There’s no chimney on the House on the Hill, Mr. Acting Editor, so there’s no chance of ever seeing the smoke whether black, white or grey. We read and hear instead about the heat, sparked I am sure by the partisan nature of politics. They are after all MPs, not cardinals. Still, as you yourself opined this week, we would all like to think members could raise the bar a little. I’ve made a few suggestions myself.There was one stab at change on the Hill last week that backfired, proving either that (a) no good deed goes unpunished, or (b) that road to you-know-where is paved with good intentions, or maybe (c) all of the above.The Speaker attempted to read Budget briefs prepared by the Auditor General, Ombudsman and Parliamentary Registrar. I understand why. Those three officers should not be under the control or influence of any member of Government, and protection for the first two offices is even enshrined in our Constitution Order. No Cabinet Minister should speak on their behalf. What’s even worse, I understand that in the past the briefs read by Cabinet Ministers were not the ones which were not the ones which had been prepared for presentation to the House. They had been altered.That is the real problem and it ought to be stopped.But I’m not sure the Speaker is the right solution. It is not just a rule but long-standing convention that the Speaker should take no part in debate — and for good reason. The person in the chair must be seen to be impartial at all times and he should not in any way risk jeopardising members’ (and public) confidence in his impartiality by descending into the well of the Chamber to speak. It should always be from above and with a view to maintaining and preserving order in the parliamentary playpen.I know, I know, he was only going to read their briefs: and what is this preoccupation with reading up on the Hill? Reading isn’t debating. On the contrary, it stifles. These reports could just as easily be tabled through the Speaker for the information and review of members and then subsequently debated. Opposition and Government could still make their points and the Opposition should quite rightly be able challenge the Government on why they provided funding (or not) for this or that and Government given the opportunity to respond.Sure, some questions might go unanswered, but only on the floor of the House, and the same would be true whether it was a Cabinet Minister or the Speaker leading the debate.That said, and for those who asked, MPs can by agreement and/or vote change or throw out any or all the rules. Parliament is supreme.Questions, questionsReaders write, Mr. Acting Editor, and inquiring minds want to know:* Yes, I too, wonder why we are not seeing more in the way of “audits” of what the OBA found when they took office, much like Ministers Moniz and Scott have started to do with Heritage Wharf and the (not-so) Grand Atlantic. Like those supplementaries. We will all have a better idea of what’s what and where to from here.* No, I have no inside information on why it has taken PATI so long to get off the ground. It is disappointing. Just a matter of priorities? Yet if we measure ourselves by our competitors (and others do) the Caymans by comparison seemed to have no difficulty in getting theirs up and running in half the time. A matter of political will too, I suppose.* Yes, I agree, we ought to have known before now what makes a Cabinet Minister full-time or part-time other than the extra $50,000 or $100,000, and just who is and is not. This isn’t just a question of what’s fair (the PLP Government was criticised unmercifully, and quite rightly, for failing to tell us) but one of transparency and accountability which should start at the top.More questions or comments? Write jbarritt@ibl.bm.