Mr. Speaker,

Talk about the Scott government?s new social agenda began earlier this year just as fallout from the Berkeley fiasco and the BHC police investigation thoroughly undermined what was left of Bermuda?s reputation for integrity, good government and competent management. In the wake of one government disaster after another, it was clear that the PLP had to invent something positive to talk about, even if it lacked credibility.

But proposing a new social agenda was a curious step. After all, the people of Bermuda assumed the PLP government already had a social agenda.

In 1998, when the PLP formed the government and promised a new Bermuda, it called for, among other things, affordable housing; quality education for all; law and good order; a rescue mission for tourism; better jobs for Bermudians; managed healthcare; and comfortable and fulfilling lives for seniors.

That sure sounds like a social agenda.

Since then, PLP budgets have tried to reassure Bermudians that all that increased spending supported a social agenda. The PLP government called their first budget ?people based and people focused.? In the second budget they said, ?We will put our people first.? The third time around, we heard that ?the social focus of the PLP government is demonstrably shown by the increased resources channelled into human service areas.?

The fact is, the PLP government has always talked about social programs and social spending.

So, Mr. Speaker,

When Premier Scott announced his ?new? social agenda, how could he expect anyone to take him seriously?

Last week, Premier Scott told the people of Bermuda, with a straight face, that after six years his labour government has finally developed a social agenda, and it?s an ?all-encompassing cross-ministry? social agenda at that.

But he didn?t stop there. Premier Scott described his new social agenda as a ?watershed? event in parliamentary history.

Mr. Speaker,

The spin is positively breathtaking.

But it does lead us to ask an important question. If the PLP government didn?t really have a social agenda before, then what have they been doing for the past six years? Pretending?

This much we do know. In spite of dramatically increased spending-now over $100 million a year more than in 1998-they haven?t provided affordable housing. They haven?t improved the quality of life for our seniors. They haven?t transformed the public education system. They haven?t improved the healthcare system. They haven?t made a dent in violent crime. They haven?t improved road safety. They haven?t rescued tourism. They haven?t improved labour relations. And they haven?t improved race relations.

They had the opportunity to do all those things for the people of Bermuda, but they let the people down. They made lots of promises, spent and wasted lots of money and didn?t deliver.

You don?t hear much from the people who really lost out. They tend to suffer in silence. We think of the long-serving hotel workers at Stonington Beach who lost their jobs when Coco Reef came in. The mothers and children living in unacceptable conditions while they wait for emergency housing. The seniors who don?t have enough money to see a doctor. And the Berkeley students and parents who have waited far too long for their new school.

Recently Premier Scott claimed the PLP government spent the last six years ?ensuring the stability of the economy.? Well, was the Minister of Housing stabilising the economy? Were the Minister of Works and Engineering, the Minister of Health and Social Services and the Minister of Public Safety stabilising the economy? Perhaps we?re mistaken, but we thought the Minister of Finance had that job.

Mr. Speaker,

The PLP government did have an agenda over the last six years, but it was entirely self-serving. Their legacy includes mismanaging the Berkeley project and squandering tens of millions of taxpayer dollars, unethical transactions by PLP government officials involved in the Bermuda Housing Corporation scandal, sweet real-estate deals for political cronies at Coco Reef Hotel, misleading the public for political gain, secrecy, cover-ups and...well, the sorry list goes on and on.

The fact that Premier Scott is proposing a new ten-year social agenda is nothing less than his admission that the projects, programs and policies of the PLP government since 1998 have failed utterly and completely.

There may be a few people who desperately cling to the hope that somehow, someday, the PLP government will actually deliver what they promise. And Premier Scott may actually believe that a new social agenda will make the people of Bermuda forget the dismal PLP record. But the rest of us can?t make that leap of faith. We believe the PLP government broke faith with the people of Bermuda a long time ago.

Call us realists, but this is what we see. Premier Scott?s so-called social agenda is nothing more than the invention of a government caught in a desperate political situation. They have let the country down-we know it, they know it and the people of Bermuda know it. Just listen to the talk shows-even the PLP?s traditional supporters are fed up.

Under these circumstances, how does the PLP government try to restore its credibility? How does the PLP government try to cover up six years of failure? How do an accidental Premier and his colleagues fight for their political survival? They try to divert attention with a ?watershed? social agenda and deliver a Throne Speech that sounds suspiciously like a pre-election political platform.

For once the PLP government is completely transparent. They should be ashamed and embarrassed, and this social agenda-this blatant political agenda-cannot be viewed with anything but scepticism and cynicism.

