Party and the Opposition United Bermuda Party.

DAY ONE The talks begin. Off we go to Government House with our reservations and doubts as to what the FCO is trying to achieve and how. The FCO have said they have come to carry forward the process of consultation on constitutional change. Government and Opposition were informed of the visit two weeks earlier. The public have also now been given an opportunity to participate -- but they only got their notice five days ago. There is no firm agenda or indication of format. What we in the Opposition have been able to learn, after seeking detail through correspondence, is that there will something described as "a three-part agenda'', roughly as follows: (a) Opening of the consultation.

(b) Consideration of proposals for changing the Constitution.

(c) Next steps -- assuming sufficient or any progress is made on (b).

Head of the FCO delegation John White opens the talks. This must be (a). He speaks from a prepared text and we expect to learn more on procedure, format and agenda for the next three or four days. What he does tell us -- and the public -- is that: The Governor had been asked to convene the meeting so that the FCO can discuss ideas for change in detail.

The FCO wants to be clear about the reasons for change, and that any proposals for change will work properly.

The FCO wants to be sure they can accurately reflect the thinking and intent behind such proposals in the drafting of any changes HMG accepts.

The meetings will enable the FCO to leave with the necessary material to carry the process forward.

In short, Mr. White declares: "Our aim will be to help identify those ideas for constitutional change that will have the broad support of the people of Bermuda.'' At one point, he departs from his text to comment: "We are not here to go through the motions.'' Opposition Leader Pamela Gordon nudged me in the ribs.

It was a shot at the Opposition and our concerns as expressed in a Royal Gazette headline that morning.

The Premier and Leader of the Opposition also spoke before a packed room of about 100 people. An opportunity for questions and answers from the floor was then extended -- and it was during this exchange that the Governor let it be known, for the first time publicly, that HMG was also looking to have Bermuda review and update its constitutional provisions on human rights. Some 17 people took advantage of the early morning session to comment -- all of which was carried live on radio and fairly comprehensive coverage in The Royal Gazette the next day.

A short time later we entered Phase 2 behind closed doors. The Government and Opposition met with the FCO team as a group with the Governor as chair. We figured this must be part (b). The Government through the Premier set out their position. No surprises there. It mirrored the motion the Premier tabled in the House of Assembly for debate and which was approved by the PLP members.

The Opposition in turn set out its position on constitutional change. Again, no surprises there. It's what the FCO -- and the public -- already knew. We believe the right way to proceed is by way of a constitutional conference -- on all items open to discussion -- and thereafter a referendum on the major changes.

The FCO probed the positions of both parties and it was through their questioning that we obtained some sense of where they were headed from the outset. The questions revealed: They were here to explore what they would later call a "two step process'' on deciding the number of MPs Bermuda will have, although clearly they had no problem with allowing a Boundaries Commission to first consider and come up with a number.

They were looking to draft the terms for an Ombudsman with a view to ensuring the independence of the office.

They were not keen on doing away with that provision of the Constitution which prohibits from Parliament any member who has by his own act voluntarily sworn allegiance to a foreign power; and While they were keen to see us review and update our human rights provisions in the Constitution, they were prepared to put that to one side for now. A new model chapter on fundamental rights and freedoms is currently being drafted for the FCO and is expected to be ready for circulation by the end of the month.

Following a break for lunch, the FCO team -- minus Mr White who had left by now for the airport and London -- steered the two delegations to a discussion of the possible contents of an Order in Council. The focus was principally on the Bermuda Government's proposals and an attempt was made to identify those points on which there was agreement. FCO deputy legal advisor Mr Ian Hendry also offered to produce for consideration a draft for the Government and Opposition to consider and then later discuss. He agreed to have it by early evening. Our copy arrived shortly around 8 p.m. at a meeting at party headquarters with friends and supporters where we were reviewing the day's events. The draft -- coupled with the extent and focus of the day's discussions -- makes it clear the FCO is trying to fine tune the Bermuda Government's proposals -- as embodied in the Parliamentary motion which they passed -- and to carry them forward. Any possibility of a constitutional conference, if there ever was one, almost certainly now appears to be a lost cause. The call for a referendum doesn't seem to have found much favour either.

