"Mr. Speaker, I listened very closely to the debate today and I obviously took particular note of some of the comments made by the Dame before she took her seat. And I have to say, Mr. Speaker, that it is very important when you are looking at things like constitutional change that where there is a previous example, and where precedent has been set, that we take advantage of the history and go back and find the information that is relevant and sometimes when we do that exercise we find out that the information may not be to our particular liking. The truth is you cannot change the historical perspective.

"...Realistically the Boundaries Commission did have a unanimous agreement on the items that had been put forward in its remit. Now whether that remit that had been drafted by the United Kingdom Government was sufficient, whether it was all encompassing, whether it was appropriate is neither here nor there. The fact remains that they sent forward a document and based on that document a Boundaries Commission was established and we had a very limited remit. When I look, Mr. Speaker, at the fact that the six Commissioners were unanimous, that we agreed the number of constituencies, that we agreed the number of the Members of Parliament... We also took into consideration all of the things that were outlined and have been said time after time today so I don't have to go back into that particular detail.

"But I will tell you, Mr. Speaker, that there was some concern that I had in relation to historic precedent. I needed to make sure that if I was going to be able to support a position that differs from that of the Government, I have to be comfortable in myself that I could really support that position.

"I went back to one of the constitutional documents - 1966 - in relation to the constitutional conference and the Report that came about. And I will tell you, Mr. Speaker, that initially and having been Leader of the Opposition my concern was strictly with the way that the Progressive Labour Party, the Government, went about orchestrating the constitutional change. This evening we heard Dame Lois give a reasoning and rationale. It's hindsight, it's two years later. Has my position changed on the way the Government went about it? No, Mr. Speaker, my position on that hasn't changed and that's because I believe that something as substantive as constitutional change, it would have been more appropriate to either have a joint select committee or some opportunity for everybody to participate, like we have had as a precedent setting move for the 1963 report. But Mr. Speaker I have to tell you this: The issues my colleagues seem to have I no longer have.

"And I would like to walk through them. For instance when we look at ... the comments I am concerned about (are) less related to the Bermuda Government and more to the United Kingdom Government. And the reason I am concerned about what the United Kingdom is or is not doing is the fact that they have given us an open-ended proposal... Here we are the people who are responsible for the laws of the land. We are the ones that the people of this country will look to to have their future outlined and if any constituent comes to any member of this house to ask them what happens next, where do we go from here, what can we tell them? I'll tell you what we can tell them and that is based on a letter from the June 22, 2001, signed by an Alan Huckle who is the head of the Overseas Territories Department. And his comments are very concerning because while we talk about allowing this process... And Mr. Speaker, as far as I am concerned that process is complete. We did our job and we did it to the best of our ability and you can tell by the way the people of this country have reacted - they haven't. They haven't reacted because the concern that they had out there .. they were worried initially because, I believe, that had the process had started in a manner that was more all encompassing and more inclusive, that you would not have had the reaction and the fear factor and all the anxiety and all the things that had happened out there, but again, that's gone that has happened...

"And then they start to talk about the second step. They say the second step will be consideration of the Commission's report and of what amendments to the Constitution will be necessary to implement it with or without modifications as well as any consequential amendments.

"It is clear at that point further consultation with Bermuda will be required. It is premature to determine what form such consultation will take. It sounds like we're going to make this up as we go along. How does 40 members present, how do they go out to their constituents and tell them that after this debate tonight whatever transpires tonight, what's the next step?

"And I do say that when you look at some of the historic perspectives. I will give you an example. 1966 a letter was written. They were dealing with the implementation of the Bermuda Constitution. It was a letter to the then legal counsel for the United Kingdom Government, His name was Ralph Hone. There were pointers of a letter dated August 25, 1966. There were eight points in this letter. In that letter [from Sir Henry Tucker Mr. Speaker, there was a request by the then Government. The request was, in relation to the amendment to the Constitution, minor amendments can only be made with the consent of two thirds of the members of the House of Assembly. Major amendments will require not only two thirds of the members of the House of Assembly but also two thirds of the registered voters by means of a referendum... However, no, I don't want anybody to get excited because let me give you the response.

