If you think a day is a long time in politics, Mr. Editor, try seven. Actually, don't. It's the reason why we nearly came unstuck last Friday in the House on the Hill. Those new rules, which we now call Standing Orders, state that "an interval of not less than seven days" shall elapse between introduction of a Bill and debate on a second reading, and Government was proposing to take up both the Firearms Amendment Act and Bail Amendment Act one week to the Friday after they had been introduced.

Is it or ain't that seven days? A decision on the issue was avoided when the Opposition reluctantly agreed to go forward with the debate.

Why reluctantly? Well, first off, we would like a little more than 48 hours notice when it comes to significant and important legislation, and that's all the PLP gave us. Secondly we think the seven-day requirement means seven clear days following the day of introduction. Thirdly, the practice, and now convention, for donkey's years, has been to wait at least two weeks before taking any item up. Incidentally, this practice developed and the convention emerged under the old rules when only an interval of 48 hours was required.

However, we also recognise that over years that there have been times when there were exceptions, and notwithstanding the short notice, we accepted Government's argument that these two Bills qualified as one of those exceptions. These are extraordinary times of extraordinary violence and extraordinary measures are required etc etc. Or so it seemed… until we saw what happened in the Senate this week. Or didn't.

There is a drawback to moving swiftly too. Legislation doesn't get the close scrutiny it should before passage, and this serves only to highlight once more the deficiencies of our tired old worn-out system of governance.

Opposition MPs do not have access to the resources Government MPs enjoy. We get no briefs from the Cabinet Ministers responsible or from the swivel servants who in turn briefed them. There is no access to the drafters and the policy makers behind Government Bills. We can try and arrange briefings, which we do from time to time, and which are occasionally offered. This is challenging enough over a two-week period; next to impossible in one week on short notice. Sadly, and perhaps more importantly, the public are shut out. Bills are not generally available or posted on a website for review and comment. Heck, the voters may not even know what legislation is before the House until it has passed. Some may prefer it that way. I don't. It is important to know what people think, especially those who stand to be affected.

Hey, I am not suggesting we should have consulted gangs, but I would have liked to have heard from more than just an advocate for the defence bar, but from the Bar Association, on the Firearms Amendment Act and its more controversial provisions. As it was, we scrambled on the floor of the House to understand and to correct what we thought went too far. It isn't always the best way to do the country's business. There's the risk that something will slip through, unnoticed, which we will all come to regret later.

For example: I pressed home the point that while the Bill provided for a December 31, 2013 expiration, it could be extended by Government after consultation with the Governor "by Notice published in the Gazette". That didn't seem right. That's a decision that should be open to public scrutiny and only taken after examination and debate by the Legislature. I was assured that was a mistake and the notice will come back to the House for approval by way of the affirmative resolution procedure.

As former member C.V. (Jim) Woolridge used to remind us on just such occasions: a bull in a hurry never made a calf. Except maybe accidentally.

The crowning irony too, to the way the legislation was handled and debated, inside and outside the Chamber, was the example it set for the community. We decry gangs and the conflict they spawn that results in gunfire and death, and yet here we are on the Hill dividing ourselves on unnecessary divisions that could and should be overcome with a little more co-operation, courtesy and common sense.

Government Rules

Mea culpa, Mr. Editor. The Speaker caught me out on the new rules when I objected to the Government decision to proceed with a motion to adopt the Bermuda Plan 2008 and the three-volume Objections Tribunal reports which preceded it – again on less than a week's notice. The five works represented some very heavy reading and I cannot imagine how members found the time to get through all of them in a week. I didn't. I doubt too that many members of the public had the chance either. Those who were keenly interested were scrambling to even obtain copies.

The Standing Order for motions is different than it is for Bills. It requires that a motion must appear on the Order Paper at least twice before it is taken up, except where – there always these exceptions – the Speaker otherwise agrees. We didn't appeal to the Speaker until after we tried to block consideration with a vote which the Government won 17 to 10. He went with the vote. No surprise there. Government rules, on and off the Hill.

Persistence pays

Did you notice GF? We finally got Government to table the Coco Reef lease. I will leave it to others like yourself to decide whether we were being difficult enough or not, but we were persistent. Mind you, it seemed to be with some reluctance that the Education Minister even gave us a copy. He stressed Government's view that there was no legal requirement to share the lease and that the property was owned by the Bermuda College. What, to do with as they like? Their governing legislation says that they are subject to direction from the Minister and leases require his prior approval. The Board also happen to receive $20-million each year from the Government to run the place. I am glad the Auditor General took a different view and made the lease subject to special investigation and report when it was first negotiated in 2003. I note too, for the record, that the renegotiated lease was dated May 4th 2009 and first disclosed by way of a buried mention in the annual report for the College tabled this past February. It makes you wonder Mr. Editor, whether they wanted us to know anything at all.

Comments? Write me at jbarritt@ibl.bm.