of the procedures. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) have told us and all the media here officially that the original intention and request of your Government was to use the Order in Council without going through any other parliamentary process or debate.

Jennifer Smith: "That is not true. I didn't have a plan on how I would go about it until I received direction.

BD: "They did advise you that there were other steps you could take in terms of going to parliament? JS: Unclear... "They advised me in terms of going to the House of Parliament there was a process of an Order in Council.

BD: What is it about a constitutional conference that causes you such trouble? JS: There is no need for a constitutional conference in the first place. What would be discussed? We have no number of seats. The debate the public seem to want to have is on the number of seats. This is a statistical, demographical process of looking at the country and going through the exercise of how many seats might be appropriate to be recommended.

This is a process which is more suited to a committee. I can give you a small example of something that I have done and it's not in any way scientific, it has no basis in anything. The current voters list has 36,000 people on it, to say that it's increased by something, I am sure it has, to take a round number of 40,000. And divide every number by 25, I am just picking up a trail, and stop when you have got a comfortable round number, I have found doing that a simple, and it's not to be recommended for anything, exercise that you come up with numbers between 28 and 32, that depends on whether you think 1,200 is a nice round number or 1,400 or 1,500.

Those kinds of decisions, I am not a statistician, I am not someone who gets involved in those kinds of things. But there are people who do. This is something that boundary commissions around the world are engaged in all the time.

I would suggest we talk to those who suggest what a comfortable number might be. This is without looking how it takes up geographically in terms of where people are located because you have to look at what demarcation you would use, after you have worked out all those scenarios that is what I would expect to inform the basis of the report. Then when we have that report and have something to discuss, I would expect us then to discuss it. But I think it's not only premature at this minute, it is foolhardy, so why would we discuss it? Jim McKee (ZBM): Madame Premier you are aware of the poll carried in the Bermuda Sun this morning showing 57 percent of those polled wanted a constitutional conference.

JS: Well first of all I am glad you said of those polled, I don't know who those polled are, i.e. are they registered to vote. Secondly, I would have to see what the questions are. I am aware that prior to going abroad to the last (Foreign and Commonwealth Office) Consultative Council, that the Bermuda Sun carried out a street poll which said `do you think the public should have input?' Everybody said yes, and I agree, and I am aware of some other private citizens who are asking people `Do you think that constituencies should not be cut' and I agree. I don't think the number of constituencies should be cut.

What questions are being asked and the extent and the difference of these questions leads me to understand that there is a lot of misrepresentation and a lot of people who don't know what's going on who are listening and reading whatever is being contained and going off with some half-baked ideas.

Consequently the types of questions being asked and the types of statements being made bear no relation to the reality and the reality is that in order for a Boundaries Commission to look at Bermuda as a whole on a demographic basis i.e. looking at the numbers of people, as opposed to the parish boundaries, that process alone requires a constitutional, that process alone depending on how you look at it, so in order to even have public debate you must amend the constitution.

I would take the public and the media and the Opposition's silence on the other Constitutional changes in the paper to mean that they agree with everything else except this one matter. Because we have had a number of changes -- changes in title of the auditor to the auditor general and we are cleaning up some other housekeeping matters one of which concerned a candidate from Warwick. But we have not heard anything about those issues so the majority of the paper therefore poses no difficulty and it is only the misunderstanding concerning the process of how we change something from a dual seat constituency basis to a single seat constituency, I don't wish to get into how it should be divided, how it might be divided, I would think I would be then trying to take on the duties of the boundary commission. What can I do? What I am trying to do today is explain the process, Government is facilitating the process. When the boundaries commission is set up as you would know from a look at the Constitution, it has the same number of representatives from both sides.

BD: You mention the report and review of the Civil Service in your opening comments to parliament. Is that document ever going to be made into public document? JS: I doubt it. It is a working document.

BD: How important to you in this whole process would be a punctual census in 2001? JS: We are now entering the 21 Century, in the third millennium, and it's time to move away from parish boundaries set up in the 1600s. We have, since 1963, been clamouring for single seat constituencies. You will be well aware, Mr.

Darby, that the Progressive Labour Party has achieved many of the things that we called for in those early days, free education, free bus rides for senior citizens, subsidised housing, pensions, all kinds of things, this is one of the remaining things that was left to do. The extension of democracy is very important to us. We feel that it is our responsibility and our duty to carry out that remaining move.

BD: You have heard that the census is in serious trouble, that's why I asked the question.

JS: We have extended the deadline but as far as I understand it will still be ready in the year 2001 but I do not have a definite deadline.

Matthew Taylor Royal Gazette : The FCO have said that they won't rubberstamp any constitutional changes. That they will look at what you come up with and they have said there must be public discussion. Are you saying the discussion will come after the boundaries commission report? Is that what you are saying? JS: That is the second discussion. The first discussion will happen in the fall in the House of Assembly.

MT: Are you saying that is the only discussion that's going to happen? In the House of Assembly? JS: That is public discussion.

Meeting the Press: Premier goes on the record MT: But why when you had successful meetings on long term residents, you went down that road...

JS: I would hope that you accept that they are two different issues. MT: Yes.