"The response is, it says `I fear that my note of July 23 may have misled you. If Bermuda is to have a Constitution which is short of full Independence, the Colonial Office will insist that it should be amendable only by the Queen acting on the advice of the United Kingdom Cabinet. This is the position in the Bahamas. Nevertheless, at the conference it will be possible to induce the UK Government to agree to some formula and to write it into the White Paper which provides for some local concurrence in any future amendment. It was to this I was referring in paragraph 10 of my memorandum of July 23.

"Mr. Speaker, to that point, unless the members of this side of the House are asking for immediate independence, and I don't think that's what the intent is, it is clear what the UK Government's position is of the past. There has been no indication and if you look at all the colonies that are left, you will see very clearly, none of them have the provision within their constitution that allows them to change unless and until they choose the position to venture off to Independence. That is a reality.

"So do we look for a constitutional conference to ask them for this point ? Well that point was conceded in `66. It was clear then and it is as clear to me today, that if we want to build into our Constitution those kinds of changes then this House is going to consider other options because that option is not available. That's a reality...

"And in referring to the memorandum of the Progressive Labour Party on the Constitutional change in Bermuda... It was interesting Mr. Speaker and obviously I guess over time the positions have changed within the Progressive Labour Party, because the document outlines that the party `proposes that the conference should reject the joint select committee's recommendation on the grounds that it will only perpetuate the present racial and class bias of constituency divisions'. But this is what I found very interesting: `Since however, it is presently desired to retain the present parishes as electoral units the party proposes that the number of members should remain at the present total of 36 and they should be elected by the parishes on the basis of their present population. The party will be in favour of all elections to the House of Assembly being by proportional representation on a parish constituency basis.'

"That was the Progressive Labour Party's position in 1966... People and groups are subject to change and we evolve. Over time things happen and we evolve. ...it also concerned me about the constituencies and how it was unfair and we did not have votes of equal value... I would encourage my parliamentary colleagues to go back and pull put some of these documents because they are very interesting. What happened, Mr. Speaker, and why we come to where we are... Now, I'm not saying there wasn't some chicanery or whether it was the oligarchy or what the rationale was. But let me tell you what is the written reason, and it starts back with the documents of 1620... And one of the things that it did outline - and I think here's where we came unstuck as a country over time. Each parish operated as a closed entity, a separate organisation. Why? Because they had boards, they had the elected council and so they did not look at Bermuda as a national place. Remember the history and how it worked. And so you had people, you had the Lords of the parishes and because they had these boards and committees and councils and they were self contained, the concern was when you account for the voters they had to fit within that parish because they needed to accountable for your tax purposes and whatever other purposes ... and that is how it started, whereby you got stuck on parishes.

"That a person develop his identity based on the parishes. And that is to answer the concern by Mr. Butler because he was saying he can't understand why people are so wedded to parishes. It's very simple through time, what happened was people got wedded to parishes and how this got out of sync was, if you had and to the degree that you did have people who could not go, because of the historic precedent in this country where we did have a racial divide. You had a large number of the masses living in small areas or whatever, so you had a huge population living in Pembroke or in Warwick where you could wind up with 5,000 people in Warwick and you could wind up with 2,500 people in Paget and it was seen to be fair and equitable because it was not looked at on a national scale. We took it individually.

"What should have happened was ... at whatever point that they changed the parish council system ... it should have been more of a progressive move at the time to then incorporate a different system,. But when things are entrenched you know, like we all know, that change is a difficult process and people are not as susceptible to change as we would like.

"Unfortunately because of the racial divide in this country it has evolved over the years that the perception was that the divide also came about because of the disparity in the electoral reform that you would have somebody who was in Paget did not have an equal vote to somebody in Warwick because they had twice the number in Warwick and half in Paget. But again when you check the way we started, then you would recognise that it wasn't done on a national basis.

