Premier Jennifer Smith said the Boundary Commissioners had done a brilliant job in handling a complex and difficult issue.

There had been 73 oral submissions, 177 written submissions, as well as public meetings during the nine months the Commission carried out its work.

A variety of Government departments worked together to identify 39,198 eligible voters, 98 percent of those in the 2000 census.

While a full report of the debate would be sent to British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw to decide if he will approve the changes, Government was hopeful he would give the reforms the green light.

“With this move, Bermuda will enter into a new and dynamic phase in the evolution of its electoral system,” she said.

“With this move, the long-cherished dream of many Bermudians and the certainly of the PLP, that of establishing a modernised and reformed electoral system predicated on the democratic ideal of ‘one person, one vote, each of equal value', will become a reality.”

The PLP had supported this principle since its inception in 1963, and pledged to modernise the constitution when it won power in 1998.

Bermuda's current electoral system dated from the first parliament of Nathaniel Butterfield on August 1, 1620, with two representatives from each parish based on property ownership.

“The general framework remained unchanged - although over time the specifics varied slightly - for most of Bermuda's history. The property-based voter qualification persisted into the late 1960s; and to this day, electoral districts continue to conform to the established parish boundaries - a state of affairs which has helped perpetuate the glaring inequalities in constituency voter distribution throughout Bermuda's history.”

In 1687, four representatives came from each parish, but in 1789 for the first time, voters and candidates had to be freeholders. Candidates had to have property worth at least 124 four pounds, while for electors it was 24 pounds.

“In 1834, when emancipation eventually became a reality in Bermuda, these property qualifications were increased to a level which ensured the status quo was perpetuated.

“At that time, a mere handful of black landowners were able to satisfy the freehold qualifications and even less were able to qualify as candidates.

“Up until 1968, when the property vote was finally scrapped, black Bermudians - and those whites who were in the same position of not owning property - suffered from political impotence induced by the unequal distribution of wealth that remained a legacy of slavery.”

Even when the vote was extended to property-owning women aged over 21 in 1944, it was estimated the total electorate was less than 3,000, “such was the stultifying effect of Bermuda's outmoded, racist and undemocratic property-based franchise”.

The Committee for Universal Adult Suffrage achieved a partial victory in 1963 when the vote was given to every adult aged 25 and over, which saw the electorate explode from 5,500 landowners to 22,000 voters, but landowners still had a “plus vote”.

In 1966, the plus vote was scrapped and the franchise was extended to everyone aged 21 or over. In 1989, the vote was given to every 18-year-old.

Ms Smith said the PLP made it clear in July 1999 that it was “fundamentally opposed” to dual seat constituencies when the House of Assembly debated the UK Government's White Paper on Overseas Territories.

“The elimination of dual-seat constituencies based on historic parish boundaries has always been at the forefront of the PLP political agenda,” said Ms Smith - and they were enunciated in the party's submission to the 1966 constitutional conference.

Although there are 37,116 voters in the current electoral roll, the seats are unequal. Paget East has 1,344 voters and Warwick East has 2,594, yet both elect two MPs.

Before the debate on the current changes took place and they were debated in the House, there was “wide-ranging debate” in the community through public meetings to allow voters to have an input.

Refuting the need for a constitutional conference, Ms Smith noted the Commission had two representatives from each party and two non-partisan independents, which would not be guaranteed in a constitutional conference.

The aim of one person, one vote of equal value had been “impossible” using the existing dual seat, parish-based seats, she said.

“This requirement (dual seats), which flies in the face of practical wisdom, had in the past effectively subverted and frustrated all previous well-intentioned endeavours to realise the ideal of equal voter representation.”

A constitutional conference was not needed because “the majority of Bermuda's voters endorsed that initiative when they elected us to govern and they provided us with the mandate to introduce reform”.

In addition “the public has been given sufficient opportunity and time to discuss the issues exhaustively. Their input has been a meaningful and active part of the process”.

As well as the public having a direct input to the Boundaries Commission, Government had had held three open meetings to discuss the report.

To accommodate people moving constituencies, the Commission can meet every three to to seven years to reconfigure the boundaries.

“Our actions today can help bring Bermuda's electoral system into the 21st century and a quest begun 40 years ago can finally be concluded,” said Ms Smith.

Opposition leader Grant Gibbons said the UBP supported one member one vote of equal value and 36 single seat constituencies.

The number satisfied UBP fears that there are enough backbenchers and reduced worries about concentration of power in Cabinet, although there were still “serious concerns” about the process of electoral reform.

