The Opposition last night accused Government of deliberately allowing the debate on constitutional changes to run for a marathon 25 hours -- so that the sleeping public would miss it.

Acting whip for the United Bermuda Party Tim Smith said the Opposition had asked Government in writing last week if the controversial issue could be discussed in the House of Assembly over two days if needed.

But he said both the written and a verbal response on the day for the session to be adjourned were flatly denied, forcing MPs to sit through until Saturday morning in order for everyone to have their say.

He said as a result, people on both sides of the House found it difficult to stay awake, and it was wrong to debate something so important when people could barely keep their eyes open.

Now the UBP is to write to Premier Jennifer Smith asking if a cap can be placed on how late the House sits in future.

The mammoth debate on Government's proposals to alter the Constitution, which will result in boundary changes, one-seat constituencies and fewer MPs, began on Friday and continued well into Saturday morning.

And yesterday, Mr. Smith claimed the all-night sitting was a ploy by Government.

He said: "Although we were prepared to debate the amendments fully, we had asked that the debate not be sandwiched all into one day.

"We thought that the debate was of significant importance to the people of Bermuda that it was unfair to ask them to stay up and listen to their Parliamentarians in the wee hours of the morning.

"Our request, needless to say, fell on deaf ears. One cannot help but think, however, that maybe the Government wanted to get this matter over with quickly and at a time when the public was asleep. After all, they knew that the concerns of the public were mounting.

"Further, they expected us to be exhausted, but they saw that we had stamina and energy throughout the debate.'' Government whip Ottiwell Simmons did reply to the UBP letter last week, but said he was unable to get a definitive answer as to how long the discussion would last because the PLP Caucus was not due to sit before last Friday.

Opposition condemns late night debate Yesterday, he said it was not unknown for the House to sit through the night, but said if any of the members had wanted to adjourn they could have moved the motion at any time, but they did not.

And he said he believed the UBP were deliberately stringing out the debate.

He said: "This is not a precedent but it was clear to the Government that the UBP were strategically drawing the debate out.

"I thought they were going to be comfortable with an overnight session and they got it. I'm not blaming it on them -- that's just the way it happened.

"I notified the Government that if they wished, they could move a motion to adjourn. We did talk about and we did think about it, but neither party moved the motion.

"Both sides seemed content that the debate was completed. And a number of people I have spoken to said they sat up and listened to the whole debate on the radio. I think it proved interesting listening for the people at home.

"We will have to see what happens next time something major comes up.

"There is plenty of room for the parties to come to arrangements for debate.'' The plans have caused concern among some members of the community and the Opposition, who fear the Government is bulldozing the proposals through without full consultation.

The Foreign Office in London has received a total of 100 letters and e-mails about the proposals, with more still arriving.

The UBP argued for a constitutional conference and referendum to be held on the changes, but their pleas were turned down on Saturday morning when the PLP won the vote to set the wheels in motion.

Yesterday The Royal Gazette reported that Shadow Home Affairs Minister Michael Dunkley had called for a limit to be placed on how late the House sat.

Last night, he said the UBP would be officially asking that a cap be placed on sessions to prevent further all-night debates.

Mr. Dunkley said: "We did not try to move a motion during the session that the debate be adjourned because we had already asked twice and had been told `no, it would be finished that day'.

"We do not control the numbers, so therefore we would have lost the vote.

There was no point in us suggesting the motion to adjourn.

"The Government definitely wanted the discussion to go through the night because obviously very few members of the public would have listened to it.

There are not many people who will listen past 10 p.m.

"We would like to put a cap on how late the House sits and we will probably be sending a letter to the Premier suggesting that.

"It is not that we are not committed or interested, but besides the fact that many of us have families, there is no way anyone can perform to the best of their ability when it goes through the night. It doesn't make sense.'' Tim Smith