DON'T mind me, Mr. Editor, I'm just a MP, looking for my usual 15 column inches of fame in your newspaper again this week - and for those of your readers who think I'm losing my sense of humour these days, look on the bright side. I'm no banker and besides which, gymnastics, even those of the political variety, notwithstanding impressive mental dexterity, are not always that funny.

You will recall that a few weeks back I went on about congrats and obits - which, incidentally, do seem to have decreased in number as a consequence of the Speaker's ruling that MPs are going to have to type up their own.

This week: Ministerial statements. Statements by Cabinet Ministers, not sermons - and those of you who listen closely will know the difference.

They occupy a spot fairly high on the Order Paper of the House. They come shortly after prayers (which are heard but not always answered in the House, if ever) but before congrats and obits - which means they also come before parliamentary questions and answers, but are not themselves subject to question or answer on the floor of the House unless a member takes them up on the motion to adjourn hours later, i.e. later that night when Ministers may nor may not be there and who may or may not answer (there's no requirement that they do) or the MP concerned sends in the questions mid-week the following week for answer in ten further days' time.

More reasons for reform.

Here are some more while we are on the subject:

Ministerial statements can also be used to fill time - and sometimes are, so as to help eliminate the possibility at all of oral questions and answers if any have been set down for the day -as well as to help fill the House journals. We may not have Hansard,, i.e. a written record of what MPs say, word for word, or as close to what we think we said as is possible, but the House Minutes do give a rough skeletal idea of what did go on and who spoke, and on what, when whom was in the Chair, while the Journals re-print, in full, the Minutes along with reports to the House as well as, and, yes, you guessed it, Ministerial statements.

I don't know if we will ever cut down on them.

It's a matter for the Speaker and the exercise of his judgement - if he ever chooses to exercise it.

My understanding is that this slot was always meant to be for statements on matters of major importance, like the Government's position on pressing issues of the day or for announcements of new policy decisions, and not necessarily a word for word re-hash of a press conference held earlier in the week.

Funnily enough, we had a couple this week but which did not include the statement which we were expecting.

Here's the two we did hear from Minister of Energy, Telecommunications and E-Commerce, Terry Lister:

l The Universal Postal Union (didn't know there was such a thing myself), a specialized agency of the United Nations, we are told, recently reviewed Bermuda's postal service at no cost to us (good), and apparently they came up with a draft plan and recommendations which provide a roadmap "for reforming the Bermuda Post Office into a twenty-first century postal operator" (now there's a plan, Mr. Editor). Unfortunately, while we got the statement, we got no copy of the Plan - and no, he did not say it was in the mail.

l Government is about to embark on further telecommunications reform which will lead to one class of licence that will allow big and small carriers to compete with each other. A hard copy version of the Reform Policy Paper was tabled and shared with members. It wasn't set down for debate, but we were told that legislation is to follow which, among other things, will call for the establishment of a new Regulatory Authority, paid part-timers who may become full-time, and who will be supported by professional and administrative staff, which will regulate the industry battles which may ensue. More bureaucracy, more expense too, I expect: but will it mean better service and lower prices? That's what inquiring minds want to know. Stay tuned.

The Ministerial statement which we were expecting, but never got, was that on proposed increases to parliamentary salaries.

I know, I know, the Premier did say the day before that they were going to be deferred. Until when he didn't say. Now was not the time, he did say - and quite rightly too. The party of which I am a member and which comprises the Official Opposition, had come to a similar conclusion after discussion earlier in the week.

No surprise there really - when you consider our Reply to the Throne Speech the week before, and the searing focus on the economy and Government expenditure. I mean you can't really be calling on the people to tighten their belts and, in turn, be loosening yours. Big Time - which is what a 30 percent raise would be.

The timing could not have been worse - not that the timing ever is when it comes to what the job of MP is worth. All jokes aside, there is nothing funny about that - from my point of view. But I will say this though - and I said it before when the panel was established: the idea of an independent panel making an assessment is a good one. Nevertheless, the House must still decide whether or not their recommendations ought to be adopted - for the very reason these have been put on hold, the prevailing circumstances at the time.

My own view however, is that we should ultimately decide not for ourselves but those who will follow after us in the next House, following the next General Election. It avoids a very ugly conflict: deciding your own salary.

Speaking of which, in this their second report, the panel was at pains to once again point out how it is that they are limited to a review of salaries only. The governing legislation does not allow them to look at compensation and they think it should be changed. So do I.

"A discussion of compensation would ordinarily require such items as expense allowances, and pension rights, health and insurance benefits, and severance pay for loss of office to be taken into account", they wrote. "While these items often have some bearing on the setting of salary levels the Board is of the view that these and related factors are outside the scope of its remit."

So, they concluded: "The Board has taken the position that the Act would need to be amended to permit the Board to undertake a review of total compensation."

I'm not sure about the severance bit - it's the nature of politics, at least the democratic variety, and political office has always been a bit of a gamble - but I do agree that the panel should be looking at the whole picture and coming to grips with the perks of office; Ministerial of course. Us backbenchers get little except for a parking spot on the Hill.

We also need to still come to grips with what constitutes "full-time" and "part-time" Ministers when one pays $50,000 more per year than the other - which at this time appears to be the only distinction between the two.

Meanwhile, the motion to consider the 2008 Report remains on the Order Paper.

It is in the Premier's name. It could be we will hear more this week. The motion is now eligible for debate, although you would like to think there were far more pressing matters to take up in the House on the Hill - and that, Mr. Editor, is no joke.