listening closely

EVEN before the event, Friday was shaping up to be an early day, although a handful of Government Ministers did their best to protract proceedings reading into the record prepared pre-packaged Statements – to which you can only listen. Or not. There’s no debate. No questions allowed.
I happened to listen. There was an interesting assortment: -

The Minister responsible for Public Safety Randy Horton reminded us that he had not given a statement for some weeks. True. He made up for it in one fell swoop, with a nine-page sweep of what the Bermuda Police are trying to do to crackdown on crime generally and on increased recklessness on our roads specifically. The police have their hands full.

“There have been over 10,000 incidents in the BPS dispatch system in 2005”, read the Minister, “and the overwhelming majority of those incidents have required Police attendance”.

And?

“Hundreds of those incidents will become protracted investigations that will be brought to a conclusion many months, sometimes years, after initial reporting”.

I add no further comment, Mr. Editor. That about sums it up.

Health Minister Patrice Minors had a five-page statement and a warning on the dangers of alcohol, tobacco and drug abuse for women during pregnancy. The National Drug Commission – which the PLP have now done away with – had done a survey of 216 pregnant women between the ages of 17 and 46 years over the last three months of 2004. The results have apparently prompted the Ministry to develop a prevention strategy to warn would-be mothers of the risk they run when they choose to smoke or drink – even moderately – during pregnancy.

But neither of them could top Finance Minister Paula Cox who gave a ten-age up-date on business at the Post Office. Or lack of business. There are apparently changes in the offing and there had been a meeting of 200 staff recently at Devonshire Recreation Club. “Change is never easy”, the Minister read to us, “but the process is assisted when you keep the lines of communication open”. ( Couldn’t agree more, Mr. Editor, as would the residents at Mary Victoria, Alexandra Road, but that’s the other story.) We didn’t learn precisely what staff were told at the meeting, but the Minister afforded us some insight with her comments:

* The fact that the GPO is “an unique entity” within the Government stable “in that it has to compete with the private sector as it provides services”; and

* The fact that the GPO is having to compete “in a demanding economic environment” and there is a need to find ways “to provide a faster and more reliable and efficient postal service”.

As a result, we were told that there are some internal changes on the way and that a new senior management structure has been approved. But no details. Presumably like the proverbial cheque, they are in the mail. We get this picture though: The GPO is losing business and money, fast, and something drastic needs to be done to stem the flow.

Making an early day of it

COUPLED with congrats and obits, the Government didn’t get to the Orders of the Day until after noon. There were housekeeping amendments to the Occupational Safety and Health Act (matters which had been overlooked the first time around) followed by Minister Walter Lister’s take note motion on WedCo’s 2004 Annual Report. He was the only member to speak, apparently: I wasn’t there. But what I did find interesting is that Government chose not to adjourn for lunch at 12.30 as we usually do but to rather continue on. What without lunch? No way. Minister Lister kept it brief and they were out of there before one o’clock. The Premier and his troops must have decided to take advantage and make it an early day.

Mid Ocean News (20 May 2005)
UBP MP John Barritt's 'View From the Hill'

POLITICS is a pitch, or can be, Mr. Editor – a constant pitch for the hearts and minds of voters, always assuming, presumably, that their votes will follow. It’s hardly surprising then that pitched battles are a staple feature in the wars of words that break out each Friday in the House on the Hill between loyal members of the Opposition and Government.

We had a dandy on the emotion to adjourn last week. It was late in the evening when Maxwell Burgess (he of silver hammer fame) rose to congratulate the Government for finally awakening to the need to address the problems of black males. He wasn’t speaking tongue in cheek. Maxwell was serious. He was greeted then with some silence from the Government benches, until he reminded an incredulous PLP that he had been calling for a study of their plight for some time now. Silence soon turned to groans and shouts of derision. How dare Maxwell lay claim to an idea the PLP now wanted to claim as their own. The temperature was rising.

Boiling point was reached when Maxwell then brought the hammer down. He said the study was going to end up “a whitewash” if the committee simply confined itself to black males between the ages of 16 and 40 years; the critical years, in his view, were the formative years, and thus the study should be extended to include 10 year olds. The decibels increased too, when Maxwell chided the PLP for patting themselves on the back for initiating the study. “What?”, he declared, “You just woke up to the fact that over 90 per cent of the prison population are black males? Shame.”

Man, Mr. Editor, that did not go down well on the other side. Backbencher Wayne Perinchief was first on his feet in reply. Enraged. He’s on the PLP committee and one of the movers behind the study. The Government MP decried Mr. Burgess’ criticism as “shameful”. It was unacceptable, according to Mr. Perinchief, when a former leader of the UBP and Premier Sir John Swan had identified the problem but the UBP had done nothing. Yes, Sir John had brought the issue to the public’s attention, shouted back Maxwell, but it was the PLP who attacked and vilified Sir John at the time for doing so.

The arguments didn’t end there. Mr. Editor. Emotions were stirred, passions aroused; and if you are looking for the humour in this, there wasn’t any. Period. Incidentally, one of us looked over and saw that the press gallery was empty. For some reason, no reporter from The Royal Gazette was to hand. Simply MIA. But that was no deterrent. The airwaves were still open. So too were the airways of angry members.
PLP backbencher Glenn Blakeney was incensed too. He bemoaned that all the Opposition ever does in the House on the Hill is criticise and complain - all the time, he said - and he accused us of constantly “hurling superlatives” across the floor. I’m not sure if he was trying to be funny or not, especially when he went on to warn listeners and voters to be on the alert for the “hookey pookey rhetoric that comes from the UBP”.

The invective, Mr Editor, can be quite superlative. At times.
But Cole Simons of the UBP was having none of it. He said he had been listening intently and he wanted to express his disappointment with the tone, and the tenor, and the content of the exchanges across the floor. “It hurts my heart”, he confessed. He had a whole different take on the debate and the subject.

MP Simons said he was more concerned about the subliminal message that was being sent out, and continues to be sent out, when it comes to black males. A majority in his view are succeeding and are proving to be good role models. By continuing to focus on the negative, the negative is being reinforced and the positive overlooked. He had done some simple arithmetic in the House while listening to the debate and wondered if members appreciated, for instance, that over half of the members were in fact black males. It was, he thought, a telling statistic.

Rough Justice

ROUGH and raw is just how it gets some times in debate, Mr. Editor. Particularly after a long day. We had spent most of the morning, afternoon, and early evening, on the criminal justice system in Bermuda which, as all of our readers will know by now, has made for some lively debate inside and outside the House on the Hill.

It started with something small and straightforward: Certain areas within Westgate are to be designated as a hospital to provide care and treatment for the criminally insane and/or those adjudged incompetent for trial, but who also happen to be too dangerous to be kept at the secure ward at St. Brendan’s ( sorry, now the Mid Atlantic Wellness Institute). A sign of the new times, Mr Editor?

We then moved on to amendments to the Criminal Code. According to the Minister Randy Horton we were tightening up on provisions which would make it easier for the courts to deal with offenders who breached probation. I almost believed him until he told us of how it was taking up to six months to get probation orders appropriately certified for enforcement. Whatever else it is, that is not a legislative problem, Mr. Editor. Somebody needs to get on with the job.

Opposition MP Trevor Moniz then invited members to take note of the Justice System Review Report and its recommendations, which had been commissioned by Government in February last year and which reported in April. We had been promised an update by Christmas but it had never come. The Opposition had to bring it on.

There were some exciting moments – there always are when it comes to crime and how well it is being tackled. Or not.

One such notable moment came, Mr Editor, when the mover accused Government of failing to recognise the need not just for reform, but for a major crackdown on crime.

This had not been the remit of the report, said Mr. Moniz, but this was the need of the community. Serious and violent crime was on the increase and he referred to the rings of policemen with weapons and flak jackets whom we now see from time to time around the Magistrates Court.

“A set-up”, said Deputy Premier Dr. Ewart Brown by way of objection, but never explaining then ,or at any time later, exactly what he meant.

Mr. Moniz persisted with his point, but Dr. Brown was having one of it. Mr. Moniz could say what he like, said the Deputy Premier, again by way of objection, “but we are not going to bring back B’wana”.
Say what? Mr. Moniz wanted to know and he called on the Speaker to have Dr. Brown withdraw the remark as insulting and unparliamentary language.

Apparently, the remark was not heard by the Speaker.

The skirmish was over. There was no withdrawal. The lines remained drawn and it was back to the trenches.

