The call to reduce the number of MPs appears to be gathering some momentum, getting a mention in the new Progressive Labour Party government’s Throne Speech. The idea also featured in its election platform. There was no mention of the preferred number — presumably, a figure will emerge as part of the “fulsome consultative process” that will be undertaken.

A move in this direction has been a topic of discussion for some time — most recently going into and coming out of the 2025 election. Some have suggested the number should be cut in half to 18. (Here, please spare me the joke about which half.) The argument in favour is roughly this: a place as small as Bermuda — with 45,000 voters — is overrepresented and would be equally served by 18 electoral districts of 2,500 voters each; not to overlook the obvious cost savings.

It has some appeal but — there is always a “but” — the implications of any such move in this direction have to be taken into account and weighed in the balance.

Here are some:

Cabinet

The 1968 Constitution Order sets the maximum number of ministers and junior ministers in the House of Assembly at 12. The challenge to a reduced number of MPs is obvious. Who would be left to form the back bench? Who would form the Opposition? What will become of the oversight that MPs are supposed to provide in the legislature, in the sunshine of public scrutiny, on the executive and government spending? The obvious answer here is that there would have to be a concomitant reduction in ministers proportionate to that of MPs.

Savings

Don’t be so sure. With decreased numbers in the House and in Cabinet, there would be a push to make legislators totally full time — totally devoted to the Government of Bermuda. “Totally” in this context would mean an increase in salaries commensurate with increased responsibilities. This would be true not only for a reduced number of Cabinet ministers with larger portfolios, but for their junior ministers as well, along with any remaining backbenchers who need to populate the oversight committees.

Senate

Speaking of savings, do we even need to keep this body? All members are appointed: five by the Government, three by the Opposition and three by the Governor. The only checks and balance they provide is: one, by voice; and two, by delaying only by a year any legislation that a majority does not approve of — although they cannot vote down and delay any legislation that carries financial implications, the annual Budget being an obvious example. There is provision, too, in the 1968 Constitution Order for two ministers in the Senate — an option that would almost certainly have to be considered, if not eliminated, in any constitutional review on numbers.

Boundaries Commission

This is the body that may well decide on the number and their constituency boundaries — at least this was the case the last time around when we moved from dual-seat to single-seat districts. A number was not fixed ahead of time and a final decision was left to the commission, which decided on the number after representations from the political parties and members of the public. This may turn out to be the way to proceed again: the commission constitutes an evenly balanced body comprising two representatives each from the Government and Opposition, along with two independents appointed by the Governor, as set out in the 1968 Constitution Order.

The challenge here is not just fixing a number but deciding on boundaries. The last time around, a computer programme spit out the possibilities and the political representatives tapped into what past records and intelligence they each had on hand to come up with the most favourable configuration — most favourable, of course, to their respective chances of success at the polls. Nevertheless, unanimous agreement was reached on the 36. I know because I was there, one of the Opposition members. The overriding goal for me was to try to achieve as many marginal seats as possible so as to ensure the prospect of competitive elections and, further, that the overall result would be as representative as possible when it comes to seats won.

No easy task that, as whoever serves works on historical data that may be a pretty good indicator of future performance but is no guarantee. Politics is no exact science.

A final word: the key to any success on this front would very much depend on convincing voters that any proposed changes will improve their lives. My take is that voters are more keen on tackling matters that are important in their daily lives. Cost-of-living issues top the list.

• John Barritt is a former elected member of the Bermuda legislature where he served for 18 years. Dialogue is welcome. John may be reached at jbarritt@ibl.bm