JUST A THOUGHT: "When people are free to do as they please, they usually end up imitating each other." – Eric Hoffer

A clever reader wanted to know, Mr. Editor, if we had only the one rule governing behaviour in the House on the Hill. He wasn't trying to be funny, and surprisingly he wasn't referring to the Golden Rule. He was referring instead to the one which I cited last week about it being unacceptable to impute improper motives to members of the House. Sure, there are others, friend, but not as many governing conduct as you might think and we just completed an overhaul of the rules too, except now we call them Standing Orders and there are lots of them.

But there is one, the mother of all rules, which just about covers the waterfront when it comes to behaviour, which was a slight revision on what was there: "It shall be out of order to use offensive and insulting or disrespectful language about Members of the House or which tends to bring the House of Assembly into disrepute." In light of recent reports, you might well wonder if it is ever observed or applied.

So what's the problem up there on the Hill? Inquiring minds want to know. The late Dame Lois once famously said that it was no Sunday school picnic and by implication, never would be. Too true that. On the other hand, Anglican Bishop Patrick White recently observed, from the pulpit, on National Heroes Day, when we were supposed to be remembering the Dame, ironically, that the political rhetoric around here appears to have descended into the language of schoolyard belligerence. Or worse, he could have said. But he didn't. The Bishop is a man of the cloth.

The rules, no matter how well-written, no matter how clear, only take us so far. If they were observed more often, there wouldn't be a problem; if they were invoked more often, ditto; and if they were enforced more regularly, ditto again. If, if and if, and only if. As my late mother loved to remind me: if pigs had wings they'd fly but they make damn unlikely birds.

Like many rules, including the Golden Rule, they tend to be honoured more in the breach than in application. Here's another classic which falls into that category: "While a Member is speaking all other Members shall be silent or shall confer only in undertones, and shall not make unseemly interruptions."

Say what? Silent? Undertones? Have you been to the House of Assembly recently? It's anything but at times. On the other hand, seemly interruptions (interpolations) are an expected and sometimes welcome feature of debate. A timely and clever interjection can be as illuminating and as devastating as a good speech. But unfortunately, over the years, it has become more and more the means by which members barrack, hector and insult. Not all members, mind you. There are a few persistent and notorious offenders who know only invective and the sound of their own voices, and they get away with it, regularly.

The Standing Orders insist that the person in the chair is supposed to preserve order and decorum in the House. The rules also provide that no member can interrupt another when he or she is speaking except in a couple of rare instances. There are always these exceptions. The one most frequently invoked is rising to claim a point of order. You hear it a lot. This specific rule actually requires that member claiming point of order to "simply state what breach of order he or she believes has occurred and submit to the Speaker (or Chair) for decision."

One of the favourites is to claim that the member speaking is "misleading the House", which is often followed by the interrupter's version of events and/or opinion. Very rarely will a rule, sorry Standing Order, be actually cited and the objection stated briefly.

It is the application and enforcement of orders that give rise to the greatest concern. It may not be easy (and it is not: I have done stints in the Chair) but it has to be done. More importantly, it has to be seen to be done fairly, even-handedly, and consistently, without fear or favour. Our side doesn't always believe that this is the case.

That's nothing new. There's been plenty of evidence over the years to support Opposition members' beliefs. The Speaker is typically elected by the party with the majority of seats in the House, and has without exception since the advent of party politics been elected from among the Government MPs, and thus the Speaker understands the numbers: the only way he loses claim to the Chair is when that majority turns on him.

Incidentally, there is no right of appeal from a decision of the Speaker. His word is final. We are stuck for now with the Speaker's decision last week that the new Standing Orders permit Government to take up legislation one week after it has been tabled. The Order actually states that an interval of not less than seven days. We understood that to mean seven clear days which means that the earliest any legislation could be taken up would be the Monday, ten days and two weekends later, giving the Opposition and the public that little bit of extra time to study and come to a view on what's proposed. The old rule, by the way, required an interval of not less than four days, although the practice that developed over the years, and arguably became convention, was to wait two weeks, except where the parties otherwise agreed. My colleague Cole Simons has the idea that a written code of conduct could be the answer to what ails us on and off the Hill. He has put the following motion down for debate: "That this Honourable House adopt a Code of Conduct for Members of Parliament in order to assist Bermuda's parliamentarians in the discharge of their obligations to the House, their constituents and the public."

Some people think it might make a difference – maybe, assuming it is adopted; and assuming too, that any code is observed and enforced. But like our rules, sorry Standing Orders, a question mark hovers over whether that's actually possible. Draw your own conclusions, Mr. Editor, and have a nice day.

Got a view? Write jbarritt@ibl.bm