THOUGHT FOR THE WEEK: "Political success is the ability, when the inevitable occurs, to take credit for it." – Laurence J. Peter.

Emotion on the Hill can be very helpful at times, Mr. Editor. It's the fire in the belly that can make for good speeches on the motion to adjourn in the House, and thank goodness too for the motion to adjourn. Each MP gets 20 minutes to speak on any subject they like (or don't) and it actually helped save the day last Friday. Literally.

Government only had one item on the agenda they wanted to take up, a small amendment to the Bermuda Housing Act, which was simply legislative housekeeping; correcting some incorrect references, the parliamentary procedure for which took longer than any substantive debate, which is to say that there wasn't really any … debate, that is. In the circumstances, we would have been done for the day – well before noon – but for what turned out to be the emotion to adjourn.

There had been another shooting – murder overnight. A number of members once again expressed passionate concern over the direction in which Bermuda appears to be headed. Government backbencher Randy Horton wanted to do something about it.

He called for the establishment of a joint select committee of the Legislature (joint select means MPs and Senators; select, just MPs) to investigate and report on what more can be done to stem the tide. He isn't the first MP to make the call, but he may turn out to be the first to make it happen. While we talk about it from time to time, and I seem to recall the push for a parliamentary committee on gangs as far back as last December when there was a rash of shootings, it actually requires a member to put down a motion for consideration and approval – and to date that has not happened.

Any member can introduce the motion, but it will obviously require the support of Government to succeed. Sorry, amend that: it will require the support of a majority of members of the House and these days that can be made up of members from both Opposition and Government. Still, it helps to have the motion come from a Government MP and Mr. Horton is just that. I like the idea for other reasons too. We, in the United Bermuda Party, and myself as party spokesman for legislative reform, have been pushing the efficacy of (more) parliamentary committees for some years now. I welcome all converts. Committees could be very, very useful on issues of broad national concern, like crime. First of all, they will be comprised of members from both sides of the House who will have to roll up their sleeves and work one with the other, and there's a lot to be said for that.

Secondly, and more importantly committees will only really be useful if they hold hearings that are open to the public. Interested groups and individuals can be invited to make submissions, which will be shared openly, and committee members will get to probe positions by questioning presenters and incidentally, parliamentary committees have the power to subpoena and summons the reluctant as well. Thirdly, and perhaps most beneficially, the public whom we seek to serve, are let in on the dialogue, discussion and debate. They've got ideas too.

Public hearings are critical. They also happen to be one of the recommended benchmarks of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association for democratic legislatures. Here's precisely what the CPA has to say on that: "Committee hearings shall be in public. Any exceptions shall be clearly defined and provided for in the rules of procedure."

We just changed our rules but we are still not there, yet. We inched in the right direction when the PLP agreed to let committees decide for themselves whether or not to open up their meetings to the public; previously it could only be on order of the House.

I would like to think that going public isn't going to be an issue with this committee, assuming that Mr. Horton succeeds with his motion, and there is no reason to believe that he won't. The United Bermuda Party has already signalled its intention to support it. That makes nine members; 18 is the magical number.

The real question is how fast can we get on with it? Much time has already been lost as Rome burns.

A whole 'nother question

When it comes to questions on the Hill, as you know Mr. Editor, you can ask but you don't always receive … answers. That continues to be the case with those outstanding queries I put down on the $800,000 municipalities' review. I raised that on the motion to adjourn too, and I wondered out loud why no one in Government was responding: Are they ashamed? Embarrassed? Or hiding something?

I also wondered out loud whether they were backing down on the move (note: I use that word "move" advisedly, yet decidedly, in order to sidestep the other controversial issue of whether what's planned constitutes a takeover and not reform). You will recall that on the heels of the gaming debate, there were reported murmurs from within the PLP that any overhaul of the Corporations of Hamilton and St. George may also go by the wayside in these the last days of the Premiership of Dr. Brown for lack of internal support. We'll see. But what I am hoping is that we can save the voters $800,000.

A more senior colleague in the House also corrected me on any misimpression I gave last week when I indicated that questions which are not answered, like those which I raised about driving while using cell phones, can be taken up on the emotion to adjourn. They can be, of course, but it's not the only avenue open to an enterprising Member. We also still have the option of putting any questions in writing and submitting them for answer on ten days' notice. That option wasn't dropped from the new rules and can still feature in Question Period. Good suggestion. Consider it done. But getting answers, Mr. Editor, that's a whole 'nother question.

Questions? Comments? E-mail jbarritt@ibl.bm