Taking nothing for Granted

IT takes some doing, Mr. Editor, to score political points during the three minutes members are given for congratulatory speeches, but Opposition Leader Dr. Grant Gibbons had a pretty good run at it. He rose to have congratulations sent to newly elected leader in the Caymans, Kurt Tibbetts of the People’s Progressive Movement, whose party had just narrowly won the Government from the United Democratic Party. Dr. Gibbons recounted how corruption, ethical issues and lack of accountability had been some of the key issues and, given the obvious parallels with Bermuda, he was heartened by the result. Ouch.

Those throws of Summer

GOTTA love those Ministerial Statements, Mr Editor. The pick of this week’s crop was the one from Works & Engineering Minister Ashfield DeVent who wanted to report on a number of water conservation initiatives … in the Works, of course. Reading from a prepared script, the Minister warned us: “We will soon be in the throws of summer …”.

I’ll say. In fact, it is starting to look like we are already in the throes of a long drawn out summer session on the Hill. Two weeks into the new session, after eight weeks off, and legislation is barely trickling into the House. The only new pieces we have seen so far are really quite minor and straightforward: the Hospital Designation Order, a couple of Insurance Amendment regulations, and changes to the Occupational Safety and Health Amendment Act, all of it of the good housekeeping variety.

For those of you, who like me, were children of the Sixties:

“There’s something not happening here
Why it is ain’t exactly clear …”

With apologies to Buffalo Springfield, Mr. Editor, stay tuned for more (or less) of what’s going ‘round.

Mid Ocean News (13 May 2005)
UBP MP John Barritt's 'View From the Hill'

THEY’RE baaack, Mr. Editor, your MPs in the House on the Hill, refreshed from an eight week recess for what could turn out to be a long hot summer session – if the first day back was any indication. The Man himself - aka the Premier – set the tone when he finally took up his motion on the Auditor General’s special report into the Bermuda Housing Corporation scandal (and how special that report is, Mr. Editor) and he told us that he was back ( excuse me, Mr. Editor, but from where is he back?), and that he was no more Mr. Nice Guy (and, aside possibly from himself, Mr. Editor, who has been saying that he was?).

It must be that this new parliamentary posture is a continuation of his performance on TV the night before when he labelled his Government’s critics political mischief makers – and please Mr Editor, don’t remind me that it takes one to know one – knowing full that it was one of his Government’s chief critics that brought the BHC scandal into the sunshine of public scrutiny in the first place.

But wait a minute. This isn’t the story the Premier and his colleagues now want the voters to remember. They’re into a serious rewrite and they’ve got a whole new version which they tried to roll out Friday in the House on the Hill – and, I later learned, at a press conference over lunch. The PR principle (or principal) at play here is not a new one. It’s actually quite old: Tell the story often enough, strongly enough and loudly enough, and maybe people will start to believe it.

The scandal is behind us, they tell you – and with some literary licence this is the new work of fiction they are now trying to sell.

“What was, is not what is”, declared the Premier, leading off the debate. “We’ve fixed the problem and the fix is now in”, he said – an observation which was greeted with roars of approval from members of the Opposition benches with an appreciation for the obviously unintended but nonetheless accurate double entendre.

This was a proud day for the PLP Government. The Bermuda Police had investigated, Scotland Yard too, and no one from the Government had been charged.

Practices, policies and procedures had since been put in place and the Auditor General was now giving the BHC a clean bill of financial health.

There was apparently no fault on the part of the PLP Government or any of their Ministers or any of their appointees. On the contrary, according to the new version of what happened, which the Premier was now spinning: “We found a lot of this when [we took over]”.

Like I said on Friday on the Hill, Mr. Editor, I give them an A for audacity but F, a big F, on credibility.

By now, everyone in Bermuda knows that the investigation got its impetus from the concerns which were first brought to the public’s attention in the House by UBP MP Michael Dunkley.

What was the PLP Government’s immediate response? Denial and harsh words for MP Dunkley who was accused of all manner of nasty things (“venom”, “mud-slinging”, “unsubstantiated allegations” etc. etc.) . Sound familiar?

But more than that, the Minister responsible at the time, Nelson Bascombe, came back with a formal, written statement two days later which now forms part of the House of Assembly record in which, on behalf of the PLP Government, he went with the line that they had found problems but in the past two years had taken corrective action and all was now well. Mr. Dunkley didn’t know what he was talking about. Again, sound familiar?

The Premier and his colleagues had to be reminded of what Mr. Bascombe had actually said on their behalf back then in 2001 when Mr. Dunkley levelled his charges – and I quote, Mr. Editor:

“As regards the allegations of corruption, the PLP Government inherited an organisation that was plagued with rumour, hearsay and innuendo in relation to improprieties on the part of the staff and certain members of the construction industry.

“Under the new management of 2 years ago [ read the PLP - my words not his] one of the challenges has been to root out any substance, where it existed, and to take the appropriate corrective action.”

But give Nelson Bascombe some credit. He didn’t push that line again in the House on the Hill – four years later. In fact, he showed himself to be something of an Admiral for the truth, black patch or not, when he not only deviated from, but spoke contrary to the new script which the Premier was pushing. Instead, the Man Who Was the Minister claimed that he had at the time been misled on the BHC mess and, in turn, had misled the House. The information which he had been given then was, well, wrong. He confessed that he subsequently learned that there were things going on at BHC about which he didn’t know or about which he had been deliberately misinformed. It was the closest that anyone in the PLP came to an apology.

As for the Premier’s claim that there were no proper practices, procedures or policies in place, we didn’t need Nelson to help set the record straight. The Auditor General told everyone who took the time to read his special report that that was not the way it was. This is what he wrote – in plain and simple language anyone which anyone who wanted to understand, could understand: “There has been serious and widespread failure to comply with many of the Housing Corporation’s legislative authorities, administrative polices and control procedures”.

Yet it was the Premier himself who kicked off the debate by lecturing the Opposition on how we should conduct ourselves: “You must not be reckless and smear and capitalise at the expense of the truth”, he said at the outset.

I don’t know about walking and chewing gum at the same time, Mr. Editor, but I do know about chewing more than you bite off. Meanwhile, if you can believe it, one of his Cabinet Ministers, Walter Lister, had the further audacity to chalk it all up to “a good learning experience”.

How many lessons do they need? BHC, Berkeley, Stonington and now Pay for Play – and who is paying for this experience, Mr. Editor? You me and the man over there behind the tree: aka the Taxpayers.

It’s no wonder then the Premier and his Gang want to put the BHC scandal behind them and we in the Opposition want to remind the voters from here to eternity … well maybe at least until the next election.
PS Mr. Editor, I can’t make up my mind on a name for the Gang: Hole in the Wall or The Gang That Couldn’t Shoot Straight ?

Spent Members

AMITYVILLE Horror or Enmityville for the House on the Hill or both? Debate on the motion – it was only the take note variety, no vote required – didn’t start until after lunch and lasted about seven or so hours. The first day back and few had the stomach at nine thirty to launch into the other motion the Opposition initially intended to also take up on the Justice System Report. So that’s been deferred to another day. The two and half hours of the morning had been taken up with lengthy and multiple Ministerial statements followed by plenty of Congrats and Obits – a lot can and does happen in eight weeks, Mr. Editor, and members can fall out of practice. Either that or Members were pretty well spent after debate on the Auditor Generals’ report and the BHC scandal. There wasn’t a word on the Motion to Adjourn.

Giving as good as you get

WHEN lines are drawn, you get nasty, Mr Editor, and you get funny.
As Opposition spokesman for Housing, Wayne Furbert was being pretty critical last Friday. He was highlighting the reports of kickbacks and denouncing the people who had taken advantage of the public purse at the BHC.

“Who were these people?”, shouted out the Premier.

“Name them”.

Mr. Furbert declined: “No need to”.

“Why not name them so we can know who they are?”, asked the Premier.

“Witness protection”, came the quick reply from one of Mr. Furbert’s colleagues.

Shadow Works & Engineering Minister Patricia Gordon Pamplin, whose day job as an accountant has always involved keeping books and accounts, called the Premier out for describing the most recent financial statements of the BHC as “the handiwork of the Auditor General”. Pat thought the slight deliberate and demeaning.

Shot back the Premier across the floor: “You’re some piece of work, you are”.

Ms. Gordon-Pamplin – who gives as good as she gets - heard the remark. It was intended that she should. “And it’s a beautiful piece of work I am too”, she replied – without missing a beat, and she soldiered on in her scathing criticism.

