misinformation about the proposed constitutional changes currently being spread in the community.

Much of what is being said reveals a lack of knowledge or familiarity with the parliamentary process, so that I feel compelled to first explain this process.

When items are tabled in the House of Assembly, this means that they have been received by the House and that the House is therefore officially informed of the matter.

I tabled the proposed Constitutional amendments in the House of Assembly on August 18th, 2000 and at the same time gave written notice in my statement that the proposed amendments would be debated in the House of Assembly after the House reconvenes for the Fall term.

"Giving Notice'' is another parliamentary expression, meaning that the House is formally advised that a certain plan of action will be proceeded with on a certain date. The promise to debate the proposed constitutional changes is contained on page 6 of the statement I made in the House of Assembly on August 18th, 2000 -- a copy of which was provided to all Members of the House and to all of the media.

Perhaps this is an opportune moment to reflect on why we have representative Government.

Societies elect people to represent them so that collective decisions on issues concerning the society can be more efficiently made by a smaller group -- representing the views and wishes of the people who chose them as "Representatives''.

When I tabled the proposed amendments on August 18th, exactly two months ago today, each representative had a responsibility to ensure that his or her constituents' views on the issue are sought and made known.

The process of determining these views by the various representatives in Bermuda's Parliament is usually facilitated through the Party to which the representatives belong.

Thus, representatives who are Members of the Bermuda Progressive Labour Party had a well established position on this issue and were in fact elected to carry out this and other campaign promises. The entire record of the Progressive Labour Party, in Opposition and now in Government, has demonstrated respect for the rule of law and the primacy of the Bermuda Constitution.

Our reverence for the Bermuda Constitution has been underscored by its pride of place in our election platforms throughout the years. More than any other political party, we have been guided by the Bermuda Constitution and this position has prevailed throughout consecutive election platforms. We have always sought to do the right thing according to the Constitution.

Contrary to the allegations contained in yesterday's daily's editorial -- and allegations -- not revelations -- is what they were -- an "Order in Council'' is the process by which the changes will actually be made to the Bermuda Constitution after - let me repeat AFTER debate and adoption in the duly elected House of Assembly. Notice of this debate and adoption process, I repeat, is contained on Page 6 of the statement tabled in the House of Assembly on August 18th.

I hope the foregoing will help to clarify the misconceptions. Now, regarding the misinformation being spread: Government has never said that it wanted to "reduce'' the number of constituencies. An exact quote of Government's statement is that we will "reduce the number of seats in the House of Assembly''.

The public will be well aware that reducing the number of seats (40) is not the same as reducing the number of constituencies (20).

This untruth -- that Government plans to "reduce the number of constituencies'' is often repeated by the Opposition in direct contradiction of my statement as Premier that Government does not wish to supercede the Boundaries Commission's recommendations by speculating on how many constituencies that body may recommend in its Report.

However, in keeping with the Government's Platform promise to establish "single seat constituencies of equal eligible voter populations'' in recognition of the fundamental principle of one person one vote, each vote of equal value, I would expect that the number of constituencies the Boundaries Commission might recommend would be dependent on the number of voters per constituency.

The assertion that the Boundaries Commission will reach their decision "privately, behind closed doors'' ignores the fact that the Boundaries Commission is composed of an equal number of Government and Opposition members in accordance with the Constitution of Bermuda.

Further, the allegation that the Boundaries Commission is "autonomous'' and that it meets "privately behind closed doors, without public input'' is a gross misrepresentation. The Commission's recommendations are contained in their report which are then debated publicly in the House of Assembly.

According to the Constitution, the Boundaries Commission is established by His Excellency the Governor and it is answerable to Parliament as provided for by Section 54 of the Bermuda Constitution.

Therefore, contrary to statement that the Commission " ...is accountable to no-one;'' the Boundaries Commission is constitutionally charged with reporting to the House of Assembly; which body then debates and accepts, rejects, or amends, said report in keeping with Section 54 of the Bermuda Constitution.

One can only wonder why the Opposition would cast aspersions on the possible outcome of a duly constituted Boundaries Commission operating under the same terms of reference established by their Party while in power and properly set out in the provisions of the Bermuda Constitution.

The proposed changes relating to the Boundaries Commission are to allow that Commission to make recommendations to effect single seat constituencies of as equal number of voters as possible. This is clearly stated in Government's Paper on Amendments to the Constitution, tabled in the House of Assembly on August 18th, 2000.

Only after the House of Assembly as adopted the Report of the Boundaries Commission do the recommendations become law -- taking effect at the next General Election, in accordance with Section 54 (6) of the Bermuda Constitution.

Anyone interested in the facts concerning the proposed changes to the Constitution is invited to collect a copy of the proposed changes and a copy of the Bermuda Constitution from Government Information Services.

For the sake of clarity, let me repeat that the main change proposed to the Constitution will allow the Boundaries Commission to review constituency boundaries and make recommendations in the manner described by Government's "Paper on Amendments to the Constitution'' which has been available to the public through the Government Information Services office since August 18th.

Finally, I would like to say something about the timing of this paper.

Arising out of the UK's White Paper "Britain and the Overseas Territories, Partnership for Progress & Prosperity'', a checklist for Constitutional modernisation was issued to the Territories. The Government of Bermuda -- had stated from the outset that we wanted some constitutional changes and we endeavoured to establish through the British Government the method for instituting such changes.

Contrary to the inference contained in yesterday's editorial this Government has informed the public, each time it has visited the UK and held discussions through statements tabled in the House of Assembly. In fact, the full answer given to Mr. Barritt concerning what type of changes were being considered was to refer to the changes contained in our election platform and outlined in our response to the UK's White Paper. Both the UK White Paper and Government's response were debated in the House of Assembly. I do not doubt that there will be those who disagree with the process we have proposed -- but there is no need to distort or misrepresent what we have proposed. We finally received an answer to our question to the UK on this matter in August.

In light of the fact that next year, will be the sixth year after the last Boundaries Commission, and of the fact that by law the Boundaries Commission must meet every five to seven years. And recognising that the results of the year 2000 Census will be available in the year 2001, Government considered it was both practical, economical and logical to table the proposed amendments before the summer recess to allow ample discussion time prior to a debate in the House of Assembly in the fall with the hope that the amended constitution would be in place in time for the next Boundaries Commission.

Premier Jennifer Smith