Mr. Speaker,

? ?The United Bermuda Party knows something about social agendas. We celebrate our 40th anniversary this year, and a look back shows just how significantly United Bermuda Party governments changed the social landscape of Bermuda. It was the United Bermuda Party that, among other things,

? lowered the voting age and abolished the property vote following the institution of universal adult suffrage;

?desegregated public schools and created the modern, free public-school system;

?established the Bermuda College;

? introduced human-rights legislation to prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, ethnicity and gender, and established the Human Rights Commission and CURE;

? created the Hospital Insurance Plan (HIP) with special subsidies for seniors, children and the indigent; workmen?s compensation; social insurance; and the National Occupational Pension Scheme;

?established the Bermuda Housing Corporation and built hundreds of affordable housing units from Top Square in St. George?s to Rockaway in Southampton; and

?nurtured a strong, two-sector economy through development of tourism and international business that allowed us to pay for modern social programs.

We don?t hesitate to acknowledge that the ?old? PLP, the PLP that was founded in 1963, also worked hard in Opposition to bring necessary change to an entrenched social order that was not responsive to the needs and interests of most Bermudians.

But we wonder what the ?old? PLP would think about the record of the ?new? PLP elected in 1998. Promises not kept? Failure to deliver social programs? Failure to meet the needs of those least able to help themselves? Surely the ?old? PLP would agree that these new PLP leaders have lost touch with their roots.

Mr. Speaker,

While the concept of a new PLP social agenda cannot be taken seriously, the Throne Speech does list a number of positive initiatives to assist various groups within our community. We certainly can support those proposals taken directly from the 2003 United Bermuda Party platform, including customs-duty relief for approved housing schemes, addressing the ?death tax? on a primary residence, seniors? health clinics, absentee ballots and a freedom of information act.

We also appreciate the government?s response to our calls for CURE to collect data on gender and Bermudian status, and to correct their recently amended Financial Assistance Regulations that now penalise seniors-although it?s not clear whether they have gone far enough to provide real help.

But there are too many calls for meetings, forums, conferences or seminars-in other words, basic information-gathering exercises. Some initiatives call for the development of national strategies, so no one should expect action anytime soon. And many of the supposedly new proposals-like the Tech Quest 2000 Project started by ACE Insurance, the renovation of derelict houses, the child-abuse register or halfway houses for newly released prisoners-either already exist or are provided for.

As for the rest, they are poorly defined proposals, the kind that raise more questions than answers and are hard to track and measure. There?s no timetable for implementation, and there?s no prioritising. The Premier claims his government will provide progress reports to the House of Assembly on a regular basis, but, frankly, we?ve heard that fairytale too many times to believe it.

And what?s missing from the Throne Speech is as interesting as what is included. Education got barely a mention; there is nothing here that affects curriculum, standards or accountability, even though most people would agree that much more work needs to be done before the public-school system truly meets the needs of our children. Apparently reforming the criminal justice system is not a high priority in the Scott government either, although living in a safe community is of the highest importance to every Bermudian. And the Scott government doesn?t appear to be hearing our youth on their expressed need for youth centres in key neighbourhoods.

We also note that the Scott government has not included independence as a policy matter in the Throne Speech. We can assume, therefore, that any efforts by the PLP government to use parliamentary time to pursue this issue would detract from the implementation of their own ?social agenda.?

Mr. Speaker,

Even if the Throne Speech agenda was well intentioned, it addresses symptoms and fails to get to the heart of the social challenges facing our community. Setting up a programme is much easier than reforming an entrenched system, but we don?t see any evidence that the Scott government is willing or able to take on the tough and complicated problems.

Take seniors, for example. Two of the most pressing issues facing seniors today are poverty and inadequate health coverage. We know from the recently completed seniors study that 27 percent of seniors aged 65 to 79 live on less than $12,000 per year. That percentage climbs to 53 percent for seniors over 80. Yet Premier Scott?s new social agenda does not contain a single proposal to address this disgraceful situation.

Mr. Speaker,

Would any of us in this House choose to live on $12,000 a year?

We also know that a considerable number of seniors-up to 39 percent-report that their health insurance is inadequate for doctor visits or medication. Wellness clinics will help, although it?s not clear what services will be provided or whether the government intends to follow the United Bermuda Party recommendation and make them free to seniors without adequate coverage. But Premier Scott?s new social agenda does not call for fundamental reforms to the broader healthcare insurance system that could ease this situation-a situation that will get worse, not better, as Bermuda?s elderly population continues to grow.