Dr. Gibbons said unless there was an independently elected Speaker, it made a “nonsense” of one member one vote. Currently, the Speaker's running mate can take care of constituency business, but this would not be possible under single seat constituencies.

“We on this side and many in the community feel that from the very beginning of the process, the Bermudian people have been left out of process,” he said.

“This is not right and fair, and for future constitutional changes it is imperative that voters have more direct say and be reinserted back into the decision-making process from which they have been excluded by this Government.”

Despite opinion polls, public meetings and 8,500 people in a petition calling for a referendum and constitutional conference, they had been snubbed by Government.

“From the beginning, the approach from the PLP Government has created anxiety and suspicion and polarisation in the community which would not be necessary if it had been handled properly.”

The Premier had denied in the House in February 2000 that she had any plans for constitutional reform in the coming calendar year yet six months later she unveiled the current plans.

The move took the Opposition and the public by surprise and Government kept from voters the checklist of consultation it had to undertake as specified by Britain.

The Opposition was caught cold again when the Premier gave it just 36 hours notice rather than the normal one week that the reforms were to be debated.

And in what Dr. Gibbons called a “calculated deceit”, letters for voters outlining the changes were postmarked and sent out two days after Parliament had already passed the measures.

This was “compelling evidence of the blatant disregard” the PLP showed for the wishes of the public during the constitutional changes.

“This all contributed to the anxiety about how this was handled and the feeling that this was effectively being rammed through without input.”

Attacking the role played by the Foreign Office, he accused London of giving the impression it was “making it up as it went along”.

Even after the FCO visit in April 2001, residents still felt high levels of anxiety about the way consultations were being handled. After the visit, 75 percent of voters still wanted a constitutional conference.

“The overall climate was one of anxiety in the country. The problem is that people by and large felt left out of the process of constitutional change. The voters want a government they can trust to act fairly without fear or favour and a government that can trust them to have a say in the process.”

Dr. Gibbons said it was essential that all voters are reregistered before the new system is introduced because by-elections had shown that 20 to 30 percent of electors had moved but had not informed the Parliamentary Registrar.

Reiterating the call for a constitutional conference, he said all the issues not covered by the remit of the Boundaries Commission - such as an independently elected Speaker and voter reregistration - could be ironed out.

Dr. Gibbons tabled a motion calling for a constitutional conference to be convened to discuss issues arising from the Commissioners' report such as an independently elected Speaker; the future mandate of the Boundaries Commission; reregistration of voters; ways of handling future constitutional reform; and a referendum on the current reforms.

Transport Minister Dr. Ewart Brown said he was proud serious political change could occur without violence, and he said he “shuddered to think” what would have happened if the UBP had been re-elected in 1998.

The old system was not fair to black people and it was up to the PLP “to take as many steps as it can to restore some semblance of justice for all our people. I consider this to be one of many steps to be taken towards a stronger democracy”.

The PLP had consulted more than any previous government, but the process had not been invented by the party and it was not perfect because it was “based on wrongdoing”.

Dr. Brown said he was “ashamed” to explain that in the 21st century the constituencies were still so unequal.

“The system is inherently wrong and when we try to to fix it, we are criticised for the manner in which we try to fix it. There was never any conversation about how to fix it until this government.

“When the Opposition was in government it was content with the system as it was. Why were you so content? Because it served you so well.”

It was a “simple solid fact” that the old system was based on racial lines. “That's the history of this country and we are trying to bring back justice to an unjust system, yet we get criticised.”

Asking what moral authority the UBP had to criticise the PLP for trying to undo this injustice, he asked: “If you have your boot on my neck, are you qualified to judge how your boot is removed? You have forfeited the right for the pain you have inflicted.”

He said the Opposition should feel a “collective guilt” that the PLP had to go through the reform exercise.

Referring to UBP claims the reforms had created anxiety, he said the old system created high anxiety and polarisation because it was based on “white supremacy”.

“It is important to listen to the language of the Opposition because frequently people who are guilty accuse the victim of being the baddie. The PLP has brought a general reduction to the level of anxiety and definitely taken giant strides towards reducing racial polarisation.”

Saying he “shuddered to think” what would have happened if the PLP did not win in 1998, he said the UBP would “continue the policies of no return” and of alienating the people.

He said he expected to find a “chorus of support” today from the UBP and admission that it had flourished and benefited from the old system but it was time to change.

