The following is Sir John's submission to the 2002 Boundaries Commission

The central part of the Boundaries Commission's mandate is to consider choosing any number of MP's for Bermuda between 20 and 40.

The terms of the Amendment Order 2001 gives absolutely no guidance on what the Commission should consider in deciding a number. Furthermore, I have not heard any persuasive reasons for changing the number, except maybe it should be an uneven number to avoid a constitutional crisis which can be brought about when there is an even number and a 20-20 tie e.g. like that is presently occurring in Trinidad & Tobago.

Bermuda had 36 members of the House of Assembly from 1680's until 1968 when our first written Constitution went into effect. Under the 1968 Constitution this number was increased to 40. It is worth repeating that no arguments have been advanced that the downsizing of Parliament will enrich or improve democracy. Quite the contrary, the reduction of members on the backbench and the opposition is likely to erode democracy.

A strong backbench together with a strong opposition are crucial safeguards for any democracy.

Benjamin Disraeli a former British Prime Minister said: "No government can long be secure without formidable opposition."

Former US Chief Justice Louis Brandeis said: "Like the course of the heavenly bodies, harmony in national affairs is a resultant of the struggle between contending forces."

An African Statesman said: "Don't be afraid of opportunity, remember a kite flies against not with the wind."

The above quotations illustrate rather succinctly that for democracy to work at its best you need a viable backbench and a formidable opposition.

Honest, strong, transparent and accountable governments are far more likely to exist when there is a strong opposition.

If the governing party has a huge majority, it will produce a strong backbench to which the Cabinet is obliged to be attentive. In this instance, the backbench would have a real influence on policy.

Where the opposition party is close in numbers to the governing part, this too will make for a more attentive Government most especially when it comes to the debate and passage of legislation in the House of Assembly.

Every country has its own unique circumstances and the size of its Parliament should be tailored to fit their circumstances. There should not be 'one size fits all'.

Bermuda is very different to most countries especially small countries. Bermuda is the second most densely populated country in the world with approximately 3000 people per square mile, while in the United States it is only 59 people per square mile. There is no island in the Caribbean with anywhere near the population density as Bermuda.

Because of Bermuda's population density and our high literacy rate, everything has a greater impact and therefore comes under much more scrutiny, because what affects one, affects all. There is, therefore, a greater tendency for people to have a great interest in what is going on and to ask more questions.

Not only are we densely populated but we are also a multicultured society that produces a far greater variety of complex problems that would normally be more akin to a large country. This together with the level of prosperity we enjoy and the extraordinary social, political and economic expectations of Bermudians are out of all proportions to our means, education and size.

With the aforementioned realities of our unique society it is, therefore, imperative for us to recognise that to compare ourselves with others would be a fundamental mistake.

If we are to have a representative Government that embraces all Bermudians, then we should not consider reducing the number of parliamentary representatives.

If we are to meet the demands of Bermudians for the creation of employment opportunities, provision of a wide variety of first class social services together with meeting our international obligations, changes in telecommunications, finance, education and labour that require constant attention then we should not consider reducing the number of our elected members of Parliament.

In accordance with 57 (1) of the Bermuda Constitution Order 1968, the Constitution makes provision for a Cabinet of as little as seven ministers, including the Premier. In 34 years of responsible government in Bermuda there has never been a Cabinet this small. On the contrary, succeeding leaders of the Government have tended to appoint the maximum, which is twelve members from the House of Assembly and two from the Senate.

Even though Ministers were paid as if they were part-time, in my experience, the overwhelming majority of them worked full-time and they were fully employed or engaged in the people's business. I believe the present Government has a full complement of Ministers that are fully stretched with their responsibilities.

In my view, the present compliment of Ministers could not take any more responsibility without seriously neglecting some areas of their portfolios.

Over 34 years there is irrefutable evidence and proven experience that the optimum number of Cabinet Ministers should be between 12 and 14 members. There should be sufficient Ministers to prevent them from being unfairly over burdened and thus preventing them from attending to their responsibilities as they should.

This obviously leads to what is considered a viable backbench. In my experience less than nine to twelve members on the backbench would lead to an erosion of the democratic process. The backbench should be of sufficient numbers for five reasons:

1. To scrutinise and test legislation before it goes to Parliament

2. To act as a check on the potential abuse of power of the Cabinet

3. To be a potential supply of future Ministers

4. To be appointed Chairman of Boards under Ministerial Portfolios and thus help Ministers with their responsibilities

5. To assist busy Ministers by tending to constituency matters in the Minister's stead.

There are, therefore, a number of significant responsibilities with political implications, which are outside the purview of the civil service that backbenchers could be of enormous assistance to Ministers.

It is worth repeating that a strong backbench, together with a strong opposition are crucial safeguards for any democracy.

Given the size of the Cabinet and the backbench and the need for a strong opposition, I cannot see any rational reason for reducing the size of Parliament except to prevent a tie by reducing it by one to thirty-nine members.