for a Queen's Counsel experienced in constitutional law to represent the Crown in the court battle over fast food franchises.

This is a very rare case since it is based on Bermuda's constitution which has seldom been tested in court. Constitutional law is a specialised field.

The Prohibited Restaurants Act was brought by a private member and passed a second time by the House of Assembly having been rejected the first time by the Senate. This was not a Government bill but a bill which defied the very controversial and questionable actions of the main body of the UBP Government.

It is of enormous importance to Bermuda. The very essence of the protection of Bermuda's image and the environment hangs on this court action which will almost certainly be appealed, probably all the way to the Privy Council.

If this case is lost, the very character of Bermuda will be severely damaged.

Monitor says we need fewer visitors spending more money. That type of visitor will not be attracted by fast food franchises.

Attorney General Elliott Mottley should not be disqualified from appearing in the case, as Ms Smith has suggested, just because during debate on the bill he gave legal advice to the Governor, Premier, Speaker of the House and some Cabinet Ministers. That is the function of the Attorney General and to suggest that an Attorney General who does his job and gives advice on any matter cannot then appear in court in the matter is wrong. It would tie the hands of the Attorney General and prevent him doing his job.

But in this particular case, there are other factors. We now have a situation where his appearance has become a political issue which might bring into question this very important case. It is typical of Bermuda today that everything becomes political. There was a time when the Attorney General would have been left strictly alone by politicians. Any Attorney General should be totally above politics and politicians.

Then too, some people claim Mr. Mottley has given advice in the past that the bill is retroactive and thus unconstitutional. If that is true, and we do not know whether it is true or not, then Mr. Mottley will be in the very difficult position in defending the Prohibited Restaurants Bill.

Those United Bermuda Party politicians who are so keen on inflicting McDonald's on Bermuda are not going to let him forget that. The Progressive Labour Party which, to its eternal credit, was almost unanimous in supporting the Prohibited Restaurants Bill has now suggested that it would be better to have someone in court who was not involved to present the case.

McDonald's has already torn Bermuda apart and contributed heavily to the demise of David Saul's Premiership.

We had hoped that once the Prohibited Restaurants Act was passed, McDonald's would fade away. That was not to be. It has done enough damage already and now this case should be seen to be free from political controversy. It would be best, we think, if Attorney General Mottley stepped aside and the case delayed until a senior outside constitutional QC can be briefed.