The Sexual Offences Bill (SOB) is still upsetting MPs even though government has decided to refer it to a Select Committee for further discussions. Tuesday?s acrimonious debates and exchanges, however, tend to point out that the real issue is not so much a matter of principle as it is political.

It is about scoring points. Debates on the motion to appoint a Select Committee should have been consensual. Yet they weren?t. Opposition MPs did a lot of beating around the bush before admitting to approving the appointment of a Select Committee.

<I>Had the bill been referred to the Select Committee after parliamentary debates, it would have been a different story altogether. The Select Committee, according to Bérenger, would then have been able to offer suggestions regarding particular sections of the bill.</I>

The reasons are obvious; if the SOB is not debated, there is not much the opposition parties can reproach government; they cannot talk about sodomy when sodomy is not being debated. Some did try. Many others, like MMM leader Paul Bérenger, thought that although they couldn?t discuss the provisions of the bill - and this includes sodomy - during the debates on the motion relating to the Select Committee but could do so during the sittings of the said committee.

The Speaker of the National Assembly set Bérenger straight however ? according to Erskin May ? the National Assembly?s bible ? the Select Committee will not get into the details of the bill. The Select Committee will send for people and documents and afterwards, ?will only be allowed to make general recommendations on the bill?. Bérenger was not happy after the Speaker gave his ruling; ?I do not understand your ruling?, he said unnerved. But at tea-break, Bérenger researched the matter, consulted with other colleagues and realised that he had in fact been trapped; the Speaker was right, the Select Committee could only give general recommendations.

It is the first time ever, said Kailash Purryag, that a bill is referred to a Select Committee. Because the bill hasn?t been debated in Parliament, it cannot be debated in a Select Committee. So the Select Committee can only make recommendations, general in nature, and propositions of amendments can only be done while there is debating in Parliament. Had the bill been referred to the Select Committee after parliamentary debates, it would have been a different story altogether. The Select Committee, according to Bérenger, would then have been able to offer suggestions regarding particular sections of the bill.

?It is a usual MMM case of much ado about nothing. What exactly does Bérenger want to change in the bill? In any event, what could have been accepted at the sitting of the Select Committee can also be accepted at debate time in Parliament. Government decides in any event. It seems Mr Bérenger is looking for all manner of excuses not to be part of the Select Committee?, says a majority MP. He may be right. The nature of the MMM protests is not clear.

Government?s move to refer the controversial bill to a Select Committee is also suspicious. The move, it is said, has a lot to do with Mayday rally. Referring the sensitive matter of sodomy - that is the main bone of contention in a bill that most agree is an otherwise positive piece of legislation ? to a Select Committee means that the matter will not be discussed seeing that there has been a suspension of events. At the same time, Ramgoolam?s irritation towards MMM?s Ganoo who said ?government was bound to appoint a Select Committee? is interesting. ?I am not bound. I can throw out the committee if I want to?, replied the Prime minister.

It still, however, does not make clearer the reasons why government has referred the bill to a Select Committee. Will the ?sending for people and documents? and the ?general recommendations? that the committee would be allowed to make solve the sodomy problem? Or is it just a disguised manner of buying time?

If the latter is true, much of the MMM?s attitude would be demystified.