That big real estate in the sky

A FEW snippets before I go, Mr. Editor, from those many Ministerial statements we endured: -

From the say what department: On our battle with the Isle of Man over a satellite slot, Telecommunications Minister Michael Scott told us that the time was now “propitious” for an update on the steps which Government has taken to make “the exploitation of the Space real estate over our Island a step closer to reality”. So much for pie in the sky, Mr Editor. This must be the future.

Here’s a thought: Community Affairs Minister Dale Butler extended “ a special invitation” to his Parliamentary colleagues to attend a power breakfast next week sponsored by CURE entitled “A Vision for Conversations on Race Equality”. It is scheduled to be held at La Coquille, Mr. Editor, not the House on the Hill. We do debates.

Half the story: Finance Minister Paula Cox took another bow for the increase in jobs in 2004. She noted in a statement that employment levels had returned to the pre-recession level of more than 38,000 jobs and things were looking better. Yes, but for whom? The 2004 Economic Review published by the Ministry of Finance told us that overall jobs in Bermuda had increased to 38,259 in 2004 from 37,849 in 1999, but for Bermudians over that same period they dropped by some 1372 jobs from 28,717 in 1999 to 27,345 last year.

Go figure – and have a nice week now that we’re back.

Mid Ocean News (24 Mar. 2005)
UBP MP John Barritt's 'View From the Hill'

Bermuda's a community of shoppers, not shopkeepers

TRUMAN Capote said it best, Mr. Editor: The dogs bark but the caravan moves on. So with the House down and out for Easter, and then some, and with the dust and the hyperbole of the Budget Debate behind us, it’s time to take stock, Mr. Editor, of what else but the Bermuda economy.

Something the Minister of Finance Paula Cox mentioned in her Budget Statement first caught my ear and then my eye.

“One of the hallmarks of the successive Progressive Labour Party administrations”, Ms. Cox proudly opined in her written Statement, “has been the disciplined focus on stable macro-economic management that has resulted in a general improvement in the economic well-being of all members of our community.”

That’s some claim, Mr. Editor, a general improvement for all members.
The Finance Minister had her cheerleaders too. Her PLP colleagues on the front and back benches consistently and constantly proclaimed throughout the debate that the PLP administration was responsible for “a buoyant economy”. Nothing new about that, Mr Editor, this is what governments typically do. Anything that looks remotely successful has many fathers; only failures are orphans.

But how about this week, we drill down a bit and ask: If buoyant, buoyant for whom? Or perhaps as you read on, ask yourself this: In which Bermuda am I living and for which Bermuda am I preparing my children?

I take you then, Mr. Editor, and readers, to the 2004 Economic Review, a short but insightful review prepared by the Ministry of Finance and which annually accompanies the BS ( excuse me, Mr. Editor, but that’s short for Budget Statement). This report - which comes in plain black and white wrapping - doesn’t tend to feature front and centre in the debates and as a consequence doesn’t get much play, yet the facts and figures it presents tell a story or two if you take the time to piece the parts together.

Let’s start with this observation found very early on in the Review:

“A look at Bermuda’s domestic demand demonstrates that personal consumption was sustained by growth in employment income. Although total visitor arrivals decreased and Bermudian overseas spending increased, the local retail sector posted strong results”.

It seems, Mr. Editor, that we are a vibrant community of spenders.
While the results may not have been strong enough to save Triminghams, the Review still noted that the increase in sales in 2004 over 2003 was “extraordinary”. It was said to be extraordinary given that:

* the number of residents travelling abroad increased by over 20 percent during the first three quarters of 2004; and
* the overseas purchases declared by residents (and “declared” is a key word here, Mr Editor) upon their return to Bermuda during the same period increased by 30.2 percent; and
* consider that this doesn’t take into account the growing number of purchases by mail order and online shopping over the internet – which is, I am told, a burgeoning cottage industry in Bermuda .

For further proof that we are a community of shoppers, not shopkeepers, Mr. Editor, turn to imports. For the first nine months of 2004, Bermuda recorded an increase of $87.5 million or 13.9 percent year-over-year. There was only one “commodity group” that showed any significant decrease year over year and that was clothing, which was down by 2.5 percent. Again, Trim’s probably could have told us that, and Smith’s … and maybe still others will too.

Rather the largest components of personal expenditure in 2004 were reported to have been: housing, household goods, services and supplies.

But where’s the money coming from? Increases in employment income, we are told by the Review: -

“Employment income in Bermuda has been rising by increasing levels over the last few years. Specifically, the increase in 2002 was 6.1 %, 2003 was 23.1 % and the first three quarters of 2004 recorded a 26.5 % rise.”

This, of course, is in the aggregate, Mr. Editor, and the best illustration of what the aggregate means is this: Bill Gates walks into a bar of largely unemployed patrons and the per capita income shoots up to $250,000.00 per person per annum. But, of course, it isn’t.

Here in Bermuda, the Review tells us what most of us already know: two sectors were largely responsible for the increases in employment income for the first nine months of last year: international business (up 15.3%) and the construction industry (up 16.7%).

Let’s take a look at jobs then.

As for the actual number of jobs in Bermuda, they were predicted to be up year over year: 38,259 in 2004 compared to 37,686 in 2003, an increase of 573 jobs. But perhaps the most telling statistic, Mr. Editor, is that which shows that jobs held by Bermudians have declined over the last five years from 28,717 in 1999 to 27, 345 jobs in 2004 f or a decrease of 1372 jobs. Jobs held by non-Bermudian spouses over the same period have gone up 282 in number, while those held by non-Bermudians have risen 1500 from 1999 to 2004.

Meanwhile, the economists at the Ministry of Finance, who penned the Review, are anticipating a further increase of 15 % in employment income in 2005 – and that it will continue to lead to spending and more spending.

Not so blooming good

CREDIT also helps - or hurts the spending cause, Mr. Editor, as the case may be – and it would seem there is plenty out on credit here.
A small table in the Review shows that the total credit advanced to residents by banks and deposit companies has risen steadily from $2,113 million in 2000 to $3,521 million by mid-summer 2004 – and this is money reported to be out there in “loans, advances and mortgages”.
Spend. Spend. Spend. Mr. Editor. They’re counting on it.
Predicts the Review:

“With the expected increase in employment and income levels in 2005, consumer expenditures will once again be a major source of economic growth”.

When it came to spending, visitors – as in tourism – used to be a help, Mr. Editor, certainly more help than they have been in recent years. Spending by all visitors (air and cruise) has dropped from $477.2 million in 1999 to $347.9 million for 2003, and is still dropping – and not just because of fewer numbers. Based on the figures for the first three quarters of 2004, per capita spending by visitors arriving by air had slipped to $1,109 compared with $1,151 in 2003.
So we are counting on international business to continue to pull us through. But there are signs there too, that we should not ignore.
The rate of international business registrations appears to be levelling off, according to statistics kept by the Registrar of Companies: 13,318 in 2002; 13,509 in 2003; and 13, 573 or a 0.5 percent increase in 2004.

On top of this, we have our challenges from outside – organisations of alphabet soup name fame and the onshore jurisdictions, typified perhaps by the New York Times tax reporter David Cay Johnston and his book Perfectly Legal which features Bermuda as its poster boy in the chapter entitled “Profits Trump Patriotism”. As we learned in the last Presidential election campaign, it’s a line that plays not just in Washington but in Des Moines, Iowa.

The bloom on this rose is going to need more than just nurturing; protection too.

Tourism is flagging and there is no prospect of an immediate turnaround and we have a long way to go. These stats tell the story: The total number of bed nights sold in 1998, according to the Department of Tourism was 1,628,956. In 2004? 1,056,543 bed nights - over half a million less.

A rejuvenation is hoped for and the forecast for 2005 is further modest expansion … if employment income keeps on rising and we keep on spending.

Leading the way folks

WHEN it comes to spending, Mr. Editor, you can count on the PLP Government to lead the way. How about I share a few sure-fire, tell-tale signs to help our readers along: -

2005/2006 Budget: It’s a $711-million Budget up close to $51-million from the previous Budget of $665-million, or an increase of 8 per cent. By my calculations, $415-million of that total will be spent on salaries and related personnel items or roughly 60 cents of every tax dollar is what it costs to actually run the business of Government – and no, Mr. Editor, I haven’t included the projected $5.1 million to be spent on travel in that figure which is almost twice what it was back in 1999.