"Should the Government of the day have changed the system to accommodate the changes? Absolutely. Absolutely. Should it have been where if there were two representatives in Paget for 2,500 people, if that's the smallest parish you say that's 1,250 people and then you start to go throughout the parishes and you divide them up accordingly as close as possible to your smallest constituency so that everybody has a more fair distribution? Mr. Speaker that's a no-brainer.

"Absolutely and I believe that we wouldn't be at this point and we wouldn't have had all of the animosity and the frustration because of the perceived inequity and because of the perception that there was more underlying things that actually happened and in some instances, Mr. Speaker, maybe it did happen for other reasons. But the fact remains that when we look at all of what did go on, it really speaks very clearly to the fact that we cannot in my opinion as an Opposition member, we cannot, as much as we would like to, argue the point. There is one very fundamental fact that we are going to all have to accept, Mr. Speaker.

"And that is when the United Bermuda Party was the Government of the day it was given a mandate to govern. It did so in its way. However I looked at the concern that was raised in the report that was done and I heard the concern about why we did not go and take more to the public and why is it that certain things weren't done, we could have got more input from the people.

"Mr. Speaker, I looked again - In 1963 we set up a joint select committee and that committee met and they had to report, an interim report, back to parliament. And after that report they then did the next step. And that's how I see this whole process. And that is one of the reasons why I could not support any position that indicated because the Boundaries Commission was allowed to set its own way of doing business, that we were not wrong because we didn't go back to the public. We got the public's input... The reason I don't have a personal conflict for why we could have gone back to the public with the breakdown of what the numbers of constituencies are and put it as a tryout was our remit did not recommend that it was an interim report and we now have an opportunity to go get feedback and after we get our feedback we go back to the Governor.

"...And this is where I go back to the point of my concern which is the United Kingdom Government. The fact remains that had they given a remit that offered the areas of concern that are still areas of concern with the Opposition, that would have given an open opportunity for greater discussion, that would have given the Opposition and the people of Bermuda a better opportunity to know where this thing is going once this document ends and once tonight is over and we have either had our vote or not and we do whatever we do or don't. But if at that point if the British Government had clearly outlined what the position is where we are going what the next step is then, Mr. Speaker, I don't believe there would have been an issue. Because let's face it, if there was still an issue, you saw the kind of upset there was in this community.

"Historically for something as significant as constitutional change you get everybody involved. So this was a new phenomenon for us. It was very new. We didn't know what was coming. But it's here and it's two years later and we've now moved on. And you know why I am no longer upset with the Government of the day on this particular issue, Mr. Speaker? It is because I sat and I read the Order. It is one of the most badly drafted orders... And I believe that the United Kingdom Government owes the people of Bermuda more than just an explanation of what the next step is going to be.

"I will tell you that more than does it remind me that we are still a colony. It makes it clear that any criticisms that want to come forward in relation to any of the Boundaries Commission, and I have read the report of the Association of Due Process and the veiled comments about impropriety of potential things that could have happened, should have happened and ... I will tell you something, I sat on that Commission with three other locals whose integrity is not to be questioned. We did the best we could do for the benefit of the future of this country. There was no political hanky panky going on - none of that. And I am not going to sit by and have any organisation impugn me or any of the other members who I sat in the room with, and knew how this nine month process...

"But the bottom line still is Mr. Deputy Speaker, where is the UK Government taking us from here? That should be the ultimate question... We want to make sure that the country the future for our children is going to be acceptable. Why did we accept 36? Since 1620, 36 was it. When we look at the PLP document, I do recognise they wanted a lesser number, but you have to acknowledge they were prepared to move over as well... We had 36 up until 1968. We moved to 40. Why? Because of a constitutional conference that when the move was requested it was, again it was accommodation.

