Hon. Sir John Swan said yesterday.

But the Government discussion paper tabled in the House of Assembly on Friday came under fresh attack yesterday from inside and outside the United Bermuda Party.

The Premier was responding to charges from Independence friends and foes that the Green Paper was biased in favour of Independence.

"People are criticising it, but I'm not sure where that criticism emanates from,'' Sir John said. "The committee's job was to deal with the facts and show no bias.'' "There probably is a reason why people think the paper is more biased toward Independence,'' Sir John said. It could indicate that "we have taken our development for granted. We probably are closer to what the paper said we should investigate (Independence) than we thought we were.'' But Opposition Leader Mr. Frederick Wade said he too thought the Green Paper did "a bit of selling.'' In talking about Independence, "the terms are positive, as opposed to negative,'' Mr.

Wade said.

"If you're like me, who favours Independence, I don't quarrel with it, but what we want are the facts at this stage,'' he said. "We don't want them coloured.'' He felt the Green Paper should have given more details about external affairs and defence.

The Progressive Labour Party will soon produce a position paper on Independence, spelling out how the party would proceed towards it and what a PLP Independence Constitution would say, he said.

Mr. Wade said Government was trying to rush matters by planning the Green Paper and referendum debate for March 10, immediately after the Budget Debate.

The debate should wait until early May, after the Easter break, he said.

Mr. Gilbert Darrell, leader of the National Liberal Party, said he did not see bias in the Green Paper.

A proponent of Independence, Mr. Darrell felt the Green Paper did a good job of setting out Bermuda's options. His main complaint was the timing of the Independence initiative.

"I don't think Independence is so pressing that we should undertake this when we've got all these other problems facing us,'' he said.

Bank of Bermuda chairman Mr. Eldon Trimingham said the Green Paper is "very solidly pro-Independence'' and he takes the estimated annual cost of $800,000 to $2.3 million "with a grain of salt.'' "I think it will cost much more than that,'' Mr. Trimingham said.

"I think it's a very shallow document. The pros and cons have not been fairly gone into. In particular, there is no concern for the effect on the average Bermudian and his family and his future.'' Mr. Trimingham felt the most significant statement in the 64-page report was the news from the United Kingdom Government that "there may be opportunity for reassessment'' of Bermuda's status once Hong Kong is returned to the Chinese in 1997. He could not understand why the committee cited that statement as grounds for proceeding with a referendum immediately.

Mr. Trimingham believes Bermudians could be given the right of abode in England and the European Union post-1997.

Former Premier the Hon. Sir David Gibbons, chairman of the Bank of Butterfield, said he was leaving the Island yesterday and taking a copy of the Green Paper with him to study.

But Dr. Eva Hodgson of the National Association for Reconciliation said: "One has to think that it's biased in favour of Independence, because that's what the Premier wants.'' Meanwhile, most groups were still studying the document and not ready to comment.

"Obviously, it's a major issue on the Chamber's agenda,'' Chamber of Commerce executive vice-president Ms Carolyn Mello said. "We will be having a group of people looking at it. We will also be soliciting the views of our members.'' The Bermuda International Business Association has yet to formulate a position, said chairman Mr. Cummings Zuill. The group's general position had not changed. "The process creates uncertainty, and international business clients are unsettled by any change or uncertainty,'' Mr. Zuill said.

Government backbencher Dr. David Dyer said he expected the Green Paper would have more substance. He also detected "a decided pro-Independence bias'' in some areas.

Specifically, Dr. Dyer said he expected an Independent Bermuda's $350,000 contribution to United Nations peacekeeping would continue to grow, an Independent shipping register would create problems for Bermuda in dealing with refugees rescued on the seas, and funds would have to be allotted for a Coast Guard to protect Bermuda's 200-mile economic zone.

Dr. Dyer, who missed the vote in the House of Assembly when Government's most recent Independence referendum legislation was defeated, would not say whether he could support the referendum bill expected in this session. "I've got to wait and see,'' Dr. Dyer said. "Hopefully it will come to caucus before it comes to the House.'' The Green Paper was presented to the UBP caucus at a special meeting on Thursday afternoon, and several MPs have complained they did not see it until it was tabled in the House on Friday.

The Green Paper also came under fresh attack from Government backbencher the Hon. Ann Cartwright DeCouto, who joined colleague Mr. Trevor Moniz MP in describing the document and its cost estimates as "fantasy.'' "It's absolute rubbish,'' she added.

As a discussion paper, the document should not include information on planned legislation like the referendum bill, she said. And the referendum voting formula spelled out in the paper was still inconsistent with Government's Independence policy in the 1979 White Paper, which said "a clear indication that a majority of Bermudians supported it'' was required.

UBP caucus chairman Mr. John Barritt said he had not yet studied the Green Paper in detail, but he was impressed with how "speculative'' consideration could be in the critical areas of cost and opportunities.

"The paper will probably prompt more ques- Premier denies `bias' allegations From Page 1 tions than it gives answers, which will likely stimulate considerable thought and debate inside and outside of our caucus and the House of Assembly,'' he said.

Mr. Barritt would not comment on whether he detected a pro-Independence bias in the Green Paper.

Backbencher Mrs. Grace Bell said she saw no bias in the Green Paper.

And Green Paper committee members the Hon. Maxwell Burgess and the Hon. Jerome Dill joined chairman the Hon. Irving Pearman and member the Hon. Clarence Terceira in defending the document.

The fifth member, the Hon. David Saul, could not be reached for comment.

"We were charged with making sure that we reported and recorded the facts,'' Mr. Burgess said. "That's what we've done.'' As for his own position on Independence, "I propose as the debate heats up for people to be clear on where I stand on the issue,'' Mr. Burgess said.

Mr. Dill, the Human Affairs Minister, said he was stunned by the speed of the negative reaction.

"Quite frankly, the document is one that took five Cabinet Ministers a considerable amount of time to produce,'' Mr. Dill said.

"All I can say is if someone has had the opportunity of reading, digesting, analysing, and then dismissing the Green Paper in that short a space of time, then perhaps the person hasn't carefully read the document.'' The Green Paper "is not biased toward Independence at all,'' and "the immediate reaction to it is perhaps a bit misconceived.'' Mr. Dill said he was also surprised by the negative reaction of Mr. Walton Brown, chairman of the Committee for the Independence of Bermuda. Mr. Brown said the paper was biased toward Independence and the committee failed to fulfill its terms of reference on describing the social implications of opting for Independence or remaining a dependent territory.

"My mind boggles at the prospect of a paper which is too pro-Independence for a Committee for the Independence of Bermuda,'' Mr. Dill said.

Mr. Burgess was unaware social effects were part of the committee's mandate until excerpts from the terms of reference were read to him by a reporter.

Mr. Dill did not feel social effects could be dealt with in a factual manner.

"What is the social effect of staying as we are?'' he asked. "Does that mean the pro-Independence people are going to be rioting in the streets? Some people have said as much.'' The paper detailed as many of the facts about Independence as could be ascertained, he said. "You can't guarantee the outcome of a decision to go Independent, you really can't.

"We quite frankly don't know how people are going to react, if and when we go Independent.''