SIMPLE changes to the Parliamentary system could make politicians more accountable for their actions, and better protect the public purse against future "screw-ups", United Bermuda Party MP John Barritt claimed yesterday.

He said the UBP was awaiting response on a series of proposals recommended last year, now before the Rules & Privileges Committee of the House of Assembly. "We're trying to work with the Progressive Labour Party and we hope they're going to come across on this," Mr. Barritt said. "Ultimately, we need to have a Parliament that serves the needs of the people, not just the politicians.

"If we don't put in place a system, my fear is that this kind of stuff will continue to occur, and will continue to slip by.

"If there were Standing Committees in Parliament, the minute there was a hint of scandal ? or even before that, as a matter of routine ? people would be called in to explain what they were doing and why. Why shouldn't they?

"The people who work in Government are paid out of taxpayers' dollars. The Ministers are paid with taxpayers' dollars. Why shouldn't the public have a system in place which allows their Members of Parliament to hold people accountable for their decision?"

As proposed by the UBP, Parliamentary Standing Committees would comprise both Opposition and Government representatives, with members free to probe Government decisions and able to call on Ministers and technical advisers to explain and defend their decisions.

Were such legislation now in place, the House Leader and party whip explained, the public would have already received answers on a series of scandals which have recently made headlines ? the Bermuda Housing Corporation, the delayed completion of the new senior secondary school, and the often-questioned terms of the 99-year contract issued to the Coco Reef Hotel. As well, measures would now be in place to prevent them from happening again.

"Based on the recent disturbing trend ? things like the Bermuda Housing Corporation scandal, the senior secondary school fiasco and the Coco 'Loco' Reef lease ? people must be asking themselves what kind of Government we have," he said. "At the very least, they have to be regarded as screw-ups. Major screw-ups involving millions of taxpayers' dollars.

"So two questions have to be asked: What happened? And how was it allowed to happen? Somebody ought to be held to account. And when I say somebody I'm not talking about the person who cleans the building or does the paperwork, I'm talking about the people who are ultimately responsible. The people at the top. The Minister, the general manager and the Chairman of the Board."

Government owes the public answers, he insisted. The decision to give the senior school project to Pro-Active Management Systems Ltd. was made against the advice of the Department of Works & Engineering's technical advisers ? but why?

And he said that questions have yet to be satisfactorily answered regarding the tendering process applied to the former Stonington Beach Hotel property and the subsequent lease given to the owners of the Coco Reef Hotel.

"Cabinet said: 'For reasons that are best known to us and we think are best for Bermuda, we've got to go with this particular bidder, Pro-Active. It's going to cost us more, but we think it's the way to go.' Government shouldn't be allowed to duck that," said Mr. Barritt.

"If you had Standing Parliamentary Committees they could review major Government decisions like Berkeley, where contracts were awarded involving millions of dollars; if you wanted something investigated like the Bermuda Housing Corporation, you'd have a Standing Committee with members of both the Opposition and the Government so each member would be entitled to ask questions.

"The UBP is not inventing the wheel. This is something that takes place in other modern parliaments in the Western World. People would have to explain on what basis they had awarded a contract.They would be called to account for their decisions; to explain them and to withstand questioning from their own members and members of the Opposition. What better way to have transparency and accountability?"

Such committees, he added, would eliminate the "innuendo, gossip and rumour" Premier Alex Scott has insisted should not be part of the political process.

The best part, he said, is that changes to the legislation would take little more than a sincere "commitment" from both parties.

"What we'd like to see is something the Progressive Labour Party says they're in favour of ? transparency and accountability. If we're in favour of that, why don't we have a system in place that allows for that and encourages that to happen?

"It just requires a commitment. It doesn't require a lot of money, it doesn't require a big change of legislation ? something this Government has difficulty producing.

"All it requires is a commitment to say we're going to change the way we run Parliament. It requires that those of us who are in power recognise (what is in) the best interest of the country today, and those who come after us. We need to be looking at putting in place a better system of Government. The UBP, we've committed ourselves to that.

"One of the things about being in Opposition is it gives you a chance to reassess your own views. I don't think we should be criticised for honestly coming to what we think is a better way."