The United Bermuda Party?s comprehensive plan for seniors will plug the gaps in healthcare coverage, provide affordable housing, improve pension benefits and secure better human rights. Our specific proposals include:

?A pilot healthcare clinic, possibly mobile, to provide free preventive and basic care to seniors without coverage or whose insurance limits doctor visits;

?Free prescription drugs and eyeglasses for seniors who can?t afford them;

?Automatic annual contributory pension increases, tied to the cost of living;

?Healthcare and insurance reform;

?Possible enhancements to healthcare coverage, including a medical pension plan, increased use of generic drugs and further benefits to HIP;

?Affordable assisted-living facilities as determined by need;

?Implementing without delay the recommendations for higher standards of care in home healthcare, rehabilitation centres and rest homes;

?Prohibiting age discrimination in Bermuda?s human-rights legislation;

?Raising the mandatory age of retirement in the Civil Service to 70 from 65, with optional early retirement.

In addition, the Ministry of Finance has failed to articulate a pension policy. They have not addressed how the social-insurance pension scheme should be structured to work in conjunction with the National Pension Plan. Current retirees and those about to retire will not benefit from the National Pension Plan as much as those who remain in the workforce longer. Although the Minister did respond to United Bermuda Party calls for a thorough actuarial analysis to determine how the social-insurance scheme and the National Pension Plan might work in parallel over the next decade, we have heard nothing about this for nearly a year.

Mr. Speaker,

Of all the social issues facing the people of Bermuda, none is more critical than housing. It affects all Bermudians, cutting right across income levels and social groups. There is some indication in this Throne Speech that the PLP government has been shamed into action after six years of failure, but their proposals take a Band-Aid approach to a problem that is broad and complex. Simply put, there is still no plan.

A plan contains research that provides the foundation for good decision making. A plan contains short- and long-term goals and objectives. A plan states what will be accomplished, how it will be accomplished and when it will be accomplished. A plan provides financial details. A plan sets measurable benchmarks.

Mr. Speaker,

We repeat, the Scott government has no comprehensive housing plan.

There have been plenty of promises. During the years when Premier Scott seems to think there was no social agenda, the PLP government promised to build 50 two- and three-bedroom units within nine months. It never happened. The next year in 2000, $461,000 went to the BHC to support their 100 homes project. No 100 homes. The year 2002 brought a promise to build two multi-storey boarding houses for 75 single men. No boarding houses were built.

Now we hear more promises. Providing emergency housing is essential, but the government needs to come clean on ?manufactured? housing. Are they talking about mobile homes? If so, do we really want trailer parks in Bermuda? In any case, the government?s proposal for emergency housing is not a comprehensive plan to end the housing crisis.

Customs-duty relief for affordable-housing schemes is an excellent proposal, but it?s not the answer to the housing crisis. And the program to renovate derelict housing-which was begun in the 1990s by the United Bermuda Party-has succeeded in adding some additional housing stock, but it plays a small role in solving the housing crisis.

Mr. Speaker,

The United Bermuda Party has a comprehensive plan to tackle the housing crisis. We, too, recognise an immediate need for emergency housing, and we have proposed building 100 homes for affordable rental within two years.

But affordable housing for everyone is also a priority. Bermudians must feel that it?s still possible to own a home. Our plan would provide new, affordable options to young people and families, particularly those trying to save for their first home. We would:

?Encourage private construction of affordable housing in special development zones through tax and other incentives;

?Liberalise building height restrictions for special housing initiatives;

?Set aside 25 acres of former baselands at Tudor Hill, Southampton, for affordable residential development;

?Examine all government property from St. George?s to Somerset to identify further land resources available for affordable housing;

?Work with financial institutions and developers to create a financing package that supports low-interest-rate mortgages and rent-to-buy schemes;

?Pursue the use of modular construction technology to lower costs of new housing;

?Significantly reduce the death tax on a primary residence;

?Make affordable housing a priority in the forthcoming Bermuda Development Plan; and

?Continue the programme to renovate derelict housing.

You will note that the Scott government now promises to adopt several of these proposals.

But until we address the fundamental causes of Bermuda?s housing problems, we will continue to see housing shortages and housing that?s too expensive for average Bermudians. Government leaders must take a serious look at the overall causes of our housing problems, set out a range of possible solutions and work with the people of Bermuda to make the right choices for our future.

We would develop a National Housing Strategy, in consultation with experts in housing, planning, the environment and finance, which would provide innovative, long-term approaches to the problems of affordability and availability.

