OUCH, Mr. Editor, but it's funny how touchy we can become when the shoe is on the other foot. Shrill, super-critical Opposition parties become Governments and suddenly they're hyper, hyper sensitive.

The Progressive Labour Party, it seems, is no exception to this political ? or is it human? ? phenomenon. Case in point, Mr. Editor: The Opposition UBP's motion for debate on the Berkeley School project put down by Shadow (Give 'em the Works) Minister Patricia Gordon-Pamplin.

It read as follows: This House deplores the systematic misinformation and lack of accountability surrounding the PLP Government's mismanagement of the Senior Secondary School construction project at Berkeley.

Now Pat is not one to mince her words, Mr. Editor, but surely this is just the sort of sharp, biting motion which you might expect from an alert Opposition ? and it was, so much so that it really got under the skin of Government.

There were representations to the Speaker through the Government Whip Ottiwell Simmons that they thought the language was unparliamentary and that the motion ? unless toned down ? ought not be allowed to proceed, period. While many might not guess this is so ? from what they hear live, either over the radio or in person ? there are rules for the House on the Hill prohibiting unparliamentary language.

Specifically, Rule 21(7) states:

So the Speaker had a decision to make. He ruled some of the words "unbecoming" and made it more "becoming" by ordering that debate could only proceed if the motion were as follows:

That this Honourable House deplores the management and apparent lack of accountability regarding the Senior Secondary School construction project at Berkeley.

Gone were the charges of misinformation and mismanagement, and lack of accountability.

But the word "deplore" was still in. So Pat proceeded and a debate on Berkeley remained on foot. Government still wasn't happy. Premier Alex Scott later moved the motion be changed to a take note motion, that is we simply take note of what has or had not been going on up at the construction site. They avoided a vote except on the Premier's proposed amendment which ? and it surprised even me that it was this close ? was carried by one vote, 14 to 13. Meanwhile, Government gave us very little to take note of, Mr. Editor.

Only the Premier spoke for the Government ? as well he should as the former Works & Engineering Minister who oversaw the start of this project. The current Minister was abroad and no other Government Minister or MP sought to chime in, including the Minister for Education. There were five who spoke for the Opposition.

The crowning irony to the whole debate had to be the release that morning of the most recent report of the Auditor General. We all saw the screaming headlines in Saturday's and the Auditor's disclosure in the report that the Ministry of Works & Engineering continue to withhold information from him, thereby "deliberately disregarding my constitutional and statutory right of access to information".

This refusal, we are told in the report, continues despite an opinion from the Attorney General's Chambers that as Auditor General he is entitled to the documentary evidence which he is seeking; in this case, evidence the bonding company has sufficient assets to back a $6.8-million bond as well as proof that a $700,000.00 fee was paid to the bonding company.

This is the same Government, Mr. Editor, which through its Premier, tell us that they are keen on providing for freedom of information legislation ? which is more than likely the information they want us to have, not the information we want or need.

The Premier further accuses the Opposition of making the project political and of making irresponsible allegations: great Scott! Can you imagine, Mr. Editor? On top of that, the same Premier when Works Minister sharply criticised the Auditor General (Larry Dennis the Menace they would have you believe) and even in this most recent debate was still suggesting that he was somehow going beyond his bounds.

Sensitive, you say?!

ELL, from where I sit, it isn't sensitivity they suffer from, Mr. Editor, it's brass ? and, as we say locally, Mr. Editor, they got some brass. Some brass. Take a deep breath . . .

Spin even crept in ? in a big way, Mr. Editor ? when we debated a simple order to legislate for the use of a new breathalyser. Government sought to make a big deal out of something so straightforward in an attempt to distract us from an embarrassment that was theirs.

The Minister responsible, Deputy Leader Dr. Ewart Brown, even arranged to have four police officers plod up to the House with the machine for members to view ? and alas, no, Mr. Editor, there was no sample testing. As you know, we don't do that sort of thing to members of the House on the Hill under the PLP.

So they had their props, but the fact is the machine is not new. The machine has been around ? and in use ? for over a year. The PLP was only now getting around to the legislation necessary to make its readings enforceable in a court of law ? and this was only a five-line piece of legislation, Mr. Editor. The problem was highlighted in the recent Police Inspector's report: we were told drink-drive cases were being discontinued by the DPP because this legislation wasn't in place. That was over a year ago ?and it took them that long to get an amended five-line order up to Parliament.

There was no explanation, only Dr. Brown's comment that: "I have my suspicions (as to why it took so long to get to the House), but I won't speculate at this time." That's a convenient first for him, I believe.

Then there was Health Minister Patrice Minors who told us: "(It) was not too late. It will have an effect on the future". (This from a party that is otherwise generally preoccupied by the past.) But overlooking the past in this instance was, of course, to overlook those who were caught but who were not prosecuted while we waited for the legislation to approve the machine.

Legislative Affairs Minister Michael Scott confirmed that some lawyers had taken advantage of the loophole for clients but he didn't say how many. He told us that arrests on suspicion of drunk driving ran around an average 75 persons per quarter in 2003, but not about the ones that got away.

There was no shortage of advice though on what should be done about drinking and driving. Ottiwell Simmons of the PLP said that the machine would serve as a deterrent, but stressed that he wasn't speaking from experience: "I have never had the privilege of being tested," he advised.

"You mean misfortune," interjected the Speaker. Mr. Simmons thought more education was needed on the perils of driving under the influence.

Wayne Furbert of the UBP quickly set him straight. The Road Safety Council has been doing that for years. But he agreed that a new, fresh campaign wouldn't hurt: "How about using some of that $40,000 the Minister is spending on promoting GPS?" said Mr. Furbert.

So it went as PLP MPs sought to prop up the Government. You would have thought it was the only item for them on the agenda. You would have been right. It was.

. . . and take note

HE machine that grinds out the legislation, meanwhile, gave us two more new pieces: Amendments to the Health and Safety at Work Act and Workmen's Compensation. We are now on a two-a-week push as we count down to Cup Match and the summer beak. It should be picking up shortly if we are going to make that.

Meanwhile, two new motions from the Opposition: one to consider the practices, procedures and operation of the Financial Assistance Department and the other to deplore the PLP Government's failure to produce Annual Reports for the last three financial years for the Bermuda Housing Corporation.

Keep a close eye out to see whether "deplore" becomes "take note".

Take note, indeed, Mr. Editor.