Capital spending: In last year’s Budget, revised figures for capital expenditure (some $110.1 million) exceeded the previous year by more than 34 per cent, or nine times the rate of inflation. This year capital spending is projected to rise to $137 million, a further 24 percent over last year’s huge increase and seven times the rate of inflation.

Debt capacity: The PLP have moved to increase the statutory ceiling on what can be raised by way of debt to $375 million, up $125-million from the previous limit of $250 million. This has been done, we were told, because the new limit “would allow for more flexible capital financing arrangements” and the projected estimated debt for the coming year is $250-million.

Rate of inflation: The increased spending, led by the PLP Government, only adds to the rate of inflation which appears to be creeping along, steadily, in the wrong direction. Their projected current account spending will be twice the current rate of inflation which has now reached 4 per cent. It has already outstripping the 3.5 percent increases in pensions which has been promised seniors effective August 1st. Health and Personal Care was up 8.8. percent and that’s on top of a 7 percent increase the year before and this year nothing less is expected, and it won’t be long before health care costs rival affordable housing as one of Bermuda’s biggest issues.

Add it all up, Mr. Editor.

That’s sum Social Agenda.

I've just posted both of John Barritt's pieces in this week's Mid Ocean News, including his regular column and a sidebar pulling back the curtain on the selective use of data employed by Alex Scott and lately Rev. Lambe of the BIC, which as JB points out looks to be mostly about Bermuda Indoctrination and Conditioning.

But I strongly recommend taking the time to read his columns, because there is a lot of good stuff in there.

Particularly his comments on the sham that Parliamentary sessions are being turned into and the PLP's failure to move on comprehensive reform to the Parliamentary process.

JB's recommendations have been sent to languish in the Rule and Privileges Committee.

Sad but true.

I'm with JB is his push for accountability in Parliament and public life. I hope you are too. I encourage everyone to write to the press, call the talk shows and badger your PLP MP to stop blocking reform.

Mid Ocean News (18 Mar. 2005) - Sidebar
UBP MP John Barritt's 'View From the Hill'

But the Survey Says ...

YOU may recall, Mr. Editor, that we were told that it was a thirst for knowledge which prompted the establishment of BIG BIC. There was reference to a survey which had been carried out for Government in June of last year which confirmed that to be the case.
Well, it’s amazing what you can find out when you dig around a little bit. Turns out that wasn’t even half the story.

Here’s what the survey also told the Bermuda Government which they in turn didn’t tell us: -

* Seven in ten residents either strongly ( 45 percent, down 3 points over the last quarter) or generally (23 percent, up seven points) oppose an independent Bermuda and, moreover, it isn’t just a majority of white folks opposed. Opposition is reported to have grown among black residents to the point where more than half of Bermuda’s black residents were expressing some level of opposition towards an independent Bermuda.

* A majority of residents consider themselves either generally (51 percent) or very well (19 percent) informed on the issue of independence.

Holy smokes, Mr. Editor, those are impressive majorities. No need to wonder why Government won’t commit to a referendum. They’ve got a lot of minds to change on the issue first.

Yes, eight in ten residents were also reported as having expressed a strong interest in learning more about the impact of independence on Bermuda: 47 percent were said to be very interested and 33 percent somewhat interested. But as the survey summary also observed: "While the level of interest in additional information is generally high across the population, it is worth noting that those who support an independent Bermuda express a greater kevel of interest than those who oppose the idea in learning more about the impact of an independent Bermuda".

What’s also interesting are the sources of information which people find most credible. The media came out on top (30 percent) and the government "in general" came second at 21 percent, "distantly followed by public meetings (7 percent) and the United Bermuda Party (6 percent)."

Go figure, Mr. Editor.

Mid Ocean News (18 Mar. 2005)
UBP MP John Barritt's 'View From the Hill'

Reform is Long Overdue

NICE work if you can get it, Mr. Editor, sitting in the House on the Hill. The Man in charge, and that would be the Premier, told MPs late last Friday night that we would be going on an eight week sojourn from debate and not return until Friday the 6th of May – and this, Mr. Editor, follows the ten week break he sent us on over Christmas.

If you ask me, and you should, it’s beginning to look like Parliament has little role to play in the New Bermuda under the PLP. Pity that. Accountability only comes about when governments, their decisions, and their actions, are subject to scrutiny in the form of questions and criticism and, yes, disagreement, in the open forum we know as Parliament and to which I affectionately refer as the House on the Hill ( but which, to be accurate, also includes the Upper House which is down the Hill).

It gets worse too, Mr. Editor, when you also take into account how archaic we are in the way in which we run our Legislature – and the PLP, which calls itself Progressive, shows absolutely no inclination for reform. Instead, we get a push to Independence when their own surveys show a majority of Bermudians, a strong majority, are not interested (but that’s another story, Mr. Editor – see elsewhere).

Meanwhile, the more we seem to learn about Big BIC and their activities, the more the “I” is starting to look and sound like it stands for “indoctrination” and the “C” for “conditioning”, and the unwitting and the unwilling are their target.

But let me come back to my point, Mr. Editor, working in the House on the Hill. What we need there is some long overdue reform.

If you’ve been following the Budget Debate closely - and God bless those who have - you will know that, with very exceptions, Ministers take to reading - and in some cases not very well either – very lengthy statements put together by their top swivel servants, designed it seems not so much as to illuminate but to dominate. The more time the Minister can take, the less time there is for the Opposition to comment, criticise and question. It’s a blunt but effective strategy.

Questions?

If you want answers to questions on the record you have to ask them in writing ten days in advance – and even then the Minister can delay answering them without penalty. If there isn’t time to ask them before eleven o’clock in the morning on the day the House meets, the answers are reduced to writing and the opportunity to ask follow-up questions is lost. In most modern parliamentary systems, a specific period of time is set aside and questions are asked with and without prior notice.

Modern parliamentary systems also feature far more select committees (select in parliamentary language, Mr. Editor, means bi-partisan) which are established to consider, review and report on major issues and matters, and all of which work is conducted in full public view.
Not so in Bermuda. Old Bermuda. New Bermuda. Take your pick.

The current most important committee, the Public Accounts Committee, charged as it is with reviewing Government’s accounts and expenditure, continues to meet in private, notwithstanding the practice in other parliamentary democracies, and recommendations from Government’s own advisers that its proceedings be open to the public. The most recent call for committee work came from those who prepared the Report "Untangling Bermuda's Quangos" for the PLP Government at the PLP Government’s request.

Here’s what they had to say in black and white: -

"There is an opportunity, on a weekly basis, for Committees to report to the House/ public on the performance of the various Quangos, etc. If properly utilised, this will improve public awareness as well as allow for transparency, accountability and open public scrutiny".

Spot on, Mr. Editor.

But, but … Isn’t anybody in the PLP listening?

Making cents of it all

OKAY, to be fair, Mr. Editor, while we may not meet that often in the House on the Hill when we do meet we do tend to go long. Last week was a prime example. We were there until at least midnight Monday, Wednesday and Friday, and that’s rough going, Mr. Editor, when you’re trying to hold down a second job – and anyhow, sitting in the House is but part of the job as MP.

Not surprisingly though, salaries came up for discussion once again when Finance Minister Paula Cox piloted through the usual annual increase. The formula emerged ten years ago out of the recommendation of - wait for it - a select committee of the House: Annual increases were to be tied to the Retail Price Index. Opposition spokesman for Finance and Leader, Dr. Grant Gibbons, did some calculations of his own and discovered that the proposed 4.5 per cent increases were running head of the annual rate of inflation, and questioned then why Government was only proposing 3.5 percent increases for seniors’ pensions commencing August.

But the increases this time around may be modest compared to what might be around the corner. Ms. Cox re-affirmed Government’s intention to introduce legislation to establish a committee to review parliamentary salaries. Interestingly, Mr. Editor, this too, was a recommendation that arose out of the same select committee some ten years ago – but at that time the call for an independent review panel came in a minority report which was co-authored by your correspondent on the Hill along with Dame Pamela Gordon, both us then rookie MPs.

The shape and form of the new committee won’t be known until the legislation comes to light, but in the meantime we know it will feature a re-assessment of what the jobs are worth: An extra $657,000.00 has been set aside in the 2005 Budget for “Ministers and Members”.

