points with the government Minister or make your points publicly before it comes up for debate, usually within two weeks and rarely before, sometimes longer than that, depending on the legislative agenda. I’ve highlighted the formal (parliamentary) procedures that we follow while Mr Barritt has spoken about an informal practice.
constituency issue. The funds could not be used for party political meetings. Mr Barritt: One of the things that can be done is the development of a parliamentary website on which Bills can be posted as soon as they are tabled, or in draft form, if the government’s prepared or the Ministry is prepared to do that, enabling the opposition along with
to the floor of the House based on such consultations. Mr Barritt: One of the things that
has struck me over the years when I have been in Parliament, both in government and now in opposition, is the very problem that you just touched upon, and that is when you’re presenting a piece of legislation on the floor of the House. Ministers aren’t always lawyers - in
can go through the legislation around the table and then go back in the House and talk to the principle of a Bill and whether we agree or disagree.
I believe we can improve this system and include constituents as well as the general public on this process as early as possible. I cannot help but wonder whether there are some changes we ought to be contemplating to make that happen. Butler: I think every Member of
Parliament should have a budget of around $5.00 to $10.00 per constituent to be used for constituency advertising, renting of halls and surveys etc. At the moment this is paid out of your own pocket. The main purpose would be to allow a Member of Parliament to present his views and to hear constituents concerns so you can better represent their views. For example, I recently sent out a survey on casinos, independence and crime, which I paid for rather than having a House Committee reimburse me for a
the community to start looking at the legislation. Mr Butler: The idea of posting Bills on the internet is a good one, but to be honest, most people do not have the time to read such detailed matters. What they really want is to be consulted at the start and they want the meat of the matter. If the gist of the Bill was presented as: “This Bill will put into place the following or allow the following…” I think this is what the public would want. At the moment we get “newspaper” and
opposition concerns and the public repeat those concerns. A Minister then has to clarify matters and sometimes change position. What I have tried to do is canvas widely and also include my opposition counterpart. So far this has worked well and I have taken amendments back to my party and, if they agree,
Opposite page: The House of Assembly in Hamilton; Above: Hon. John Barritt (left) and Hon. Dale D. Butler (right).
fact there are only half a dozen lawyers in the House out of 36 and Ministers can’t be expected to know how to interpret a Bill and necessarily to explain the legal nuances. I’ve always said that it’s a kind of archaic system that we have, where the Minister stands up and reads the brief that’s prepared for him by civil servants, and the draftsmen and the people who are sometimes responsible for legislation, sit to the left, listen to the debate and pass notes for the Minister to read when questions come up. Why don’t we change this and have a committee where we sit around the table? We
Mr Butler: Now that the government has proven itself competent, consideration should be given to moving in the direction of having formal preliminary talks prior to a Bill reaching the House. If matters were resolved at an early stage, acrimony on the floor of the House would be avoided – since agreement on the content of the Bill would already have been reached. Where consensus has not been reached in a particular area, then it would be addressed during debate. The advantage of early deliberations is that clerical errors and typos are identified. Once I found about eight errors prior to the Bill being tabled but one still slipped through. We would have to pay Members more because they would have to attend meetings during the day but I think it would be a good thing to move in that direction. Mr Barritt: I agree there is this detail [of how to make it work] which will need to be sorted out once we embrace the principle. It will also mean more work and this too could be a challenge. A backbencher is paid a base salary of $50,000.00 and it is understood and indeed is accepted that it’s a second job. It’s a part-time job and they’re allowed to keep their full- time employment. We are currently expected to attend Parliament on Fridays when it meets (on average 26 weeks a year) and you’re expected to be there when the Budget is up for debate three times a week for two weeks. Mr Butler: Backbenchers however can be excused from attending quite frequently. Mr Barritt: This can be the case but I am referring to what we are supposed to do. There are also weekly caucus meetings, for which you are expected to review legislation and represent your constituents views when your party is policy making, and in your case
The Parliamentarian | 2009: Issue One - Bermuda | 21