RULES are rules, Mr. Editor, we all understand that, but there's no reason why they shouldn't be reviewed, up-dated and modernised where necessary - and those of the House of Assembly should be no exception.

We seem to be still stuck in the mid-20th century. In fact, I don't think they have really been overhauled since the 1970s, with the exception of the introduction of a Register of Members' Interests and rules to govern its operation in the mid-nineties, along with the establishment of a standing committee on the Office of the Auditor which is intended to assist him in carrying out his job, independent of Government influence.

Bermuda continues to proudly proclaim itself to be home to the oldest legislature in the Commonwealth outside of the British Isles. We are also starting to look like it too - by the out-moded, out-dated ways in which we continue to conduct the people's business.

Let me give you some examples of where change is needed - and why.

I touched briefly on one last week - committee meetings. They are still held in private. They shouldn't be. One of the Recommended Benchmarks for Democratic Legislatures (produced by the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association of which Bermuda is a member) is that hearings of committees should be in public: "any exceptions (should) be clearly defined and provided for in the rules of procedure."

Forget exceptions, our rules simply don't require meetings to be open to the press and public. Closed meetings came as something of a surprise to the visiting UK MPs who comprised the Foreign Affairs Committee (FAC) and it was not surprising that in their final report they recommended the practice be brought to an end - and more on the FAC Report in the coming weeks.

But here's another area in which reform is required - parliamentary questions. The opportunity to ask questions of the Executive is one of the cornerstones of parliamentary democracies. Backbenchers on both sides of the House are entitled to ask (expected even to ask) questions that will help bring the Leader and his Cabinet Ministers to account for their individual and collective decisions on the issues of the day, big and small, national and parochial.

The significance and importance of questions was underscored in the recently concluded session, although not for the reasons intended.

The Speaker appeared to initially rule that questions which the Premier didn't like (like about travel costs) could not be asked. After further reflection, and some embarrassment, not all of his own making, the Speaker ruled the questions in order. Quite rightly too.

Any restriction on parliamentary questions (PQs as we affectionately call them) should be minimal - and reasonable, and the Speaker's decision alone.

But the rules governing the practice of asking PQs are antiquated. Questions are required to be submitted in writing ten days in advance. The rules limit each member to three questions for oral answer per sitting day - as if that wasn't restrictive enough - the current Speaker has further ruled that that no Minister can be asked more than three questions per day, which in some cases constitutes a further limitation where Ministers have responsibility for multiple departments - the Premier for obvious example.

As if that wasn't enough - and it is, and it is too much - the transparency and accountability that comes from PQs is hampered even further because questions that cannot be asked - and answered - within the first hour of meeting i.e. by 11 a.m., must then be reduced to writing and thus there is then no opportunity to ask supplementary, follow-up questions on the floor of the House.

That first hour can easily - and quickly - be eaten up by Ministerial Statements and Congrats and Obits.

Ministerial statements: these are meant to be on matters of national importance or on changes in Government policy or about decisions on major issues of the day. If that was the case, you might think the Ministers should be subject to questioning on what they have to say. A contemporaneous Question Period is a feature in most other modern parliamentary jurisdictions - indeed it is the highlight. Not in Bermuda.

Congrats and obits: this is a quaint parliamentary custom, reflective of the personal nature of our culture and our politics. Each member is afforded no more than three minutes to pay their respects to a recently deceased or to extend congratulations to a worthy recipient on some (any) outstanding achievement. I am not advocating that we do away with this feature, but it should not be used to either block or usurp parliamentary questions.

PQs are, in my view, a critical component of the Ps and Qs of an effective parliament. The chamber should more than just a place to give speeches, good or bad and everything else in between. Debate requires exchanges and exchanges are prompted by questions. PQs will also make transparency and accountability a reality, or at least there is the very real potential for that. Success or failure will depend on the prior homework and acumen of MPs.

Legislative committees - and here's an area where some innovation is required. I return to the Recommended Benchmarks of the CPA and what they have to say on the role of committees in Parliament and the powers they should exercise:

"There shall be a presumption that the legislature will refer legislation to a committee, and any exceptions must be transparent, narrowly-defined, and extraordinary in nature.

"Committees shall scrutinise legislation referred to them and have the power to recommend amendments or to amend the legislation.

"Committees shall have the right to consult and/or employ experts.

"Committees shall have the power to summon persons, papers and records, and this power shall extend to witnesses and evidence from the executive branch, including officials.

"Only legislators appointed to the committee, or authorised substitutes, shall have the right to vote in committee.

"Legislation shall protect informants and witnesses presenting relevant information to commissions of inquiry about corruption or unlawful activity."

We are still a ways off from this in Bermuda.

The practice now is to table a bill in the House and wait two weeks before taking it up - most of the time, but not always, especially at the end of a session when the legislation starts to pile up and members want to break for the summer recess.

In the interim, members get to review the bills on their own, figure it out on their own - which is not always easy, if you are not a lawyer (most are not), and there are complex amendments to another piece of legislation. Occasionally, and only occasionally, one or two of the more pro-active and progressive Ministers will set up private meetings in advance to review the bills with the drafters and policy makers.

It ought to be entrenched practice.

As it now stands, on the day a bill is debated, the House resolves itself into committee where members are free to debate a bill clause by clause or paragraph by paragraph or word by word. It can be pretty painstaking, pretty not being the operative word. The Minister in charge invariably reads from a prepared brief and, in some instances, struggles with questions, the answers to which are handed up to the Minister from a battery of civil servants, drafters included, sitting in the visitor's gallery nearby.

Really. Why not just give MPs direct access to the policy makers and drafters with their questions and be done with this circuitous, laborious route of communication? There could instead be a Public Bills Committee which meets prior to the actual day a bill is taken up at which members can ask their questions and answers can be given, on the record of course. Meetings of committees should be open to press and public.

A public bills committee would be much like the private bills committee operates, although the average man or woman, voters, would not know this because like all House committees it continues to meet in secret.

It should not.

For instance, the public should know why the Bank of Bermuda recently sought amendments to its private Act. As it stands now, they haven't a clue. All they now know is that amendments went through a couple of weeks ago, the contents of which are unknown, if they even knew that.

It's a fact that other professions throughout the world, including Bermuda, are having to raise their game to higher standards to effect greater transparency and accountability.

We do it all the time on the Hill in the form of legislation, but for others: doctors, dental practitioners, lawyers, accountants, bankers and others in the financial services industry.

We tell them and ourselves these changes are absolutely essential to maintain Bermuda's reputation and standing as a first class centre in which to do business.

It is high time that Government took the same approach with respect to itself and the governance of Bermuda.

l Next week: Leading the way on reform. What's Guyana got to do with it?