Top of the Class, Minister

ONE of my colleagues on the Hill, Mr. Editor, joked that maybe we ought to be paid by the word. Forget the midnight hour. We would never get out of there if that were the case. Government Ministers would also have cleaned up in the Budget Debate these past two weeks. We set aside two hours on Friday for an examination of the Department of Planning and Minister Neletha Butterfield gave her Shadow Cole Simons – and the rest of us – less than half an hour.

Naturally, the rest of us didn’t get a word in. But it doesn’t have to be that way. Education Minister Terry Lister gave his colleagues a better lesson. He took no more than two hours of the five hours which the Opposition had allotted for debate on his Ministry; in turn, his Shadow Neville Darrell spoke for no more than an hour. There was actually two hours for the rest of the House to engage in a real debate, and there was no shortage of speakers as we heard from Maxwell Burgess, Dean Foggo, Louise Jackson, Randy Horton, Suzann Roberts-Holshouser, Michael Scott, Pat Gordon Pamplin and Jon Brunson ... and there was a small window at the end for the Minister to re-cap the debate. It was, Mr. Editor, some kind of a record.

Hats off then to the Education Minister who goes to the top of the class for his contribution to the Budget Debate. It wasn’t just the time which he gave everyone else that earns him top marks. It was also the class which he showed when he (1) shared his ministerial brief with Mr. Darrell prior to debate and (2) acknowledged his Shadow’s contribution to the advancement of public education in Bermuda, notwithstanding their differences.

At the time of writing, I had not heard of one other Government Minister sharing with their Shadows their briefs – either before or after the debate.

That, sadly, Mr Editor, reveals all.

Déjà vu all over again

DISCLOSURE is not a strong suit of the PLP. Au contraire. We have still to see the Annual Reports of the Bermuda Housing Corporation for the years 2002, 2003 and 2004, despite the fact that they have been completed. The law requires that they be tabled in the Legislature and the Speaker disallowed an Opposition motion last year deploring the fact they had not been tabled. The Speaker told us that he understood
the reports were on their way. From where? China? By slow boat? This tactic is nothing new either. You will recall, Mr. Editor, the Auditor General’s special report into the Housing Corporation scandal, the one the Opposition wanted debated, which the Speaker would not let us present for debate because it was a Government report, and which the Premier then subsequently introduced just before Christmas, but which he has not taken up and cannot now until we come back in early May.
Accountability. Good governance. Transparency. The PLP continue to re-define the words in ways neither you, Mr. Editor, or George Orwell, could ever have imagined.

Coming and Going

WE whisked through the legislation pretty quickly last Friday night, and not just because we were tired at the end of a long week. There was also agreement. The best example was the introduction of the stamp duty exemption for “the primary family homestead” upon death. It was something which the Opposition UBP campaigned on at the last election and Finance Minister Paula Cox said it was something which the PLP had been urged to implement by their Central Council. In any event, the people are about to benefit starting April 1. The exemption has to be applied for and we were told that the Tax Commissioner’s Office has the necessary forms ready for completion. Meanwhile, the cost of purchasing a home in Bermuda is about to go up. The stamp duty rates for mortgages, all kinds, will also be increasing effective April 1st.

If they don’t get you going, Mr. Editor, they get you coming.
Provision for Sunday shopping also breezed through without too much debate. As Dr. Gibbons pointed out, times sure have changed. Ten years ago, the then Opposition PLP were dead set against. But as Ms. Cox observed those opposed for religious reasons have "sort of accepted it, without a lot of hoopla".

Backbencher Wayne Perinchief lauded the initiative. It was about time, he said, as Sunday shopping would take Bermuda from "a sleepy backwater of commerce into the 21st Century" and was just the kick-start businesses need to put some sizzle and pop into tourism.
That all sounded very nice, Mr. Editor, until we got to the next item on the agenda, Government Fees. If you want to open on Sunday it is going to cost you: $320.00 more a year if you are a small business with less than 2500 square feet of floor space, and $1,000 a year for those over 2500 square feet. There is also a single day flat rate of $80.

There is, Mr Editor, a price to everything.

Mid Ocean News (11 Mar. 2005)
UBP MP John Barritt's 'View From the Hill'

Sparring brings lively end to a dreary day

LISTENERS must have been wondering, Mr. Editor, but, no, it wasn't Friday Night at the Fights live from Number One Shed. Rather we were in the House on the Hill when verbal fisticuffs broke out on the emotion to adjourn.

Our in-House advocate for seniors, Mrs. Louise Jackson, a senior herself Mr. Editor, rose at the end of another long day of tedious debate on the Government Budget (see below) to again complain about the increases in rent for those seniors living on Bermuda Housing Trust properties.

It was a cause about which members of the Government didn't want to hear, again – and for obvious reasons. Mrs. Jackson quickly found herself under attack and both she and the Speaker were besieged and beset by shouts and cries of Points of Order from the Government benches.

PLP MPs Renée Webb and Jennifer Smith were particularly vociferous and accused Mrs. Jackson of all manner of parliamentary sins – misleading the House, repeating herself, and/or imputing improper motives.
Speaker Stanley Lowe found he had his hands full – and it weren't easy, Mr. Editor. There are no neutral corners in a parliamentary ring. But Jeez Louise, did Mrs. Jackson ever hold her ground. She took all of her 20 minutes – we only get 20 minutes each on the emotion to adjourn, Mr. Editor – and once again castigated Government for what they are failing to do to help seniors.

The sparring didn't stop there either. There followed a spirited attack and counter-attack by the PLP – and that's putting it pleasantly, Mr. Editor – not to mention rejoinder and defence by the UBP as members went toe to toe, so to speak.

It was, to say the least, a lively end to an otherwise dreary day of debate. Meanwhile, of all the parliamentary rules that were employed that night, members on the attack seemed to have forgotten the one that counts for far more, inside and outside the House, namely The Golden Rule: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. And that's the rule the seniors are most interested in, eh Wheezie?

The way it is

I HATE to say I told you so, Mr. Editor, but I did. The predictable script continued when Minister Randy Horton delivered his briefs on Police & Corrections, Fire Services, and Immigration Labour & Training: I mean the portfolio alone tends to suggest we were going to be in for a long one.

As it was, the Opposition left off the Registry General, Defence and Security Services and Delegated Affairs which also come under this Minister's umbrella. Mind you, we did also give the selected items (heads, we call them in parliamentary parlance) a total of eight of the 42 hours set side for debate on the departmental votes (more parliamentary parlance for approving what's been set aside).
It still didn't work out too good for us, Mr. Editor – if you'll pardon the expression.

The Minister took three and a half hours of the four hours allotted Police and Corrections (Michael Dunkley got 28 minutes in reply for the Opposition, Pat Gordon Pamplin two minutes); 48 minutes on the Fire Services (Michael Dunkley and Jon Brunson shared the remaining 12 minutes); and two and a half hours on Labour, Immigration & Training (Pat Gordon Pamplin got the remaining half hour).

It improved slightly on Youth Sport & Recreation when Minister Dale Butler declined to take the whole three hours and left an hour and 15 minutes for others to comment: His Shadow Jon Brunson took just over an hour followed by Glenn Blakeney who snuck in for five minutes in a rare appearance by a Government backbencher.

Time is so tight that when the allotted time is up, it's up. Questions asked remain questions unanswered. The gavel comes down and we move on. That's the way we do the business of the Budget on the House on the Hill.

Reading right along

THE reading rate didn't improve much on the Monday. Works & Engineering Minister Ashfield DeVent took three and a half hours to work his way through a Ministerial tome (scrap briefs, Mr. Editor, they are anything but) to engineer it so that everyone else only got an hour and a half.

The Minister claimed later in the day to have gone to great pains to share with us all that was going in his Ministry. How right he was. The pains were all ours. Meanwhile, as for the two hours of the rest of the day's debate – we set aside seven a day – it featured a reading performance by Minister Walter Lister standing in for Health & Social Services Minister Patrice Minors, who is still out on maternity leave.
But he did give the Shadow Michael Dunkley just short of equal time for comment and reply. What was most interesting is that at one stage of the latter debate, a quick count showed that the civil servants in attendance – who numbered nine – outnumbered the MPs in the Chamber. One presumes, Mr. Editor, that they didn't have a choice.

A quid pro what?

MONOTONY on the Hill gets broken with the occasional legislation. It typically comes at the end of the day after members have endured more than their fair share of monologues, if they have been able to stick it out.

