"Bermudiana bill' in the House of Assembly on Friday. They are right to be furious -- and the public should be too.

Regardless of whether the rules of the House permit no debate on a private bill unless an MP actually demands that the legislation be discussed, this was a bill which the leadership of both parties should have opened for debate.

It may be true that MPs should have known the rules -- but it may be asking too much to expect them to be able to bring the debate to a skidding halt in the 42 seconds allowed.

It may also be true that this bill was well aired in the Press and was apparently subjected to lengthy discussions in the caucuses of both parties.

But discussion in the media is not the same as a full debate in the House of Assembly -- and party caucuses are held in private, so the public has no idea what was discussed in them. Meetings of the private bills committee, where the bill was first discussed and approved, are also private.

This issue has raised a great deal of public concern and the public was entitled to hear where their elected representatives stood.

This was the first time in many years that a company (aside from those involved in the hotel business) had been granted a waiver of the 60/40 rule.

This was a major change in policy, and whether it came as a result of a private bill or not, a full debate with both parties giving their reasons for supporting the change should have been held. In addition, the House should have been told whether or not this waiver was really a "one-off''. If it is, the House and the public should have been told what guarantees are in place that it will not happen again.

The failure to debate the bill -- and the somewhat arrogant reactions of both Premier David Saul and Opposition Leader Jennifer Smith to the protests of MPs -- will inevitably raise the suspicion that they had no real desire to explain why they were supporting the bill; perhaps they were afraid they would be unable to ease the genuine concerns among many Bermudians.

Now that the legislation has passed the House, it will be up to the members of the Senate to actually debate the merits of the proposal. As an alternative, this is better than nothing, but as Senators are appointed, not elected, it should have been dealt with by the House.

Nonetheless, it is to be hoped that the Senators in the United Bermuda Party and the Progressive Labour Party will be prepared to debate the legislation.

Should they opt not to, then it will be up to the Independent Senators to do so. It is for precisely this kind of issue that Bermuda has Independent Senators and it is to be hoped that the Independents will do their duty and make sure that the public is told why this bill is being passed.