Functional unity is a beautiful thing, I reckon Mr Editor. But like beauty, functionality is in the eye of the beholder, or perhaps when it comes to politics in the eyes of the beholden. Of course, we would all like to see a little more functional unity among all of those who constitute our parliamentary functionaries, known collectively the Legislature, whose chief function, according to the Bermuda Constitution Order, is to make laws for the peace, order and good government of Bermuda.

Sounds good, sure, but the challenge as always is making these things work in practice and not just in theory. Okay, so Barritt has an idea again? Several in fact, but this week I only want to go on about one. True, I have touched on this before, but it is an approach which illustrates (I think) how much better our Westminster system of government can work for us: the beholden.

Here we have our new hospital, the acute care wing, about to open, looking like a first class facility, I might add, the result of what has come to be known as a private-public-partnership or PPP for short. I offer it up as (pardon the pun) a concrete example of public expenditure that ought to have been, and ought to be the continuing subject of critical examination and constant review by the Legislature.

The need for this sort of exercise is particularly acute in these times, not just because money is tight and hard to come by, but because elsewhere, on other fronts, we are being invited to consider a host of other possible options on how to provide public services, possibly less expensively than our Government can provide and potentially more efficiently. At least that’s the theory when it comes to privatisation and any and all other possible permutations that are floated as the answer, potentially, to our financial problems. If only.

Well, how has that PPP on Point Finger Road worked out for us? The answer is critical to the discussion on alternatives. It is an education worth having.

First, let me clear: this isn’t about engaging in any finger pointing. On the contrary: it’s about fact finding. Secondly, I believe there is much to be gained by looking closely and openly at this model of development, and that it ought to be done in the sunshine of public scrutiny. It also makes for greater transparency and accountability.

If you haven’t guessed it already, I believe that this should properly be the work of a committee of the Legislature, Government and Opposition members, as well as, if possible, an independent from the Senate. Yes, it could even be a subcommittee of the Public Accounts Committee (PAC for short, as I am sure everyone now knows), whose duty it is to examine, consider and report on the expenditure of our money, with the assistance of the Auditor General where necessary.

There are any number of lines of inquiry that can be pursued — and my list is neither definitive or exhaustive, simply illustrative: -

• The potential exposure, if any, given the delays and changes in construction and the reported “substantial” overruns endured by McAlpine, one of the partners in the construction consortium, and how this is being managed.

• How future costs are shaping up, particularly any over and above the construction contract, for example in outfitting the new wing, and how these will be funded.

• Whether in fact there will be (or can be) three different rates for the private rooms in the new wing, and what if any impact this will have on the different rates of insurance we currently have (public, private and semi-private).

• There’s also the nitty gritty of an examination of expenses going forward, including salaries and the awarding of contracts.

Our parliamentary representatives will have to roll up their sleeves, do a little homework, ask the right questions of the BHB, report on their findings and make any recommendations they think are warranted — and all of it in the public eye.

Now please, don’t jump to conclusions. I am not advocating that we play political football with our hospital, nor am I inviting others to do so. Quite the opposite. An open, ongoing review by a committee of the Legislature is a means to get away from gotcha politics, while at the same time, providing a means to engage and inform the public on a matter of national importance. Neither is this solely about the cost of healthcare in Bermuda, although that is important, it is also about a change in approach to issues that transcend petty party politics so as to make public examination through questions and answers routine. Accountability and its twin transparency then follow as night follows day.

I have heard assertions to the contrary: quangos should not be subject to the same scrutiny as government. I am neither impressed nor persuaded. The BHB, like the BTA, is a creature of statute, granted its powers (and funding) by the Legislature. What the Legislature gives, it can take away and between giving and taking members can certainly investigate and seek answers on behalf of the public they represent and serve.

There is an important and responsible role here to be played by our MPs. Those who sit on the backbench, Government and Opposition, should seize it. You have heard me before on this — countless times — PAC should be far more active and engaged than it is. If the Opposition has no appetite for the work to be done (their spokesman for finance is the chairman) then Government MPs should be clamouring for action.

A little more functional unity on this front would be most welcome. You think?