It was something the Speaker said, Mr. Editor, around midnight, that got me thinking, dreaming even, at the end of a whole day and night's debate on the Throne Speech.

It's rare first of all for a Speaker to actually descend into a debate. Tradition has it that his role is to keep order and adherence to the rules – and to keep his opinions to himself. He thought we should know that in the UK Parliament the Speech from the Throne is typically a very short document. He'd been prompted to comment because of criticism, throughout the day, from the Opposition benches (where else?), over the length of the document. While size still matters in some quarters – it was much shorter than in recent years – complaint also centred on substance and the disappointment this presented when we had been promised bold and innovative.

But the Speaker was right. I looked it up in the Parliamentary Bible, Erskine May. The UK Throne Speech simply sets out the main items of the Government's programme for the forthcoming session – and briefly. Tight and to the point. Love it.

But what Erskine May also tells us – which the Speaker didn't mention – is how they organise the debate that follows. That's instructive too.

Government members first get to outline Government policy on matters raised in the Speech. This is done in the House and not just by way of press conferences, which is the way it seems to be developing around here, outside the scrutiny of the House, which is also kind of ironic, don't you think, in view of Government's constant criticism of news reporting generally.

The Opposition is then given the opportunity to direct debate to specific areas and policies which the Opposition wishes to highlight and explore, and a block of time is set aside specifically for the purpose.

In fact, it's not unusual for there to be entire Opposition "Days" to be set aside in the UK Parliamentary calendar in which the Opposition gets to take up motions which it thinks ought to be discussed and debated.

There is a lot we could learn from over there – and elsewhere – that needs to be adopted and adapted here in Bermuda to bring us into line with better and modern practice. It goes beyond just shorter, more organised debates: like, for instance, a set question period where anything topical and relevant is fair game; and more active and robust committees that are open to press and public

The Commonwealth Parliamentary Association has been on about this, and other recommended benchmarks, for more democratic legislatures for years now – and it looks like we might now be starting to catch up.

The PLP Government appears to have decided to now come on board. We were told in the Throne Speech that Government intends "to champion" a parliamentary conference under the auspices of the CPA. A conference? That's not quite the breakthrough I have been pushing for. On the other hand, the stated aim is: "To craft a modernised legislature and to equip Bermuda with an efficient and effective model of legislative democracy, fashioned through an inclusive, participatory process." Sign me up. Now.

I know, I know, it was short on specifics. It was also a disappointment for me to learn (from a report of one those many Throne Speech press conferences and, no, the Opposition does not get the courtesy of copies of what's said) that the idea is just that: an idea. As of last week, the terms of reference had still to be put together as the Premier has still to consult with the Speaker and President of the Senate to get this conference off the ground.

But hey, I tell my colleagues, it's a start. The message is getting through – we've got draft PATI legislation out there for review as well revised rules for the House. I happen to also think the people of this country are starting to connect the dots and appreciate the need for reform that will bring about greater transparency and greater accountability.

Like when it comes to projects like that of Dockyard. Speaking of which … it was also around the midnight hour last Friday that we witnessed a clumsy attempt at parliamentary policing. There were parts of the Throne Speech Reply that exercised Government members – which is what a good Opposition is meant to do. There were objections when it was read and the Speaker, who was in the chair, cautioned and admonished Opposition Leader Kim Swan, but the remarks remained in. You might say that the man who rules the House, ruled.

But it didn't stop PLP MP Ashfield DeVent from trying to take another crack at it later – when the Speaker was on a break from the chair. He wanted the following line removed: "We get million dollar contracts that go directly to friends untendered and massive cost overruns with no one held to account."

No million dollar contracts? None to friends? All are tendered? Never any massive cost overruns? Kim Swan called the move an act of censorship; others, denial.

The truth? You want the truth? Then how about an active Public Accounts Committee that meets regularly and openly and which holds Ministers, civil servants and contractors to account each step of the way? That is the kind of reform we need around here.

I understand. None of us like unsubstantiated allegations – especially about ourselves. But fair is fair.

The Premier in a post-midnight statement on the Dockyard project – "there is no Government malfeasance" – described an obviously disgruntled overseas sub-contractor as a person of "dubious character", alleging a criminal conviction, and that he's embroiled in a number of civil actions. The man was reported in Monday's edition of this newspaper as saying the claims were not true.

In the absence of proof in the House today, will these remarks be excised from the record? Inquiring minds, Mr. Editor, want to know.

Comments? Write jbarritt@ibl.bm