Premier Jennifer Smith is hiding behind an implied veto on heads of government discussing a major UK/Caribbean conference, The Royal Gazette can reveal.

Embattled Ms Smith yesterday dodged a series of Opposition questions on the UK/Caribbean Forum -- insisting a joint communique issued at the end of the conference was "the only agreed comment that can be made about the conference''.

But a Foreign Office spokesman denied leaders had a gag order slapped on them.

The spokesman said: "They are heads of government in their own right.

Whatever they choose to say is entirely a matter for them.

"If they want to give their own background and own interpretation, they're welcome to do so.

"The last thing we want to indicate is that there is any kind of veto on what people say.

"There is no veto on anything anyone might want to say. It's a free country.'' Ms Smith sidestepped House of Assembly questions on probes into offshore jurisdictions and proposals for joint Bermuda/Caribbean hurricane insurance -- both of which came up at the London conference -- from Shadow Finance Minister Grant Gibbons.

And she used the same communique excuse for questions on crime and punishment from Shadow Home Affairs and Public Safety Minister Michael Dunkley.

Dr. Gibbons said the House of Assembly and the people of Bermuda were entitled to know what elected representatives said on their behalf.

He added: "It was pretty clear to us that she was trying everything she could to avoid providing information.

No gag on Premier, says Foreign Office "Based on what the Foreign Office said, they have absolutely no problem with leaders going back to their countries and providing an interpretation, a perspective, of how their participation in the forum is going to affect their countries. "The Premier is trying to hide behind the veil of forum secrecy and such a thing really doesn't exist, in essence.

"They promised public accountability and the sunshine of public scrutiny.

This makes a mockery of all these promises.'' Dr. Gibbons added: "There are always issues where it's a bit difficult to say exactly who said what. But if Government leaders are going to attend these things, there is a responsibility for them to provide some feedback as to how the meeting itself went and what their contribution was on Bermuda's behalf.'' Dr. Gibbons asked what "specific steps'' Government had taken toward establishing catastrophic insurance coverage for the region with CARICOM.

Ms Smith said Bermuda and CARICOM would be discussing the issue and the Secretary General of CARICOM had been invited to Bermuda for talks. Dr.

Gibbons also wanted to know what the specific "points'' made by the UK, and endorsed by the US and international financial watchdogs the OECD were, which were referred to in the joint communique and what the possible implications for Bermuda were.

Ms Smith replied: "The Ministerial statement given in the House is the only agreed comment to be made about the conference.'' Mr. Dunkley wanted to know what was said on a forum discussion on rising crime levels, especially in small states and what possible solutions were put forward which "might have a positive impact for the Island of Bermuda and its people''.

Ms Smith replied: "The Ministerial statement given in the House of Assembly by the Premier is the only agreed comment that can be made about the conference.'' And she referred MPs to a recent Commissioners of Police and Collectors of Customs conference held recently which discussed similar issues. But she did confirm that a representative from a Caribbean Overseas Territory would represent all the Territories on a forum sub-committee.

Ms Smith came under fire recently for "lifting'' a joint report on the conference.

The Premier gave an almost word-for-word repetition of the joint report issued at the end of meeting and released more than a week before she delivered it to the House.

She was blasted for an "insult to the intelligence of the Members of this Honourable House and to the people of this Country'' by Opposition leader Pamela Gordon.

Ms Gordon added that -- while the joint communique was informative -- it was too general and lacked specific details.