A private members bill seeking to have formal representation for Britain's colonies in that country's legislature has been met with mixed responses from local observers.

Andrew Mackinlay, a Labour Party backbencher with a keen interest in the affairs of Britain's colonies, now called Overseas Territories, tabled the motion in House of Commons this week.

First to make public comment on the initiative was former Premier Sir John Swan who told the British Broadcasting Corporation that he supported the concept of the 14 territories having a voice in Britain's legislature, and that representation in the House of Lords might be the better option than in the elected House of Commons.

Trevor Moniz, the United Bermuda Party's (UBP) Shadow Transport Minister said yesterday that he didn't quite see the point.

"It's a big expense for a small place like Bermuda. Let's say we have one MP to represent all the overseas territories - what would we get out of it ? We'll have one guy living high on the hog but it's difficult to see any benefit otherwise. It makes more sense when we have countries with departments abroad like France... Their (Britain's) domestic legislation doesn't apply to us, international treaties don't apply to us unless they extend it to us in which case they consult us anyway."

And political scientist Walton Brown dismissed the initiative as "a silly idea".

"The representation that the territories need to make to the United Kingdom Government can best be made through the established channels, i.e. the Overseas Territories forum in which the heads of government have a direct linkage to the relevant arm of the British Government. Any representation of Overseas Territories in UK politics is first of all irrelevant and an additional burden on taxpayers and serve no useful purpose. What possible purpose can be served when you have a direct line of communication at head of government level ?"

It is not clear yet whether Mr. Mackinlay is proposing one representative for all the territories, or one for each of the fourteen.

"It's up to the British Government," said Sir John. "I said to them that you have approximately 120,000 people who have issues that relate to our principals then there should be some mechanism for representation."

Sir John insisted that any opportunity for representation enhances democracy and cannot be considered a waste.

"I think you need a legitimate spokesperson who can make representation on the interests of the affairs of the respective countries and the British Government need to assess their system to see how that can take place," he said.

"My view is there should be a representation facility. I just suggested that at least for the beginning of the process (the House of Lords) just might be an option. There might be a mechanism within the House of Commons system."

And he questioned whether the yearly consultative forum is enough given that issues come up year round.

"I believe being a part of democracy is a process that allows our views to be heard and it may not be as effective as we want it to be and that's why I suggest that a more sedate and quieter environment like the House of Lords... without the thrust and parry of the political process that is more germane to the British people and their issues. My feet are not in concrete on any of these matters. I'm not here to usurp the government's views on the subject at all."

Rolfe Commissiong, a critical supporter of the Progressive Labour Party (PLP) said that, given the Blair Government's emphasis on a new, modern partnership with the colonies, he would expect the initiative to be positively embraced.

"You would at least want to discuss that and ideally have that. I believe that that would be more democratic than this arrangement and it would give us a voice in the parliamentary body that in many ways supersedes our own," he said.

"Various models could be discussed. I do believe that no matter which model is selected then you would have to have direct elections to determine who would represent the territories... if you are to have a greater equalisation of the relationship between Britain and the territories. However I'm still firmly committed to severing the remaining ties with Britain."

Mr Mackinlay, who could not be reached yesterday, has represented the Essex constituency of Thurrock since 1992 and is considered a "leftwing rebel" of the New Labour Party. He first introduced a bill for the representation of Overseas Territories in 2000, saying that the territories have a right to be heard in what is after all their parliament.

The proposal would have had one representative per territory in the House of Commons, but their participation would be restricted to matters relating exclusively to the territory or foreign affairs and defence.

"It is important to remember that if and when the United Kingdom goes to war, those territories' local legislatures cannot pass a resolution saying, `if you don't mind awfully, we'll sit this one out.' They have to go to war," he said then.

"Funnily enough, when we go to war, British Governments suddenly decide that our territories are important. Recognition of our territories is long overdue."

And in 2001 he criticised the Overseas Territories bill, which extended British citizenship to the colonies, for not embracing the concept.

His Government's official policy has been that the move could possibly erode self government in the territories.