Premier Jennifer Smith launched the motion to amend the Constitution, saying she was bringing legislation in keeping with promises made in the PLP's 1998 election platform.

She said Government had done its best to inform the public of the proposed changes and would be sending a letter to each voter with even more information.

And she pointed out that Bermuda could only change the Constitution to allow for a reduced number of single seat constituencies if the UK Government gave permission.

"We believe it must be done if it is for the benefit of the people, no matter what the result maybe or impact on ourselves, it is the right thing to do,'' she said.

Opposition Legislative Affairs spokesman John Barritt said the UK Government would only make a decision on what was recommended to it by Bermuda.

"Technically it is a decision for Her Majesty's Government whether or not this is translated into an order so the Constitution can be amended,'' he said.

"We still prefer to see a Constitutional conference to address these issues.'' Ms Smith said allegations that any changes to reduce the number of MPs would concentrate power in the hands of a few were unfounded.

"We don't have the kind of system where someone in a position of power can ignore someone else's view.'' The Premier also referred to an answer she gave in February, when she replied "no'' to a question from Mr. Barritt whether or not any changes to the Constitution were planned in the next 12 months, she said she gave the answer to the best of her knowledge at the time.

"In February I didn't know what I knew in August, had I been able to see down the road, I would have given an answer to satisfy that member.'' Mr. Barritt said the Opposition had a different impression of what had been going on.

He said they learned that there had been "to-ing and fro-ing'' between Bermuda and the Foreign Office, which made him suspicious.

He said there was a need for electoral reform and that the people broadly supported it.

Mr. Barritt said: "The PLP say they have got a mandate. What about the 46 percent who didn't vote PLP? Don't we have a mandate?'' He said the UBP had been wrongly accused of misleading the public, scaremongering, and playing on people's fears.

"We had very little knowledge of the proposals and had to read between the lines because of lack of information and we had to ask the questions. That was our duty as the Opposition.'' He said the proposal for an Ombudsman was apparently contained in the civil service review, but that had been kept secret.

Attorney General Dame Lois Browne Evans interjected: "It's for the Government, not the Opposition,'' but Mr. Barritt retorted: "It's paid for by the tax-payer.'' Mr. Barritt said he could not understand how reducing MPs would `enhance democracy'.

He said over the long-term residents issue there had been a proper consultative process, which should have been followed in this case.

"If there is any lack of trust, its origins are in the way we have proceeded.

In the community, this cannot be dismissed as fear for fear's sake.'' While the majority of people who expressed opposition at the St. Paul AME public meeting were white, they didn't do this because the Government was black and they are white.

"Whatever our political affiliation, the PLP Government is our Government and people have the right to ask a question no matter how stupid the question.

"People should not be criticised for ignorance, they should be brought along and I'm not sure that's been achieved by the public meetings. It doesn't help (the Premier) to criticise people for stupid questions or appearing ignorant.'' He said the UBP was not trying to divide the community, although he acknowledged "some people's fears of the PLP are born from our racist past.

These are not the people we seek to represent. The days when a handful of white people ran this country are gone.'' Referring to recent comments from Telecommunications Minister Renee Webb that "we're not interested in what they (UBP) think,'' and Government Chief of Staff Col. David Burch to the UBP that "you really don't get it, we don't care what you think'', Mr. Barritt said: "At times I wonder whether its worth expressing a viewpoint at all. It is because I wonder whether the Government is listening.'' He said even PLP Supporter Dr. Eva Hodgson was warning about the arrogance of the PLP.

Referring to the `Arthur Principle,' where former Environment Minister Arthur Hodgson was sacked by the Premier after challenging her for the leadership, he warned: "We all know what happens to people when they disagree. While we may be irrelevant today, the backbench may irrelevant tomorrow''.

Mr. Barritt said giving the Boundaries Commission the powers to decide the number of MPs, would increase the power of the Premier to veto them. "This is not personal towards the Premier of the day. It is any Premier.'' "The Attorney General has said it will be sorted out by FCO lawyers in London. That can't be right and that's why there should be a constitutional conference. It's not good enough, its not transparent, and its not what the UK Government is looking for from its Overseas territories.'' Tourism Minister David Allen had stated in a public meeting that the UK Boundaries Commission changed boundaries and decided size, but he had not pointed out that there was discussion between the parties before.

It was the UBP's position that the number of MPs should not be left to a Boundaries Commission. The best judges of this are the people. Numbers would be agreed at a constitutional conference and then put to the people in a referendum, he argued.

The PLP had trotted out that single seats of equal numbers were the most equitable solution, but the fairest way would involve proportional representation. The UBP had tried to introduce single transferable PR, but had regrettably "dropped the ball'' because of opposition from the PLP and the claim it was too difficult to understand.

Mr. Barritt argued that if the number of MPs was slashed from 40 to 20, constituents would not get the same service.

If there were 20 MPs then based on the last election, Government would have 13. If there were eight cabinet ministers and a Government-nominated speaker, it would only leave four backbenchers.