He noted that the UBP was divided over its note of dissent in the Boundaries Commission report, with John Barritt supporting it but not former Premier and Leader Pamela Gordon.

Dr. Brown suggested Ms Gordon may have heard “the drums” of her father, the late labour leader E.F. Gordon, from beyond the grave, and decided she would do the right thing.

To current white UBP members who said they should not be made to feel guilty for the deeds of their grandfathers, Dr. Brown said: “Give up the property! You can't take the riches and give up the history.”

Opposition Whip Maxwell Burgess said the UBP didn't deny the racism of the past, but it was the Bermudian public - in opinion polls, meetings and letters to the editor - which wanted a constitutional conference.

Despite the “straitjacket” imposed on the Boundaries Commission through its terms of reference, it had recommended looking at en elected speaker, said Mr. Burgess.

Although the UBP still favoured a constitutional conference, it signed up to the Commission report because it did not want to hold up the process.

He said Britain had a responsibility to take a wider view and ensure the views of the Bermudian people were respected.

He accused the PLP of trying to “out-oligarchy the oligarchy” by being contemptuous of the views of voters simply because it had won the election.

Mr. Burgess supported his party's proposals and as others before him pointed to the fact that 2,000 people had marched for more public participation. “All I am saying is must our people take to the streets every time they want to be heard ?” he said. “Don't get me wrong. I support marching in the street if that is the only way they can reach arrogant people.”

He added : “Failure to hear their voice is justice denied.” And turning to the Government sponsored meetings this week, he said that they could hardly be considered proper consultation with the people given that they all took place within the last 72 hours. “It doesn't feel fair. It doesn't look fair and it doesn't smell fair because it is not fair.”

PLP whip Ottiwell Simmons took took to the floor to say that the Opposition had been straying from the business of the day and that was to consider the report. The “other issues” being brought up by the Opposition were “quite irrelevant” to the item on the order sheet,” he said. He pointed to the terms of reference of the Boundaries Commission saying that the Commission was required to regulate its own procedures and consult with others as it saw fit, in order to discharge its functions. “That is precisely what the Commission has done,” Mr. Simmons said.

He stressed that nothing “strange” had taken place and the public should not be misled into thinking that was the case.

The Commission's report had been unanimously approved yet the UBP, which had fully participated in it, was now intent on going on a “fishing expedition,” he said. “The result here is what the two parties had agreed to... Mr. Speaker don't let them bamboozle you into thinking there is something wrong here, that somebody did something wrong. What is written here is what they have agreed to.”

He added that after the 1979 constitutional conference, which he participated in, the British Government had told the previous Government and the then Opposition PLP repeatedly, that future conferences would only be held if the Island was going for Independence.

“They are sitting over there as if they are completely dumbfounded by that fact. Maybe they are.”

He reminded his colleagues that the 1979 conference came about as a result of the 1977 riots. “That's where it all started - because Bermuda was in turmoil. Many of us put our heads together and had to fight the United Bermuda Party to have a conference.”

He added that the PLP had to “ fight like mad just to get things like the 18-year-old vote”. And the UBP was dragged kicking and screaming to agree to be rid of the three year residential vote, even after it had been specifically recommended by the Pitt Commission as a priority item for the conference.

He quoted from a 1995 PLP policy paper which recommitted the party to providing an “unfettered democracy” and single seat electoral system based on “one man, one vote, each vote of equal value.”

“That is precisely the writing in the document before us.”

PLP backbencher Delaey Robinson said that he was disappointed by the performance of the Opposition members. “One would expect that they would be singing it's praises and saying why they are in favour of it,” because their representatives on the Commission had signed it with their approval,” he said.

But the Opposition's stance was typical, he continued, of putting “stumbling blocks” in the way of progressive initiatives.

He dismissed the independent Speaker proposal, saying it was outside of the remit of the Boundaries Commission. And he said the rationale for the Commission having a narrow remit was the British Government insistence that any future far reaching changes in the Constitution will involve a move toward Independence.

“That is the reason we are not having a constitutional conference in this case... This is not a broad based constitutional change. It is narrowly focussed, we know what we are going for. We specifically went for that. It is narrowly focussed and we have the mandate of the people.”

All the “other matters will be dealt with when that final conference comes about.” On the call for a referendum, Mr. Simmons pointed out that the Westminster system was a form of representative democracy in which parliamentarians make decisions on behalf of the people who elect them. “A referendum is not something which has precedence under our system of Government... and it's not something which can be easily used here.”

