constituencies and whether the Government's call for single seat constituencies without regard to parish boundaries was the best way forward.

The second part of the Government's proposals call for an unspecified reduction in seats.

The major argument made here is that Bermuda, compared to other countries, is "over-represented''. MPs in Britain, Canada, Jamaica and so on represent much larger constituencies -- why shouldn't Bermuda follow their expertise and example? This argument is not made exclusively by the Progressive Labour Party. It is also made by "smaller government'' advocates who dislike the expense of 40 MPs and 11 Senators.

The Government, according to the draft of the Civil Service Review, would like to reduce the size of the Cabinet as well. That may make a reduction in the House necessary, because the Government would otherwise be left with a large group of dissatisfied backbenchers who would make effective government difficult.

The final argument in favour of reducing the size of the House is that fewer MPs would actually be better MPs -- but only if they were full time.

At the same time the eight Cabinet Ministers would also be full time; with a smaller Cabinet that would be a genuine need as current and past Ministers will vouch for the fact that even being a part-time Minister these days is time consuming and makes it difficult to hold a "regular job'' as well.

Still, this seems to mean that fewer seats will mean better paid MPs and Cabinet Ministers. This carries risks as well. The Premier appears to be acutely aware of the criticisms of centralising power in the Cabinet Office and has gone to some lengths to say why this is not happening.

But a smaller House and a smaller Cabinet will mean fewer people and more control for the Premier, whose ability to appoint, promote and demote becomes more important.

At the same time, it also means that the diversity of views and ideas in the Government and in the House of Assembly will be reduced. That is dangerous because no-one has a monopoly on ideas and solutions.

Nor is there any guarantee that the "best and the brightest'' will remain in the House and the less impressive MPs will be gone. It is more likely that the proportion of outstanding MPs and the merely average will remain the same.

There are equally valid arguments for increasing the size of the House, with or without single and dual constituencies; that would enable MPs to better represent their constituents and remain part-time which also has its merits as there are many small business owners or managers who cannot afford to leave their companies or careers.

The Government has not yet made a compelling argument in favour of a smaller House; there are other options. Bermuda needs a national debate on this issue.