Mr. Barritt wondered whether the plan to introduce "junior ministers'' would suck the backbenchers under the cloak of collective Cabinet responsibility and neutralise all dissent.

"We get complaints about controlled being centralised and that's not good for the country. It is an abdication of responsibility to hand over the Boundaries Commission to decide the numbers.'' He said when the Government and Opposition appointed their two members to the boundaries Commission, they would have a number of MPs they wanted in mind. He challenged Government to reveal what its preferred number was.

Transport minister Ewart Brown interjected: "It's strategy. We don't have to confess everything.'' Mr. Barritt said: "What makes a constitutional conference so undesirable , why is Government so steadfastly against it?'' He said Government quoted a poll showing Bermudians supported single seat constituencies, but another poll showed a majority also wanted a constitutional conference.

The UBP wanted a constitutional conference to come up with a number of MPs and then have it ratified by a referendum. This would bring the country together.

Dr. Brown said he got the impression Mr. Barritt "simply wants to buy time,'' but he urged the Opposition to "embrace the inevitable now and work together for a brighter future''.

He said the Bermudian people deserved something of more substance than a "repetitious'' call for a constitutional conference -- "something that's not going to become a reality''.

He questioned why the Opposition did not call for a joint select committee to look at the issue.

The only significant difference between this committee and constitutional conference was "the absence of our colonial overseers, and we have to get over that because as Bermudian legislators and members of this House we have the opportunity to lead this country in the direction it should go to begin to minimise in this late period of our history the influence of outside forces.'' He said the Opposition should lead by teaching rather than position itself at the front of a group of apparently fearful people.

"If there are people who need comfort, people not as excited as us about the opportunity for political maturation and growth, they should read (the constitution) that `executive authority of Bermuda is rested in Her Majesty the Queen'. That ought to give comfort.'' He said fear was a central theme at public meetings and letters to the newspapers, and it needed to be addressed.

"People are afraid of `what is going to happen to us. Are we to be deprived of our rights and injured by this PLP Government. Give us an assurance that you are not going to do away with our basic rights'.

"I wonder whether this PLP Government is capable of reassuring these people at all given the root of their fear.'' He said people said the last Government claimed it conducted its business in an honourable way the and the previous rulers claimed to have been honourable.

"What is it about this PLP Government that is unworthy of respect and incapable of doing what needs to be done? "The Opposition has a problem and it is very clear that the issue is not a constitutional conference or constitutional changes, the issue is whether the Opposition will acknowledge and practice the truth of what happened in November 1998.'' He said the people of Bermuda had "lights in their eyes'' on the night of the PLP victory when something "special'' happened. "It was more than an election victory, it was a sense of expectation, even unreasonable expectation.'' Those expectations arose out of successive defeats for the PLP since 1963 and disappointment.

"We wanted to change Bermuda. In order to change Bermuda we have to take bold initiatives and do things the previous Government was reluctant to do or could not do.

"But our current Opposition after so many years of trying to delay our agenda, doesn't it make sense that when we get power and make changes, they want to delay it? "This is a normal process in political life. There is nothing dishonest or sinister (in the PLP programme). We engaged until we succeeded and now we have an obligation to make necessary changes.

"I would hope the Opposition would be more than a repetition of `you don't know what to do' and be a bit more respectful and understanding of a winner.'' The PLP in opposition never questioned what type of sandwiches the UBP Government ate or what type of flights they took. Even if they suspected public money was not being best used, they respected that Government was carrying out public business.

To come to the House and talk about a constitutional conference was "a front and an affront to the people of Bermuda. We did not come here to seek approval of everything on our agenda.

"Discussion, yes. Openness, yes. Transparency, yes. Arguments, yes. But cow-towing to you, no. When people don't want the outcome, they argue against the process. The UBP benefited for years from gerrymandered seats.'' He was grateful Mr. Barritt pointed out the heavy role of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, but "that's how it goes when you're a colony. They will always retain that right in London until our status is different than it is today.'' Referring to people's fear, Dr. Brown said he did not encounter it in the people he met.

Fear was expressed in the media by people "not very comfortable and who feel the PLP will suddenly turn to less than honourable ways to change the country.

"Sometimes in this country there is the assumption that because we found wrong, that in trying to fix it, we will be wrong as well. We have chosen to take the high road'' of no recriminations or gerrymandering.

Opposition MP Gary Pitman outlined what format previous constitutional conferences had taken and how changes had come about.

And he said the conferences were the usual way to go about change and were important vehicles, especially for resolving contentious differences between parties and members of the public.

Mr. Pitman said in the past, members of the public were not allowed to attend the conferences, but he said by altering the terms of reference to suit this time, they could be allowed to make submissions.

He said the changes were not just simple and some members of the public had grave concerns about them.

"It seems to me that it's a very good time to take a look at all of the amendments that are needed to modernise our constitution,'' he said.

Premier Jennifer Smith: Kept our promises