As to complaints about lack of public participation he said that Bermudians had had two years to make their opinions felt. “It cannot be said that this is a matter which the Government is trying to slide through or ram through without consulting the people.”

As to the “rather less than 9,000” signature petition, some of the people who signed it were tourists, he claimed. The UBP's Jamahl Simmons immediately rose on a point of order to say that each signatory was required to be a registered voter and a Bermudian. But Mr. Robinson insisted: “We saw people who were visitors to this country being requested to sign that petition.” He added that if the British Government was going to take the petition into consideration they should check each name against the electoral list.

On the concept of an Independent speaker he said it was not a typical feature of Commonwealth parliaments.

Besides “our electors don't go to the polls to elect a person they go to elect a party.”

He said the Speaker's constituency would not lose a voice because the party could take care of their constituents. He pointed out that Britain does not have an independent speaker and could give direction to Bermuda as to how they deal with the concerns expressed by the UBP. “It's a gross, gross misguided idea that democracy is lost... what absolute nonsense.”

And he reminded the UBP that the political parties are not equally represented at constitutional conferences, unlike the Boundaries Commission and that the Opposition was failing its supporters by calling for one.

Mr. Robinson concluded his speech saying “I look forward to my children and my children's children having their vote equal to any other vote in this country.”

PLP backbencher Wayne Perinchief, an Independent advocate, noted that after 380 years of inequity the Boundaries Commission “went into labour and brought about a mere mouse.” He applauded the Commission's efforts and said, noting the irony, “I hope it is a precursor of what the Opposition is alluding to - substantial constitutional change, knowing full well that any substantial constitutional change must bring about independence.”

He added : “So I would ask the question, is it (UBP) in favour of Independence ?” Brandishing a copy of the PLP's platform, the UBP's David Dodwell cried out “Is it in here?”

Mr. Perinchief referred to the reform as a “miniscule” change which was nevertheless overdue but created much “heat and light” but no real energy. “I look forward to the further development of the constitution with the agreement of the Opposition... It's amazing that now they are in Opposition I hear nothing of Independence... It's as if they want to continue to exist in this constitutional neverland, this vacuum.

The UBP's Jamahl Simmons rose to reassure the House that his party supported the move to single seats. “Let's get it on... Bring on the election.We are ready.”

But, he said, in this modern age, Governments are expected to be accountable. He repeated the argument that a bad precedent was being set by changing the constitution without a conference and that without a referendum the people were being left out of the process. “Once it's taken to the people, the people's voice is supreme and that to me settles all arguments.... What it all comes down to is that the people be given a proper role to play in ratifying the proposals.” He said at this stage it was impossible to know how people feel or even if they care.” Single seats will end MPs having a 40-year tenure in the House, he suggested. “I agree with Rolfe Commissiong that sometimes you do need a fresh wind to blow through.” And in reference to the argument that the party could take care of the needs of the Speaker's constituents, he said: “The governing party is not taking care of things now...” Safe seats, he added, are “out the window” and MPs will be hard pressed to find people to take care of responsibilities in a constituency that may not even be a neighbouring constituency.

Finance Minister Eugene Cox said he was disappointed that fellow Commissioner John Barritt had written his dissenting opinion, saying that all Commissioners had dissenting opinions but since they were unanimous on the recommendations there was little need to write a dissenting view. He said it was contradictory to write a dissent when one has signed the majority report. And on the Independent Speaker he said that the whole party machinery has structures in place to serve the needs of the constituents and its not just left to the elected MPs.

“It's the branches responsibility to provide coverage for you when you are not there.” He added that, with three political parties, having an odd number of MPs would not solve the problem of electoral deadlock. And he said it was not uncommon, as in Britain, for the Speaker to run in his constituency unopposed. Mr. Cox also noted that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) had always made it clear that the Government could not be prevented from doing something if it had a mandate to do it.

“I would like and I would hope that the British government and the FCO do the same for Bermuda now as they have done for the Opposition when they were in Government. I hope they would say 'whenever any important decision is to be made I would have to give the Government more credence than the Opposition.”

He noted that in the past, 5,000 signature petitions gathered by his party made no difference. “I hope they treat all of us the same way as they have done in the past.”

The report, he continued, had been widely disseminated in the newspaper and on the Internet. “This has been a unanimous report. It has been signed by all six Commissioners.. so what else does the country want ?”

Mr. Cox said that people who came to the Government's public meetings were obviously satisfied that their representatives did the best they could do on their behalf. “Why should we now start to criticise?” he asked.