Debate on bills can make for a more lively interchange, even if it is between the Finance Minister Paula Cox and her Shadow, Opposition Leader Dr. Grant Gibbons. One such occasion occurred when Minister Cox piloted through amendments to the Public Treasury (Administration and Payments) Act: Okay, okay, I can see eyes glazing over already.
But this was interesting, Mr. Editor. Really. Ms Cox referred to the legislation as a part of "good governance, good housekeeping and accountability". It puts in place a set of rules to govern money which is given to the Bermuda Government.

Yes, that's right given, willingly, voluntarily, Mr. Editor. By whom? Good corporate citizens, we were told. Like HSBC Bank of Bermuda which is apparently giving the Government of Bermuda $1,000,000.00 for "the emergency housing initiative".

Eyebrows were understandably raised, and questions asked by inquiring minds (Read the Opposition, Mr. Editor). Minister Cox denied that there was "any quid pro quo" going on here (and you don't need to know Latin, Mr. Editor, to understand that point), or that there were any preconditions attached to the "donation".

Instead, Minister Cox described it as "corporate largesse" and suggested that it was part of being a good corporate citizen in Bermuda. Makes you wonder then, Mr. Editor, whether the cost of doing business in Bermuda just went up: Few will forget that being a good corporate citizen can rate businesses brownie points with the Department of Immigration.

Mind you, we also learned that this legislation won't actually govern donations like that of the HSBC Bank of Bermuda as the rules are only for "bequests or donations to the Government of Bermuda that do not have any specified purposes".

No specified purpose, just an out-and-out donation? Yes, said the Minister, "and there have been talks with some corporate bodies who are interested in making contributions but do not want the money going into the Consolidated Fund".

Really?

Well, we'll just have to stay tuned for developments. While the Act does call for an annual report on the Fund, the only requirement is that it be shared with the Legislature "as soon as practicable", no earlier.

I don't know about you, Mr. Editor, but that doesn't sound to me like a strong formula for transparency and accountability.

Wouldn't you know it?

IT isn't easy maintaining interest during the tedium of the Budget Debate, but there are ways. Try this one, for instance, Mr. Editor, a kind of parliamentary version of Trivial Pursuit. Did you know that:
q The number of Bermudians who have applied for British passports since the opportunity arose some two and half years ago is now 6,000 and counting. Minister responsible for Immigration, Randy Horton, also told us the turnaround time on applications is now three and a half weeks.

The travel budget for the Cabinet Office is forecast to be $6,000 down on last year's estimate of $375,000, a two per cent dip which the Premier was pleased to point out during the Budget Debate. "Must be all those frequent flyer miles kicking in now", came the quick observation from the Opposition benches.

The average attendance of Opposition members is reported to be up; Government down. According to "output measures" in the Budget estimates for the Legislature, the average attendance of Opposition MPs ran at 97 per cent last year, up from 86 per cent the year before. Government MPs dropped from 90 to 86.5 per cent over the same period. The trouble with these stats, Mr. Editor, is that you only have to show up for the day (and not stay) to get recorded as present. But aside from the Whips, who's keeping track anyway? The number of meetings of the House on the Hill also dropped year over year from 35 to 30 and so far this year we are on track for less than 30. Also down were the number of Bills from 45 to 24. I presume, Mr. Editor, that you are starting to get a picture?

We're all familiar on how we pride ourselves on being a stable community. Well, how is this for stability? The Registry General reported in the Budget Estimates – again under so-called output measures – that births, deaths and marriages remained pretty constant year over year: Births totalled 834, up slightly from 827; deaths 431 to 449; and marriages, 861 from 857. Divorces, you ask? For that we had to turn to the Judicial vote where we learned that the number of divorce cases filed were down but only slightly from 245 to 229. Add predictable then, Mr. Editor, to stable.

Government is projecting revenue of $4.2 million for sales in water for the current financial year ending March 31. Nevertheless the Minister urged people in Bermuda to do all they can to conserve. Global supplies are dwindling and it's getting critical, he said, as he took another long drink of water. The Opposition challenged him to do his bit: "Speak less, Minister. Drink less".

A watershed moment, Mr. Editor? No.

More water under the bridge? Yes.

Until next week then . . .

OK, Ms. Cox, but what will this independence exercise really cost

Mid Ocean News (25 Feb. 2005)
UBP MP John Barritt's 'View From the Hill'

FORGET what’s in a name, Mr. Editor, instead: What’s in a word? Not much really, but when combined with other, presumably, carefully chosen words, they do tend to point the reader in a certain direction – and usually for a reason. Such was the case last Friday in the House on the Hill when the Finance Minister Paula Cox presented the Government Budget for the coming fiscal year 2005-2006.

The “Country’s National Budget” was how the Minister described it right from the opening paragraph of her statement, and several times thereafter. National? I had not heard that term used before; indeed I scrambled to take a quick peek back through last year’s, the first by Ms. Cox, and, nope, just as I thought, it was then described as it always has been, the Annual Government Budget.

So what gives?

Or more importantly what’s changed since the last one?

I expect that for you, Mr Editor, I do not need to paint a picture. Or as one of my colleagues loves to put it, you don’t need to be Ray Charles to read between the lines on this one. The Man in charge of The Woman in charge of our Finances wants us all to be thinking independence. (Independence, Renee, not independently.)

So the term National Budget makes for a nice segue – what a wonderful word, Mr. Editor - into talk of independence. Lo and behold, there we were not long into the Budget Statement and there were a couple of paragraphs on – yes, you guessed it – independence.

“The people of every country have an inherent and inalienable right to articulate a view of self-determination and act upon that view”, declared the Finance Minister, not ten minutes into her speech, a speech that would take well over an hour, close to 90 minutes in fact, one of the longest in recent memory. We were told that Government has re-engaged the people in “a dialogue” about self-determination for Bermuda, and that there is: -

* Nothing sinister about the dialogue;
* No hidden agenda;
* Nothing to fear; and that
* There will be no rush to judgement.

“At the end of the process”, declared Ms. Cox, reading from her prepared written statement, “the Bermudian people will articulate a view on self-determination and act upon it. That is their inherent and inalienable right”.

The opening was obvious. Too obvious for those who are prepared to articulate a view and act on it. “How, then?”, asked Opposition Leader Dr. Grant Gibbons out loud, from across the floor. “Are you or are you not going to give the people the right to have a say by referendum?”.
An answer to that question wasn’t in the script. The Finance Minister continued on. Instead, reading from her prepared remarks, Ms. Cox told us that the people of Bermuda are going to be given the facts and the costs of going independent, presumably by the Big BIC, which was never actually mentioned by name.

Just how much will that exercise cost?

Well, said Ms Cox: “Government has made provision in the 2005/06 National Budget for fact-finding and providing answers to all the questions that reasonable people might have about self-determination for Bermuda and for Bermudians”.

Exactly how much then? I mean that seems like a reasonable question any reasonable person might have. Sadly, the Finance Minister chose not to share that figure with us in her statement and, according to a report in The Royal Gazette the next day, she declined to give that figure when asked at her subsequent press conference. You will also be hard pressed to find that sum identified anywhere in the Estimates.
So much then, Mr Editor, for providing answers to reasonable questions from reasonable people.

Nothing sinister.

No hidden agenda.

Nothing to fear.

Excuse me but am I being rushed to judgement?

Hear no… See no … Speak no ….

TALKING of leaving things out, there were a couple of others too, which, as far as the PLP Government is concerned, are better left unsaid. Three prime examples if I may: -

The Berkeley project … and the escalating costs, and the overruns, and the arbitration, and the delay, hardly rated a mention. It was touched upon but ever so briefly as one of a number of major projects “underway”. (Please, Mr. Editor, won’t someone in that PLP Government tell us what they mean by “underway”: How long is underway to be underway?) Even more noticeable is the way in which the PLP are now trying to distance themselves from their own work. The word “Berkeley” or the words “Berkeley Institute” in association with the new senior secondary school have been dropped, completely. “The Second Senior School” is the term the Finance Minister employed. Shame and embarrassment, I suspect.

The Bermuda Housing Corporation: The planned activities of the BHC, the Finance Minister told us, have only had a minimal impact on the $62 million budget of the Works Ministry. That sounds like good news in view of what happened in the past. But that’s not quite how the Minister meant it. BHC is going to be seeking required financing in local capital markets for housing initiatives. How is this possible? You ask a reasonable question. “Corporate governance and transparency has been significantly improved at the Bermuda Housing Corporation”, explained Ms. Cox in her Budget Statement. Really? Why is it then that the Minister responsible has yet to make public – as required by law - the Annual Reports for the Corporation for the years 2002, 2003 and 2004? They have, Mr. Editor, been a very long time coming …and I draw attention to this without getting into the delay which surrounded disclosure of the Auditor General’s Special Report which has still be aired and debated in the House of Assembly.

