We are not there yet, Mr. Editor, although it appears we are now starting to move in the right direction. That's my take on the proposed new rules for the House on the Hill and their provisional adoption by members earlier this week. I say provisional because they will go on trial for the summer session of the House when we resume on May 7. There were those, chiefly on the Government benches, who thought we should first see how they actually work in practice and sort out any teething problems before final adoption. Fair enough, I suppose.

I also believe in taking what you can get: not an altogether inappropriate strategy when you are in Opposition and in the minority. I also wouldn't want to undermine the common ground we have found. There was a decidedly different tone to the debate on the new rules, and while it may not have been all peaches and cream, it was close. "This is starting to sound a lot like a love fest," intoned one of my United Bermuda Party colleagues after an hour or so. "Haven't you had enough?," he asked. Sort of. But it sure made for a nice change.

I understood what he meant though. I don't think the debate would have lasted as long as it did, and been as pleasant as it was, had it not been for a change in the Premier's plans. He had originally wanted us to also discuss the Government's Green Paper on Gaming for Bermuda, but agreed the night before to defer until our return in May.

Wise move. It had only been tabled two weeks earlier and all of us had been pre-occupied with the Budget Debate – and related legislation – three days a week for the two weeks since. It was also the safer bet, politically, for those who study the game. The dynamics on the Hill are changing, if you haven't noticed, and will likely find voice in this issue of gambling with little prompting in any event: first, you will recall the defeat the Premier suffered on his cruise ship gaming machine bill and secondly, and most recently, defeat on the move to pay all Cabinet Ministers like they are full-time Ministers whether they are working full-time or not.

From where I sit, I figured the Premier figured he was better off not taking any chances. He has after all declared that this will be his last term and there are those who consider him a lame ducktor.

Without the controversy of gaming, and the rancour that typically comes with controversial items, we were left with but the one item on the agenda for the day: rule changes, the product of two members from each of the two sides, the Dame (Jennifer Smith) and me.

I rather liked the way we were treated: nicely. But more importantly I liked the way in which our colleagues embraced the proposed changes. The list is not exhaustive, but here are some of the more promising changes:

¦ The introduction of a 60-minute Question Period fairly high up on the agenda – before congrats and obits – in which MPs will be extended the opportunity to question Ministers on statements, polices and issues of the day, and not necessarily be limited to putting questions in writing ten days in advance. The Speaker, Mr. Editor, is going to have his work cut out for him on this one. Guidelines will need to be developed and precedent established through practice.

¦ An increase in membership on the Public Accounts Committee from five to seven to prevent meetings from happening for lack of a quorum. We'll see.

¦ Provision which allows committees to open their meetings to press and public. Government typically has majority membership on House committees and the majority rules.

¦ Extension of the annual Budget Debate by a further 24 hours or two days which hopefully won't mean more of the same.

I know, I know. You've heard it all before. But still, it bears repeating. We need to keep moving in this direction. We are not where we should be if we want to meet and practise modern standards of good governance. We keep attending and participating in Commonwealth Parliamentary Association (CPA) conferences which repeatedly and consistently underscore recommended benchmarks which require us to raise our game even higher.

One of the chief goals, and it underpins many of the reforms which the CPA recommends, is to develop a stronger, more independent Legislature. This starts with who controls the purse strings. The CPA is urging an all-party committee of members of Parliament which should review and administer Parliament's budget, which should not be subject to amendment by the executive a.k.a. the Cabinet/Government.

The aim here is to cut down, if not eliminate, the opportunity for incursion into the affairs of the legislative branch by the executive branch and to give proper expression to the separation of powers.

There is also lots of work to be done in the area of ethical governance. I lift the following without apology from the recommended benchmarks of the CPA under the heading of "Transparency and Integrity":

? Legislators should maintain high standards of accountability, transparency and responsibility in the conduct of all public and parliamentary matters,

? The Legislature shall approve and enforce a code of conduct, including rules on conflicts of interest and acceptance of gifts.

? Legislatures shall require legislators to fully and publicly disclose their financial assets and business interests.

? There shall be mechanisms to prevent, detect and bring to justice legislators and staff engaged in corrupt practices.

The Premier and his Government has promised us a CPA conference to modernise the Bermuda Legislature. If this is what it takes to take us to the next level, bring it on. I can't wait.

I am who I am 2

Sorry to disappoint if you were expecting (more) words on Wayne Furbert. He has explained that he is who he says he is, and it is what it is. My approach, Mr. Editor, is rather like that of the Speaker who, after Mr. Furbert had spoken, asked if there were any other members with personal explanations. There were none. "Very well", he said, and then added as he always does: "We'll move on." Exactly.

Got any thoughts? Write jbarritt@ibl.bm

THOUGHT DU WEEK: "Who we are never changes. Who we think we are does." Mary S. Almanac.