He said he suspected that, while “his heart was in the right place,” Mr. Barritt had been intimidated by the Constitutional lobby group the Association for Due Process. He commended the role of the civil servants who helped with process, especially after it was discovered that 985 voters did not have addresses. “It took us several months to make sure they all had addresses”.

The Commission achieved its mandate by coming up with constituencies that are contiguous, seeking the views of the public and meeting its other terms of reference.

“What has happened is the best thing that could have happened. We have a report all of us could be proud of.”

He suggested that it was a “waste of time” to insist on changes simply to say “we tried to do something differently” or to satisfy a group that “may not be worthy”. And he noted that at least one group which normally supports the Opposition had come out to say that there was no need for a conference. “You have had all this information from day one... It's been on our platform for decades,” he said.

Patricia Pamplin Gordon of the UBP said that Mr. Cox's reference to the 985 voters without addresses inadvertently made the argument for compulsory re-registration.

She said that the PLP was being “duplicitous” because in the past they “screamed for a conference” but changed their tact now that they are in Government.

Coming up with the number of constituencies could have been done in five minutes by simply taking a mean average of the two parties positions but more energy should have been spent on involving the public.

And she revealed that two signatories to the petitions who were PLP supporters had told her that the intent of the Government was wrong and that the PLP was attempting to concentrate power in the hands of a few people.

Quoting the late David Allen, she said Government was guilty of “an incredible schizophrenia” because they had argued for more representation at the 1979 conference but now wanted to give the people less.

“If I didn't have respect for the Member I would say these are the ramblings of a spent politician, if not a loony.”

And returning to the petition she said it was critical that the wishes of the signatories be heard. The Premier's speech had contained “wonderful historical lessons” but “the election of this Government pales in comparison to the importance of every single person in the walkways and byways of this Island”.

She added:“If blacks were improperly treated, it is not right for the whites to be marginalised... We are seeing quite a bit of white people in this country feeling a little bit disillusioned, a little bit marginalised.” Some PLP members heckled Ms Pamplin Gordon, the daughter of the late labour leader E.F. Gordon.

But she retorted “One doesn't have to have a certain complexion or be of a certain race to have a sensitivity to how people feel.... We are what we are but if we don't have some sympathy or empathy for other people (of difference)... we have failed as a people.”

People had failed to speak out not because they were satisfied but because they felt marginalised, she offered. And if black people spoke out they would be completely ostracised.

Minister of Education Paula Cox said she wanted to send a message to the “silent witness” to the debate - the British government - to take note of the maturing of democracy in Bermuda.

Ms Cox noted that Deputy Governor Tim Gurney was in the chamber throughout much of the debate yesterday and the ultimate decision on the Boundaries Commission report lay with the “Mother Country”.

She referred to historical examples of constitutional change which were undertaken in the UK by way of ad hoc committees comprised of MPs rather than through popular participation.

“They were not debated in Parliament but in private and they published no reasons for their recommendations,” she said of changes made in the UK during 1965 and 1973.

Ms Cox said the PLP has always desired and pushed for electoral reform toward the goal of one man, one vote of equal value.

She dismissed many of the Opposition's criticisms of the report saying there was no need for re-registration of voters nor public input into redrawing the boundaries.

Ms Cox said redrawing the boundaries required a “technical expertise and acumen” which is why the Commission engaged a professional.

She also pointed out that if there is mass movement between the newly drawn constituencies there is a provision in the Constitution to hold another commission in five to seven years which could even the numbers again.

Opposition MP Allan Marshall also took a historical approach to critiquing Government's approach to electoral reform.

He reminded members that UBP MP John Barritt asked the Premier in February 2000 whether the Government intended to move on any constitutional change in the next year.

While the Premier said 'no' at the time, he said, six months later the intention for electoral reform was presented in the house.

“Does that gain trust, trust of the people,” he asked.

Mr. Marshall also questioned the Government's treatment of the petition calling for a Constitutional Conference which was signed by some 8,500 people.

When the Premier was Opposition Leader in 1996, he said, she succeeded in having then Premier David Saul censured for, among other reasons, that he failed to respond to a petition signed by some 4,500 people.

Mr. Marshall also said single seat constituencies posed no guarantee of greater democracy.

He referred to a number of states using single seat systems - Barbados, Grenada, Jamaica - where the Opposition parties are all but shut out of Government despite having garnered large portions of the popular vote.

Coverage of the Boundaries Commission debate continues in Monday's Royal Gazette