The strategy would include a long-term plan for providing adequate and affordable housing options for seniors as well as first-time buyers. The strategy would be coordinated with a sustainability study on international business, in order to determine the impact of this sector on Bermuda?s quality of life and housing choices.

Mr. Speaker,

In 1998, no one questioned tourism?s designation as one of the two main pillars of our economy. Compared to international business, tourism generated more than two-thirds as much revenue and created many more jobs. By 2003, the PLP government?s own Bermuda Alliance for Tourism stated that tourism was ?dying a slow, insidious death,? former Minister Webb declared that tourism was a ?national crisis? and the results prove it.

For the Scott government to now suggest that they will ?safeguard and enhance this vital industry? is laughable. To further suggest that they will eliminate high and off seasons is naive at best and deceitful at worst. Bermuda is a destination with seasons. Our travel agents know it, our customers know it and we know it. What we must do is celebrate our seasons with appropriate programmes and incentives.

Trying to enhance the interaction between Bermudians and visitors is a good-if completely vague-proposal. But if the PLP government really believes this, why did they slash funding for the Visitor Industry Partnership? And why did they drop the Freeman Group Service Training Plan?

The PLP government has promised and failed to have any appreciable impact on hotel capacity. So new promises to make an aggressive effort to increase hotel-bed capacity and ensure that offline properties are restored must be greeted with scepticism. This picture is even more depressing when we consider the human impact of the government?s failure: over 1,500 hotel jobs lost and the uncaring treatment of veteran Bermudian hotel workers at Coco Reef.

After three ministers, four directors and six years without a plan, the strategy should be obvious: The Scott government should establish a Tourism Authority, cut the red tape and get out of the way.

Mr. Speaker,

Premier Scott appears to be fond of the phrase ?Bermuda works best when we work together,? but this didn?t stop the Progressive Labour Party from producing racially inflammatory advertising during the 2003 election campaign. In response, the United Bermuda Party called for the establishment of principles of conduct to guide our political communications, including parliamentary debate and election campaigns.

We invited the Scott government to join a bipartisan, parliamentary working group to discuss the implementation of these principles of conduct. They agreed and several meetings were held, but it soon became clear that the government wasn?t interested in pursuing this initiative. Eventually, the meetings stopped.

Needless to say, we are disappointed. The United Bermuda Party believes that political leaders should be role models in race relations; by doing so, they can influence the actions of their supporters as well as the broader public.

Back in the sixties, which were arguably the most turbulent years in the second half of the twentieth century, when almost every social, cultural and political tradition was challenged or outright rejected, Bermudians struggled to achieve racial integration, guarantee civil and human rights and improve the quality life for all.

Some chose an extreme approach to reform. But the United Bermuda Party focused on a positive way to ensure progress. From the very beginning, the concept of black and white Bermudians working together as equal partners to move Bermuda ahead was what set the United Bermuda Party apart, and we continue to believe that the issue of race relations belongs front and centre in any political party?s social agenda.

We want to lead this country by holding a serious discussion on race and economic opportunity, issues that continue to divide our people. We believe we have a role and a responsibility as a political party to work to break down racial barriers in our community and assist in the process of reconciliation.

The issue of race is not just a black issue. The white community has an equally important role to play. The unfinished business between black and white Bermudians must be addressed in order for us to work together as equal partners in the social and economic challenges we face.

That?s why the United Bermuda Party has created a shadow ministry for race relations and economic opportunity, even though nothing like it exists within the Scott government. We recognise that this won?t be easy, but we are willing to expose ourselves to the challenges of this issue rather than hiding from them. We believe that Bermuda?s future success, and the future success of every Bermudian, depends on getting this right.

Over the last year, the United Bermuda Party established a working group on race to determine what we could do as a political party to facilitate discussion and help break down racial barriers. We have met with individuals, business people, church leaders and community groups interested in improving race relations in Bermuda.

The last of our 40th anniversary celebrations in 2004 will introduce the first in a series of conversations about race that we have planned for the year ahead. On November 29, Cory Booker, a Democratic social and political activist from Newark, New Jersey, will speak at St. Paul?s Centennial Hall on the strengths and challenges of diversity.

This will be followed in 2005 by a series of meetings, ranging from workshops and forums to small dinner groups, where Bermudians will be able to speak to each other, listen to each other and understand each other in a comfortable environment.