DAY 2 The day has been set aside for the FCO team to meet with members of the public. A schedule shows that people who have requested and been granted an audience, have been given 15 to 30 minute slots starting at 9.30 a.m. The general public also learned yesterday -- for the first time -- that they will be welcome to attend an open meeting with the FCO team starting at 6 p.m. We in the Opposition expect such a meeting has come about -- on very short notice -- because of our request the previous Thursday that the FCO attend a meeting we were prepared to organise for the public on the Monday evening. We also go into the day seeking clarification on a number of points. The following letter is penned on behalf of the Opposition: "I regret to say that I remain confused as to the purpose of this week's talks at Government House. I understand the FCO regard the talks as further consultation on constitutional change and that meetings have been arranged for people who wish to make their views known. The format for those meetings isn't at all clear, and what I am told in response is that the FCO wants to keep the format as flexible as possible. Meanwhile, the Government and Opposition are being asked to fine tune the proposals of the Bermuda Government for adoption by way of Order in Council, presumably on the basis that they will be acted upon regardless of the views of the public and regardless of whether or not they meet with widespread support.

"I think I am also correct in assuming that at the end of this week's exercise there will be some pronouncement on those steps which will be taken, including what will be done with what the FCO has heard on their short visit.

However, I wonder, and this is my purpose for writing, if for the record you could as a matter of urgency arrange for us to be provided with the following information: "In the Constitutional Modernisation Checklist, the FCO invited OTs to review their constitutions "1. When was that invitation extended? Incidentally, we in the Opposition did not know when the checklist was produced. We did not learn of its existence until November 2000 and the first copy we saw was the one shared by the Premier in her letter to the general public in December.

"2. In Article 2.1 of the Checklist it states: `The method, timing and resources for carrying out of any Constitutional Modernisation Review should be agreed with the FCO, before it begins'. May we please know what has been agreed?'' A total of 23 people met throughout the day with the FCO team. The press were excluded but representatives from the Government and Opposition were permitted to sit in. It was clear that most, if not all, had also provided written submissions in advance. These were not shared with the parties for review and comment -- or at least as far as I know, not with the Opposition. The individual meetings with a one-hour break for lunch lasted until just before six, just about the time the Government House rooms were starting to fill to capacity. It was literally standing room only. A ZBM radio newscast had declared an hour earlier that the UBP was planning a march on Government House. Not so. It was clear to us at our meeting the night before that some people wanted to march, but the decision was made instead to encourage attendance -- notwithstanding the short notice -- and to make sure views were heard. They were, and despite the criticism afterwards that the meeting was all UBP, so too were the voices of the PLP heard, both pro and con.

DAY 3 We return to Government House for a discussion on the FCO draft. Some of us in the Opposition are there for 9.30 a.m., only to learn the meeting had been put back last night until 10.30 a.m. With an hour to kill, it was tea and biscuits, and an opportunity to read the reply to yesterday's letter: "I was sorry to read that you are unclear about the purpose of this week's talks. As we have tried to explain, the FCO team are here to listen to the views of the political parties and people of Bermuda. They want to be sure they can reflect accurately the thinking and intent behind the proposals for change to the constitution in drafting the Order-in-Council. Although a format has not been spelled out, the intention has always been to proceed by explaining the process (John White's opening remarks on Monday 2 April) and then, following remarks by the Premier and the Leader of the Opposition, to listen to the views from the people of Bermuda.

"As you rightly say, towards the end of the week, a statement on next steps will be made. We will get timings to you as soon as possible.

"You asked about the constitutional checklist. This document, which resulted from the White Paper, Partnership for Progress and Prosperity, was discussed with Chief Ministers from the Overseas Territories during the first Consultative Council meeting in October 1999. It was drafted as a generic document which could be used by any of the Territories as a guide for considering what changes may be needed to modernise constitutions.

