back in the news and seems destined by its very composition to continue the franchise row rather than find solutions. As a matter of fact, we could probably write its report right now without much difficulty.

The fact that the committee chairman, Minister of Tourism David Dodwell, is known to have supported McDonald's makes the committee highly suspect. Many people believe, rightly or wrongly, that he is the person who convinced the Cabinet that Bermuda needed fast food franchises so that visitors would feel comfortable with what they found in Bermuda.

If the Government has any serious intent of making an honest decision on franchises, then it has to look for an independent committee. The committee which has been appointed also includes the Minister of Finance, Grant Gibbons, the very man who agreed to a company to operate McDonald's. His inclusion is curious because, correctly, part of the committee's inquiry ought to be into Dr. Gibbons' decisions.

Mr. Dodwell has been quoted as saying, "The group represents quite a broad range of community views because we are anxious to ensure we are exposed to the full spectrum of opinion on franchises, not just fast food franchises but all aspects of franchising.'' Please, do not be fooled.

Once again Government is trying to mislead itself by getting the answers it wants to hear and not the facts. This time it also seems intent on fooling the people. Thus it has appointed a pro-franchise committee with Government Whip Rick Spurling and former KBB President Phyllis West Harron for window dressing and hopes the public will accept some biased findings. That kind of foolishness led to the divisive debate on Independence and the referendum.

Three members of the committee took part in the Cabinet decision and probably agreed to the admission of McDonald's. Surely they should not sit on a committee of inquiry. One of the three is Sir John Swan's Paget East running mate, which should be another reason for disqualification. Two are politically indebted to Sir John Swan, another reason for disqualification. One other is firmly in the John Swan political camp. Government might just as well have appointed Maxwell Burgess to the committee.

Perhaps Mr. Spurling will do everything he can to act correctly and find the right answers but he is heavily outnumbered. Mrs. West Harron is a forthright woman who will do her best to be heard but she has little chance of an effective voice in the face of an array of determined young cabinet ministers.

Once again, no-one in Government has stopped to consider the very bad impression this kind of committee creates with the public. If a Government will appoint a committee with this kind of composition, then what else will it do? Inquiries into public issues have to be seen to be open and honest. If Government appoints pre-disposed committees and pretends it is behaving honestly and openly then it loses all credibility.

That has been the pattern of behaviour over the McDonald's issue from the beginning. It smelled then and it continues to smell. What can be so important that any Government is willing to risk defeat and sacrifice its credibility? Sadly, we do not think there is any promise or principle for which everything is being risked. We think the answer is bull-headed stubbornness.