It was a piecemeal decision that basically said that the UBP is not going to move from the position that it presently has and that is from the dual seat constituencies and it's got the 36 seats or whatever it was. So they decided that we needed the extra four in Pembroke. It was a compromise position. Instead of 12 seats they gave eight in Pembroke to give up that divisive number to make it be able to be divided up a little bit better and we wound up with 40 seats. Those extra seats, it was a compromise position put forward by the United Kingdom Government _ it's all documented Mr. Deputy Speaker _ and it was conceded by the Government of the day. Am I particularly wedded with 40 members of Parliament? When you get to read your history and you get to look and see that the country operated for as long as it did with 36 members of parliament and I recognise that it was a whole different ballgame because those 36 were the oligarchy and when you look at how it was made up, you had the Executive Council and you had the Colonial Secretary, the Attorney General and the Colonial Treasurer and they brought on board... non official members... as they deemed fit and necessary...

"But Mr. Deputy Speaker I look at this Order in Council and I go back to it. I look at the items that are yet to be addressed and I do understand that, OK, that is going to be part of the second part of the process. Well I believe that it is scandalous, scandalous that the United Kingdom Government would have the audacity to say to the people of this country - maybe it's only because we only have our 30 something thousand people, maybe that's it, maybe we are as insignificant as Dame said...

"Mr. Speaker, it is incumbent on the United Kingdom Government to have some accountability to the people of Bermuda. We are to be accountable to them. We cannot make changes we cannot do anything other than what is in the best interest of this country. We cannot do anything without permission, we cannot do anything without an order in council. That is fine until Bermuda decides its other fate, another fate, then that's fine.

"But, Mr. Speaker, I believe that very soon, very soon, the United Kingdom Government, actually it's overdue, they should have given us an indication of what the second part of the process is.

But, Mr. Speaker, I believe, quite honestly, they don't know. That's why we don't know because they don't know and they won't tell us because a large part of it is they are making it up as they go along and that's not good enough. That cannot be good enough for this country...

"As it relates to the Report itself, the only concern that I have is ... the problem is the maximum size, is that when you reduce your Cabinet _ and Dame will acknowledge, Mr. Cox will acknowledge, and John Barritt will acknowledge _ this was a bugbear of mine all the way through. And that is if we are going to be reducing the size of Parliament by ten percent, then what does it do ultimately as far as the Constitution is concerned, for reducing the size of Cabinet mandated. i.e. you cannot now continue to allow it to go up to 13 members, 12 plus the Premier, if you have now reduced the size of (Parliament) Nobody is objecting or upset about the fact that you have six-plus the Premier which is what your lowest number is. And we have already heard the indication of the Government of the day that they intend to go down proportionately, for themselves, a number that they have pulled out. The issue is not this Government, the issue is future and ultimately that is what a Constitution should be... But the fact remains there should be some provision, if there is a change those are the kind of changes that should be put in this constitutional change second process. But is it going to be there? We don't have a clue...

"At least we have unanimity on the Report. You haven't seen people marching up and down for 36, they are not bothered. There have been six meetings, I understand three from the Opposition, three from the Government, all told I don't think we pulled 1,000 people out.

"Obviously there is some belief that at least over time there has been development of some comfort in relation to the fact that everybody was in the process and therefore people got their comfort level raised. Now he's now saying yes we've got possible unanimity, consensus, that's what he says. `Ministers will wish to take into account the Commission's report and reactions to it in Bermuda both among the political parties and the public. We already know the public's reaction, Mr. Deputy Speaker. There's been none...

"Mr. Speaker, I am very respectful of the Leader of the Opposition. I am respectful of my colleagues but I want to make it clear that unless, and until, I can get an indication from the United Kingdom Government of what is their next step, I could not comfortably in all my own morality support a call for a constitutional conference or a referendum at this time. I could not do that...

"...where we go from here is fully dependent on the United Kingdom Government and they have told us nothing... And, unfortunately I have to say that some of the issues that have been raised are issues for this Honourable House not for a constitutional conference and so realistically I would like, if nothing goes back to the United Kingdom, I would like one particular thing to go forward and that is you tell the people of Bermuda what you intending to do, for us, to us before we can go and make a proper, informed decision before we can take it out to the people of the Country and have them understand exactly where we go from here..."