"You also asked about paragraph 2.1 of the checklist. As I have explained the document is a generic one and, as you will appreciate, was intended as guidance to all Overseas Territories which are at varying stages of constitutional development. Clearly that of Bermuda is advanced. Indeed with Government's clear manifesto commitment to constitutional change, Bermuda was ahead of the game and the FCO were already well aware of the Bermuda Government's intentions. For this reason, the checklist comment in paragraph 2.1 was directed more to other territories. Certainly there has been no formal agreement.'' All very interesting reading as we wait for the talks to resume. I am now wondering how it was that the Premier could tell Parliament back in February 2000 that no constitutional changes were planned in the next 12 months -- and then six months later come back with a paper proposing constitutional change.

The wondering continues, because come 10.30 we are told that the Government is running late. We sit down together shortly after 11 a.m. The Opposition leads off with comments and questions on the draft. The Government delegation sits silently on. After almost an hour of exchange between Opposition members and the FCO team we finally learn why. Government thought this was the session when each party presented its firm position on the draft proposals. Suffice it to say, we had a different understanding. No one at the head table -- Governor and the FCO team -- intervened as a minor squabble ensued. But what was now clear was that Government was not about to share its views in the absence of that of the Opposition. An industrious Mr Hendry then offered to prepare a further draft based on his exchange with the Opposition -- and presumably based on any written comments he received from the Government, although that was not clear to us. It was then suggested that the Opposition could send its final position following receipt and review of the second draft.

No further talks were planned or suggested -- by anyone.

We received the second draft at a caucus around five that afternoon and carried on into the early evening drafting our response. We noted some changes from the first, some of which reflected our initial concerns. We also noted the introduction of the word expeditiously as to what will happen in the two-stage process i.e. between the report of the Boundaries Commission and constitutional change to the new recommended number of MPs.

It was later that evening that we learned from an inquiring Royal Gazette reporter that the Deputy Governor was describing the talks so far as going along "positively'' and that "positive progress'' was being made. He had even gone so far as to comment that the two parties and discussed "all the issues'' and "all the proposals that had been raised'', including the concerns raised at the public forums on Monday and Tuesday, and the written submissions. It was news to us in the Opposition. Afterall we had just met for less than two hours in the morning and there had been very little by way of a discussion on anything -- other than which party had the correct understanding of how we were supposed to have proceeded.

DAY 4 The UBP continued in caucus the following morning to review and finalise a position. We also learned during the caucus that a final press conference was now scheduled for 2.30 p.m. Clearly no further talks were considered necessary. Our position was delivered just before the press conference began.

Our position had not changed, but we continued to make what we considered to be significant and helpful criticism of the FCO draft proposals. Funnily enough, The Royal Gazette ran a photo the next day of Minister Alex Scott and myself engaged in serious conversation on our way into Government House for the press conference -- and of course we all know how deceiving appearances can be. We were talking alright, and it was serious, but it was about a seawall his Ministry is proposing to construct down in my constituency of Devonshire South! At the press conference Mr Hendry disclosed publicly the "two stage'' proposal of the FCO, and we note that he says it was discussed not agreed.

What happens next? Mr. Hendry said the FCO team did not come here to decide matters, they will be going back to report to their Ministers what they learned. So we learned very little about the third part of the agenda, namely (c) "the next steps''.

"Nothing is off the table'', he replied in answer to a reporter's question about the possibility of a referendum.

The wonder for the Opposition is what really was ever on the table.

A constitutional conference? Not very likely. Indeed, at various stages throughout the week and during meetings it was suggested that these talks were an even better substitute for a constitutional conference. The public had had a chance to participate and to hear from John White, the Premier and the Opposition leader. The suggestion was that this was even more transparent than conferences have been in the past. But given the way these talks were structured, and the short notice given the public, it fell far short of what it could have been.

Meanwhile, we in the Opposition are today happy to assist in that transparency. The public will judge for themselves just how meaningful the talks were , or were not.

John Barritt