Mr. Speaker,

We also understand that all the talking in the world won?t lead to breaking down barriers, won?t achieve the social justice and equity that so many seek, unless it is supported by a plan for economic opportunity that allows everyone to share in Bermuda?s success. Here are a few of the initiatives we propose:

To , the United Bermuda Party would:

?Reform and simplify the tax structure for small businesses to ensure a level playing field and encourage economic growth;

?Provide training for small businesses in how to bid for government contracts;

?Require a percentage of all government contracts to go to small businesses;

?Ensure that government pays its bills to contractors within 30 days;

?Increase outsourcing of government services to small companies;

?Broaden the role of the Small Business Development Corporation to include brokering of venture-capital funds; and

?Explore the facilities of the Bermuda Stock Exchange to help improve liquidity and stimulate sources of capital for small businesses.

To help with the , the United Bermuda Party would:

Create economic development zones-for example, in North Hamilton to help this area?s business owners and residents participate more effectively in the economic mainstream of the City of Hamilton; and

Get first-time homebuyers on the housing ladder sooner by working with the private sector to build affordable starter homes of under $250,000 and create financing packages with government-backed mortgages and rent-to-buy schemes.

The United Bermuda Party has long advocated technical and skills training to allow young Bermudians and mature workers to compete more effectively in today?s workplace. We would like to recognise the progress the National Training Board continues to make in this area and express our support for future programmes.

Mr. Speaker,

In last year?s Throne Speech, Premier Scott made a promise to the people of Bermuda that good governance would be a key feature of his new PLP government. He said, ?Fairness, openness and accountability will represent the bedrock of this Government so that all of Bermuda?s people and institutions are subject to the same standards of fairness and propriety.?

In light of what has happened in the past year, we know there is no government accountability, and we have ample reason to question whether all Bermuda?s people and institutions are subject to the same standards of fairness.

Were the Stonington Beach hotel workers treated fairly after Coco Reef took over? Were the members of the BIU credit union treated fairly when someone approved a huge illegal loan to Union Asset Holdings using members? assets? Is it fair for the Premier to preside over a construction fiasco that has wasted tens of millions of taxpayer dollars-and then say he?d do it again? Do the people of Bermuda believe that accountability exists after government ministers implicated for unethical activity in the BHC scandal got off the hook because our criminal code is out of date?

Last spring, Premier Scott promised to update that criminal code so any government members engaging in such behaviour in the future could be prosecuted for criminal activity. He had an opportunity to demonstrate just how committed his government is to accountability and fairness. Sadly, no anti-corruption legislation was proposed in this Throne Speech. Maybe another line was left out.

Mr. Speaker,

It?s been six years and the people of Bermuda are still waiting for good governance.

A little over a year ago the United Bermuda Party spelled out in detail what we think the people of this country deserve from their government. It called for a freedom of information act and absentee balloting, two important initiatives that appear to be finally underway. But there?s much more, including reforming parliamentary procedures and providing mechanisms for making Cabinet more accountable to parliament, and the highlights are worth repeating:

?The United Bermuda Party good-government plan would:

?Adopt a Code of Conduct for all parliamentary members that would contain guidelines addressing conflict of interest and greater accountability;

?Overhaul the parliamentary committee structure to allow the Public Accounts Committee and other committees to have hearings that are open to the public;

?Change procedures to ensure an adequate time period for oral parliamentary questions to be asked and answered at each day of sitting;

?Guarantee equal access to government contracts by requiring open tendering in every department;

?Reduce the opportunity for political interference by restoring a nonpolitical Attorney General;

?Amend the directions for public broadcasting so taxpayers don?t pay for political broadcasts; and

?Uphold the right of public servants to speak out without fear through a Whistleblower?s Act.

Mr. Speaker,

When it comes to social agendas, talk is cheap. All the seminars and summits and programs and policies the Scott government can dream up mean very little unless they deliver real help to real people.

We know that the record of the PLP government for actually getting things done is hardly distinguished. And we have good reason to question whether they are really in touch-and truly care-about the people they were elected to serve.

A government that really cares about seniors doesn?t double the rent at Bermuda Housing Trust properties for the elderly. A government that cares about housing its people doesn?t move families from their homes at Anchorage Road. A government that cares about working together for the common good doesn?t use racial polarisation for political gain. A government that cares about accountability will actually hold someone accountable. And a government that cares about serving the people doesn?t invent a social agenda because it?s in political trouble.

The people of Bermuda deserve a government they can trust to act in the best interests of all. A government that is honest and open and demonstrates strong, moral leadership. A government that is committed to working together for a better future. Bermudians deserve nothing less than One Bermuda, where success is achieved through unity and where success is shared by all.