JS: The issue of long term residents is an issue in which there is more than one scenario - there are long term residents who have been here for 40 years, 30 years, 20 years. There are long term residents who have the right to vote and long term residents who don't have to right to vote. All of those scenarios are covered in the green paper as well as specific recommendations and drafts of different ways to go.

The minister by going around from one end of the island to the other was getting a feeling of which five different scenarios people might like. In the case of the constitutional change it's not a bill, it's not an act. To change the constitution - it must be made by an Order in Council. In that case the Government of the day has a position. The position is very simple - we seek single seat constituencies.

But we cannot give a number of single seat constituencies until we go through the exercise until we go through the boundary commission and the boundary commission must be set up in accordance with the constitution. We therefore have presented through a paper in the House and will debate within the House the changes. We then go abroad to England to the UK and when it comes into being accepted by the constitution then the government will be able to set up a boundary commission under those conditions. I see these as two entirely different exercises.

MT: They certainly are, yes.

JS: That's why the parliamentary process doesn't just have one method of doing things, it has methods that suit the particular issue.

MT: Constitutional change is also a very complex issue. And the FCO and the Governor's office have said there must be demonstrable public debate. It seems that you are saying that it will just go the house and nowhere else.

JS: I want you to know that they have also said that debate in the House will constitute public debate.

MT: That's your impression of what the FCO have said to you? They said house debate is enough? JS: They said House debate is public debate. I would like for you to name the person in the FCO who has said this and may I have a copy please? MT: Well it's in the story today they are talking about..

JS: No, no, may I have a copy of what you got in the interview.

MT: In terms of what, they have said there must be debate.

JS: You said the FCO has said this. Who in the FCO has said this? MT: Well, a press officer.

JS: May I have a copy of the press officer's statement? It would probably be on FCO letterhead would it not? MT: No, it was done on a phone call.

JS: You are not sure who you talked to, you don't know where it came from.

MT: If you knew how the press worked you would know you call people on the phone.

JS: If you knew how parliament worked you wouldn't be sitting arguing with me the same as I am arguing with you. Both of us might not be quite as knowledgeable as the other person might think or might hope. I merely made a request to assure of myself, because I know who I talked to that what you have received is either in line with what I have received or it is not, clearly it would be in the interests of all of Bermuda to clarify who is saying what and which is right.

MT: Yes, and I am trying to clarify from you what you are going to do and you are saying at no stage are you going to consult the public? JS: I didn't say that. I am trying to see is that you do not put words in my mouth. It's what you have heard me repeat. And I am thankful that I have other witnesses that you are trying to put words into my mouth and I will not have it.

MT: No, I am just trying to...

JS: I am not saying what you are saying.

MT: What are you saying? JS: Tell me something. You are very interested in public debate, and I am glad you are. Have you asked the Opposition leader why she who has a contrary position hasn't had a public debate. Has she gone up and down the island? I find it quite extraordinary no-one has thought to ask the other side. Why don't you do it? Have you been up and down the island are you having public meetings. I haven't ruled out public meetings, that's why I am careful not to put your words in my mouth. I have said that public debate in the House of Assembly is what I have promised since August 18.

If I could have been promised that you quoted me accurately as having said that, and having never wavered from that, I might be a little more believing in that you mean what you say. I also said that I tabled it so that it could be discussed throughout the summer. And I thought I had spoken English but you have interpreted both of those things to be quite something else - therefore the need for this press conference.

I would hope you would join with me in assuring that the Bermuda public clearly understands what we have proposed. The public have the right to disagree with what we have proposed but I want them to disagree with what we have proposed, not with some distortion of what someone else said. And this constant repeating of anonymous sources is not helpful. So I will be waiting, so I am not going to hold my breath so I am not going to turn blue. But a copy of the press statement from the FCO.

Andrew Clark (Bermuda Sun): Madame Premier, good morning. The poll indicated earlier was done by Research Innovations, the independent polling firm..

JS: Do you have the basis for that? AC: Basis meaning there was 400..

JS: Are they registered voters or..

AC: The majority were registered voters. The 57 percent figure came from the number of registered voters who responded to that question on whether they the registered voters felt a constitutional conference was necessary..

JS: And what was the question? AC: After determining whether someone was a registered voter or not do you feel that a constitutional conference is necessary at this time surrounding reduction of seats and constituency boundary changes? That poll also indicated that 25 percent of people didn't have an opinion on the issue suggesting that maybe there was a need to be better informed. What steps will you take in addition to this public statement to ensure that people are better informed about constitutional change in general? JS: I think that is a point well taken the results definitely do show the public needs to be better informed. Steps I have taken first to make a statement to the House of Assembly, second to make those statements available to the public through Government Information Services and thirdly to on video and talk about it. And it is going to be debated in the House of Assembly and I am certainly open to having a public meeting about it.

But I would warn you and the public to be clear, that at any public meeting, that I as Premier can only talk about Government's role to facilitate the process. The debate I am hearing is on another subject. But I cannot speak about it in this role. I hope you understand what I am saying.

BD: We understand the Government is going to put the travel budget in the hands of one agency. Can you give us the rationale for that? JS: I can give you Government's policy in general we took a policy decision when we were elected that we would rotate all Government contracts to give those people who would not get Government contracts an opportunity. We did that throughout the Government in all kinds of areas.