Jobs: The Minister gave us only the good news here. Overall employment is expected to have increased by 1.5 percent in 2004 following a flat performance in 2003. “The overall number of jobs in the economy”, she said in her Statement, “was provisionally placed at 38,259 in 2004, reflecting a net addition of 573 jobs across the entire economy”. Sounds good. Looks good too. Until you dig down and take a look at the facts and figures reported on by the Finance Ministry in their 2004 Economic Review – which the Minister tabled with her Budget. The Review tells the real story: since 1998 jobs held by Bermudians have gone from 28,717 to 27,345 in 2004, a decline of 1372 jobs over six years. Jobs held by non-Bermudians? They have climbed to a high of 8,980 in 2004 from 7,480 in 1999 or an increase of 1500 jobs. The statistics speak for themselves. This is the New Bermuda, Mr. Editor, in which Bermudians are now struggling to survive.

Wait for it

AS for jobs, all criticism aside Mr. Editor, you have to give the Minister her due. There were no new taxes to complain about. Land taxes held despite the recent, upward revision in ARVs (maybe next time). Payroll taxes were eased for the little guys. Farmers finally get a customs duty break they’ve been after for some time. Pensioners are promised a 3.5 per cent increase as of August 1 but, as we also heard, the increase may still fall behind the rate of inflation which may run to 4 percent this year. The increase will also cost us a 4.5% increase in our social insurance contributions.

Meanwhile, a proud PLP Minister for Finance was at pains to highlight the PLP’s track record (to date) on debt. Better than the UBP, Ms Cox crowed: this before Dr. Gibbons gets to reply this week.
But then why plan to borrow $85-million more?

You have to also wonder at what’s coming too, when Government proposes to increase the proposed statutory debt limit from $250-million to $375-million?

It sounds to me, Mr Editor, like there is something just around the corner. I guess reasonable people with reasonable questions looking for reasonable answers will just have to wait.

Flights of fancy

SPEAKING of what’s ahead Mr. Editor, the wordsmiths responsible for the Budget Statement seemed at several points to have, shall we say, soared on flights of oratorical fancy .( Translation: They got carried away.)

Like, for example, this declaration: “We are living in an exciting time – there is so much to do, so many bridges to cross and there is a bold new world that hovers just on the edge of the horizon”. Bermuda is what then? Another World but not the other World out there hovering on the horizon?

Or what about this: “ … Our people will move in unison to the drumbeats and rhythms of our cultural heritage as we celebrate 500 years of Bermuda’s advances in this Quincentennial year. Such is the essence of the ‘Social Agenda’!” Now that, Mr. Editor, sounds like a Social Agenda …and in competition with a re-vamped tourism strategy which was described as one of “bold steps and pulsating moves”. A kind of new Tourism Slide as in Electric? Get down, Dr. James Brown.

Or this: “We intend to be an entrepreneurial government – one that constantly chafes at the bit and searches for more efficient and effective ways of managing”. Chafes?! As in “make hot or sore by rubbing” or “become annoyed”? That’s a bit of a slip, I think, but perhaps accurate.

And finally this gem at the conclusion: “This means that every one of us must be involved as we build our nation: A Bermuda for Everyone … Everyone for Bermuda”.

Mind you, the Minister told us earlier in her statement that this will be the theme for the Quincentennial celebrations which Government is planning this year to mark the 500th Anniversary of the discovery of Bermuda, but to some of my colleagues it sounded like an election theme in the making.

So much then, Mr. Editor, for Juan Bermuda!

Mid Ocean News (11 Feb. 2005)
UBP MP John Barritt's 'View From the Hill'

Stepping out for the annual Budget Ballet

LADIES and gentlemen, and Mr. Editor too, today in the House on the Hill we reconvene for the annual Budget Ballet, an event not on the Bermuda Festival Calendar but on the Parliamentary Calendar, which features by way of an opening act, a grand pas de deux, the Minister of Finance leading first and her Shadow from the Opposition following next Friday. According to the choreography, which hasn’t changed much over the years – and by years, I mean decades, Mr. Editor - there often follows a series of long monologues by Ministers of the Government, reading from lengthy scripts put together by swivel servants, whose Shadows get to respond in kind … and in length if they’re lucky. The rest of us poor sods may not even get an opportunity to get a word in edge-wise, such is our lot as the cast ensemble.

They call this the Budget Debate … and unlike the real Festival down the road, it’s free: The debate that is, whether listening on the radio or watching from the public gallery. Or not. Your choice.

The excitement, if any, is born out of the anticipation we all have as to what will be in the Budget, the first to bear the entire imprint of Finance Minister Paula Cox who succeeded her late father in the post just prior to last year’s presentation. There will likely be the obligatory news video of the Finance Minister making her way up to the House on the Hill with the Budget firmly tucked inside Ministerial briefcase, and the obligatory pose, usually halfway up the steps, for Saturday’s Royal Gazette. The props, Mr. Editor, like the choreography never seem to change. Not much.

But no matter how you slice it, Mr. Editor, the Budget is the news story of the day. I mean, if it’s anything like last year’s, it will be a $700-million production. It should warrant attention - and close scrutiny too.

Parliament is meant to provide that close scrutiny. That won’t begin to happen until next week when the Opposition delivers its Reply through its Leader, Dr. Grant Gibbons, who also happens to be the Shadow for Finance. If past practice is any indication, Mr. Editor, we’ll all likely scurry off the Hill soon after the Budget is presented: the Government to explain and defend initiatives in press conferences and the Opposition, after an initial comment or two, to prepare for next week’s curtain call.

We call next Friday The Economic Debate: when members get to speak on the both the Budget and the Economy and the direction of both. Different directions? We hope not, but you never know.

Meanwhile, the actual debate of the various Ministries – and their proposed expenditures for the next financial year – won’t begin until Monday the 28th. The Rules provide that some 42 hours be set aside for this next phase of the plot, acts of scrutiny they are meant to be, as we meet three days a week for two weeks to get to The End. The fun part here, and I exaggerate a touch Mr Editor, is that the Opposition gets to decide how much time, if any, is allocated and to what departments and in what order. But the allocations are not meant to come as a complete surprise to the Government: we are to let them know the order and the times sufficiently well in advance so as to be primed and ready to roll … to roll out those briefs, which are hardly ever brief, but often longer in self-aggrandising spin than they are in actual substance.

Questions for Ministers? Maybe.

Answers? Unlikely.

You were thinking of what: An actual debate? Sorry, Mr. Editor, not in this production – and this, ladies and gentlemen, and you too Mr Editor, is how our Parliament works in the year 2005.

A way to go, Mr. Premier

IF you’re thinking there must be another way, don’t think again. Reform of the rules of the House of Assembly doesn’t appear to be high on the Government agenda, if it is at all. On the other hand, even their own members return from Commonwealth Parliamentary Conferences, year after year, and share with us reports, year after year, that tell us how behind the times we really are in the way in which we run our House of Assembly. I could go on and on about the need for reform – and how you don’t need to be independent to bring Bermuda up-to-date. But I won’t. I have already, elsewhere, with recommendations.

Let’s try a new tack, shall we?

The Man Who Wants To Be Prime Minister showed some inclination to think and act outside the conventional box when he established the Big BIC: You might say it showed a streak of independent thought. Now while he and I disagree on the need or the mandate to pursue independence, the approach did appear to be an attempt of sorts at some sort of bi-partisan, community-based effort to tackle an issue of concern to the community(which, granted, Grant, is only an issue because he made it an issue).

What about employing this approach on major issues that are of real and actual concern to the voters of this country, Mr Editor? Here’s a couple that might benefit from bi-partisan, broad community-based, investigation spearheaded by backbench MPs from both sides of the House on the Hill: -

Sustainable development: Why just an expert from the UK under CPU? Plenty of home-grown talent here: former Environment Minister Arthur Hodgson comes to my mind as well as the man he hired to consult on the issue Pauulu Kamarakafego a.k.a Dr. Roosevelt Brown. What became of his work anyhow? Sustainable development strikes me as an ideal probe for a 12-person committee drawn from all sectors of the community.

