ANOTHER late night on the Hill last Friday, Mr. Editor, and as usual it was not without its surprises. Those surprises, mind you, were nothing like those that took place at the Palace between the Pistons and Pacers.

Thank goodness. In fact, the public gallery was pretty well empty when the debate finally broke out late in the evening and members starting taking their shots . . . at each other.

Let's get to the first surprise ? a pleasant one. Government and Opposition agreed on the first two pieces of legislation of the new session ? amendments to the Criminal Code and to the Historical Wrecks Act, both of them unrelated save and except that they were not part of the newly proclaimed Social Agenda.

They were both holdovers from the legislative session that ended in July and as we all know the Agenda now known as Social didn't officially begin until this session when the Throne Speech was unveiled.

But agreement, Mr. Editor, doesn't necessarily mean legislation breezes through the House on the Hill without comment. Are you kidding? There was lively debate as to whether what was proposed was actually enough. The amendments were calling for harsher fines and stiffer prison terms for some but not all violent crimes. They covered serious assault but not common assault; grievous bodily harm but not intimidation; reckless driving but not manslaughter. Go figure.

The changes before us were actually promised in last year's Throne Speech which wasn't known as the Social Agenda. The actual wording of the amendments was simple and straightforward. Inquiring minds wanted to know, but were never told what took them so long to get to the House.

We learned too, that police have to date felt hamstrung in their efforts to intervene where outbreaks of violence occur, especially in crowds, because of their limited powers of arrest in such circumstances. Those powers have now been broadened, considerably. Again, if that has been the problem for police, and this is the solution, what takes so long to get the necessary legislation to Parliament?

If the system's broke, Mr. Editor, fix it ? and fix it quickly, according to Opposition Shadow Maxwell Burgess. "As you look back," he told Government, "criminals look forward."

He, too, decried the time it took to get the changes to the House and the fact that the penalties weren't tougher ? and there was a news report that day from Antigua about a Bermudian facing massive fines for drug offences and time in prison in lieu with ? get this ? "hard labour".

Maxwell said that he believed in the triple P programme: perpetrate crime, you pay, with prison. That's putting the extra p in pepper, Mr. Editor. His cousin on the other side, Derrick Burgess, wasn't far behind either. He managed to work in the efficacy of licks at an early age, presumably to stunt would-be, future criminals.

One of Maxwell's observations and recommendations also found favour with the Minister Randy Horton. Maxwell wanted to know why the penalties for assault of those in the front line ? prison officers, police and customs officers ? were less than those for other assault victims. The Minister ? to his credit ? had a good answer. He proposed the oversight be corrected right there and then on the floor of the House ? and it was.

The system does work, sometimes Mr. Editor, in spite of itself, you might say. Meanwhile, the amendments to the Historical Wrecks Act (the underwater kind) went through even quicker. The Minister and her Shadow were in complete agreement and the only other MP to chime in was the UBP's Trevor Moniz who also happens to be chairman of the Maritime Museum. One other surprise: no, Ren?e didn't speak. At all.

A good Seniors moment

BREVITY was not the case with Mrs. Louise Jackson's motion on Seniors ? although initially it looked like it might be. Mrs. Jackson and six of her colleagues had spoken before the first Government MP rose to speak.

That must have been around eight in the evening, some two hours after Louise began ? which, co-incidentally, also happened to be around the time supper had been delivered to the House ? and suddenly a debate was on that continued until after midnight.

I don't think any of us expected it to go that long ? but credit Mrs. Jackson for once again putting the spotlight on seniors and their challenges. It turned out to be a wide-ranging debate, although the motion itself called on members to take note of the recently-concluded study on "Ageing in Bermuda".

Despite the late hour, the Speaker kept his humour when members started challenging each other to confine their comments to the Report.

"I don't know," replied the Speaker at one stage. "I've been listening this evening and it seems to me that I have heard an awful lot . . . that wasn't in the Report."

The Man Acting for the Premier, Dr. Ewart Brown, even felt compelled to wade in around the midnight hour. He told us ? and anyone else listening over the radio at that hour ? that the PLP knew what was really going on.

"This is a carefully orchestrated campaign to depict the PLP as insensitive and uncaring when it comes to seniors," he declared, describing it as "a public relations effort to separate the PLP from Bermudians who care".

As he also acknowledged: "We expect these things to happen in the House from time to time." Like Dame Lois once said of life on the Hill, Mr. Editor: "It's not a Sunday School picnic."

The Deputy Man's defence of what the PLP had done for seniors in its six years also drew one of the better lines of the day. As Minister responsible for Transport, Dr. Brown extolled all that had been done to make trips more accessible and comfortable for seniors to ride on the ferries and the buses.

"Sure," shouted out Maxwell Burgess, "but their real problems are still there after the rides are over."

Diametrically diabolical

FUNNY this but when it came to quick wit and clever lines last Friday Mr. Burgess was never far away. He was the featured subject in one of the day's funnier exchanges. As Shadow Minister for Public Safety, Maxwell had just finished his patented law and order, thunder and lightning, speech on the need to crackdown on crime with stiffer penalties.

The PLP's Glen Blakeney rose to defend his Government's record. "I couldn't be more diabolically opposed to the Member who just spoke," he began.

"Diabolically opposed?" came the cries from the Opposition benches.

"Surely you mean diametrically opposed?" declared Pat Gordon-Pamplin.

"Whichever," said Mr. Blakeney who, undaunted, pressed on.

Wayne Furbert authored another beauty when Minister Horton accepted Maxwell Burgess' amendment. Former Premier, now Deputy Speaker Jennifer Smith, was in the chair. Ms Smith permitted the amendment even though it was not in writing.

"You should be the Premier," said Mr. Furbert ? in a complimentary kind of way.

It stopped Mr. Horton in his tracks. He looked up and smiled. But before he could respond, it was the ex-Premier who shot back: "The member knows full well why that isn't so."

There was then one of those pregnant pauses. Members listening sat bemused as they tried to figure out: (a) to whom Wayne was referring when he spoke: Minister Horton or Ms Smith and (b) to whom did Ms Smith think Wayne was referring: herself or Minister Horton?

It's good to keep us guessing, I guess, Mr. Editor.

Land of hype and glory

QUALIFYING for the Agenda known as Social is getting easier. In one of two ministerial statements on the day ? a refreshing change for a change, Mr. Editor ? Minister Dale Butler of Community Affairs told us what he had already announced that week at a press conference . . . and followed up with paid advertisements this week: the winners of the Consumer Affairs Awards for Excellence in Customer Care. This, we were told in the statement, was "another fine example of Government's Social Agenda at work".

Hmmmn, I guess we should look for the list to keep expanding as Government lays claim to all it can in the name of its Agenda.