Tourism: We’ve tried everything else so far haven’t we? Minister after Minister, seem to come and go, and go, and go, and go quite a lot, it seems, and with them a multiplicity of sound-good, feel-good ideas that never quite seem to deliver where it counts. Here. Who remembers the Fly/Cruise dream? Gombeys at Davos? Argentina and the South America push? Africa? Now the Miami Heat and a Bermuda shorts fashion show. Some of the ideas seem as far flung as they are far-fetched. We’re told we’re creating a buzz. What we need is more people in the form of visitors.

Add to this the turn-over in Tourism personnel in recent years and David Dodwell’s call for an independent Tourism Authority is looking better and better. Maybe it is time to turn tourism over to the professionals, people with a stake in the industry, who make a career and a living out of tourism – and let the amateurs, as enthusiastic and as hard-working as they may be, get out of the way.

Crime ( our youth and gangs): Given recent headlines in the newspaper and on the news, need I say more? This is a community issue that does cut across political boundaries, and cries out for a bi-partisan approach.

I’m certain there are other issues that could be added to the list: Housing is but one more that comes immediately to mind.

What does this approach bring, Mr Editor?

Consultation, participation, and involvement.

Openness and transparency too, if we opened the work of parliamentary committees to the public. But that gets me back to where I started: the long overdue need for reform of the way in which we do the people’s business in Bermuda.

Absent a good idea

BUT before I get carried away, committees can kill too – if not seriously deep six a good idea. Absentee ballots are a prime example. It’s now been well over two years since the Opposition introduced a motion in the House calling for absentee ballots which the Speaker called on us to withdraw because the then Premier, Jennifer Smith, said her Government was about to set up a committee to review how the franchise might be extended. The Opposition had put forward a paper prepared by interested students who had looked at the issue and who had recommended postal ballots and provided some sample legislation by way of example. The Government committee came back six months later and agreed with the students. Postal balloting was preferred. The 2003 election came and went. No absentee balloting. The last we heard – in the November Throne Speech – was that the legislation was still in the works. Here’s hoping it comes out of committee coma ... soon.

PS Mr. Editor: once again we don’t need to be independent to be progressive.

Going up?

LISTEN, you wisecrackers out there, the only reason the proposed elevator won’t be going to the top floor in the House on the Hill is because there’s only one room up there, in the tower – and it’s empty. If you must know, the second floor is where the action is: the House, the public gallery and a court-room.

It’s also been a long time coming.

Mid Ocean News (11 Feb. 2005)
UBP MP John Barritt's 'View From the Hill'

Back from Hibernation

TWENTY FOUR hours is a long time in politics, Mr Editor. Ten weeks is too long. But that’s how long the House will have been out when we reconvene on the Hill next Friday. It’s been quite the recess really, and in duration more like a hibernation than a break from parliamentary action. Not that it’s been completely quiet on the political front since Christmas.

If the pollsters are to be believed, there are some close races going on … except backwards. A kind of political version of the limbo, if you will: how low can you go … without collapsing. The two political parties like their leaders are said to be neck and neck; and therein lies a warning. As most pundits will point out, clever politicians want to be careful to never stick their necks out too far. They tend to get the chop.

Sticking with body parts, the Premier seems to have one leg up on the Opposition – access to the public purse. Someone somewhere came up with the idea of paid focus groups to tell him and the PLP Government how to improve their image and how to get their message across to the people. I don’t know about you, Mr. Editor, but it all sounds to me like an expensive and more convenient substitute for canvassing and listening. Although on reflection, as it is paid for by taxpayers, it does work out to be cheaper for the PLP. Mind you, we have repeatedly been told that the purpose of the focus groups and polling was not political. Sure, sure, Mr. Editor. Meanwhile we all await the report on how much this exercise cost; who was polled; what they were asked; and what they said i.e. the results – without editing and without editorial comment. Fat chance, you say?

No BIC-kering, thank you very much

Speaking of costs, as advertised, Big BIC also swung into action while we were down and out, on holiday from the Hill: a 12-person committee appointed by the Premier to investigate and give us the facts on Independence for Bermuda.

We in the Opposition were very kindly offered the right to nominate one person for BIC, but respectfully declined, thank you very much. It was a decision that didn’t go down well with everyone, including the Man Who Made The Offer, as well as – dare I say it? - some of our own supporters. Only some, Mr. Editor, not many.

As our leader, Dr. Grant Gibbons, explained at the time: we didn’t in good conscience feel that we could serve. And it wasn’t just because we were only offered the right to put up one person for one spot, even though we represent close to half of the voting electorate. It was a point of principle.

First, the PLP didn’t run on the pursuit of independence in the last election. They have no mandate. Whilst I appreciate that their platform wasn’t published until a week or so before the 2003 vote, and voters may as a consequence have had little time to read let alone digest its contents, the subject didn’t even rate a mention.

The only change since the 2003 vote? A change of leaders: see above on polls, popularity and what happens when your neck is out too far.
What we have seen since the change in leaders is the emergence of something called “The Social Agenda”, trumpeted in the most recent Throne Speech in which, incidentally, despite its length and its breadth, the subject of independence once again didn’t even rate a mention in the PLP Government’s list of priorities for the current Parliamentary year.

Secondly, we in the Opposition could agree on that: there are some far more important and pressing issues to get on with than the pursuit of Independence. Limited time and resources – money and manpower – have a way of dictating what you can and cannot do
Now the PLP calls it a Social Agenda.

We call it the People’s Business.

The facts of the matter

Speaking of agendas, Mr. Editor, the Opposition also happened to think that the pursuit of independence wasn’t very high on the list of priorities for the people of Bermuda. The polls tend to confirm this to be the case, the most recent example being that which was published last week in The Royal Gazette. Those against have apparently reached a new high: 65.2 per cent. What’s even more startling perhaps is that an even greater number (69.4 per cent) wish to have the issue decided by way of a referendum rather than general election. Nothing uncertain about those numbers, eh HE?

Meanwhile, the position of the UBP, new or old, has been consistent. On the question of a referendum, we’ve been neverendum: the people of Bermuda should have the right to decide by way of a direct vote, yes or no, on whether Bermuda should go independent. It’s a position that is hardly surprising for a party that is made up of people who are for and against independence; in fact, you might say it’s a position that is representative of the community we seek to serve.

After a yes vote, maybe, we can get down to deciding on Brand X or Brand Y and who should lead us into independence by way of a general election.

But BIC, we’re told, won’t be dealing with how the question is to be decided. In his one and only Ministerial statement to Parliament on the subject, just before we rose for the Christmas holiday, the Premier foretold the establishment of BIC, promising that it would embark on “a comprehensive, fact-finding, analytical and reasoned approach”. We can only await their findings on the facts.

Kettle takes on the pot

Speaking of reasoned, we have now heard from the ex-right of man of the ex-Premier (see the bit on polls above) on the subject. Lt. Col Burch called for a debate on the issue “free of all the hyperbole and overreaction that has characterised the debate thus far”.

That was bit like the kettle calling the pot black, don’t you think Mr. Editor? He reminded us that the PLP have always been for independence, since day one –it’s in their constitution, he said - and they are for deciding the issue by way of a general election.

But so what? As the song says, that was yesterday. They used to be against accepting the Queen’s Honours too. I particularly liked his bit about general elections being “the bedrock of democracy”. True that.

But let’s not overlook the downside the first past the post system. Even if constituencies are even in terms of numbers of voters, that system has a habit of returning Parliaments and Governments that are not necessarily representative of how people voted. The number of seats rarely matches the popular support and Governments have been known to be elected without the majority popular vote and in some cases, if not most, with more MPs than their fair share on the basis of the popular vote.

A referendum cuts through all of that: each vote actually is of equal value when people vote in a referendum. Lt. Col. Burch also scolded those who promote a referendum for overlooking the cost. He put the price tag at around $600,000.

Even if he’s right, I suspect that the additional and new costs of an independent Bermuda make a $600,000 price tag quite modest by comparison and a small price to pay for letting the people have the final say.

You don’t say?

Finally, speaking of change, Mr. Editor, the about face in Barbados this week didn’t escape my notice … and that of hundreds of others in Bermuda too, I bet. Prime Minister Owen Arthur reversed positions and will now plump for a referendum on the issue of whether Barbados should move from a monarchical to a republican system of government. Fancy that.

“The opinion of the people should be deliberately and specifically canvassed by way of a referendum”, the Prime Minister was quoted as saying in the news report which I read.

Enough said, Mr. Editor. Enough said.