There should be a constitutional conference as part of the process to amend the Constitution, because most of the changes are substantive changes and will affect the life of every man, woman and child living in Bermuda, henceforth.

There should not only be a constitutional conference, but the Government should provide a longer period than a mere two months over the summer for the people to understand, digest and react to what is being proposed. The Government should also indicate to the public what it has in mind to reduce the size of the House of Assembly, and how many single seat constituencies, (of equal size, as far as is practicable to achieve,) it has in mind for the country. To do less is to play games and create suspicions among the public about the Government's intent.

In the British Government White Paper on the Overseas territories titled; `The Partnership for Progress' the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, The Right Honourable Robin Cook said, among other things: v "Suggestions from Overseas Territory government for specific proposals for constitutional change will be considered carefully''.

Future action will focus on: v "Measures promoting more open, transparent and accountable government; v The promotion of representative and participative government; v Freedom of speech and information; v The provision of high standards of justice''.

I fully expect the British Government, which has ultimate responsibility for every person living on this Island, to ensure that the process that brings about change is fair, open, and transparent, and that the Opposition party has an opportunity to be fairly represented in the process, which can only happen at a constitutional conference. The people of Bermuda will also expect the British Government to ensure the Government acts in an open, transparent and accountable manner throughout the process, otherwise their White Paper, `Partnership for Progress and Prosperity', is not worth the paper it is written on. At this stage I believe the Premier, the Honourable Jennifer Smith, will want no less.

The Minister of Telecommunications is being flippant and dictatorial about the process to bring about the proposed changes to the constitution.

The Minister is quoted as saying "I think a constitutional conference is a waste of time and money - it is all a red herring''. Ms. Webb is a Cabinet Minister so it has to be assumed she is speaking for the Progressive Labour Party Government. Although, one would have thought that only the Premier would speak publicly for the Government on constitutional matters.

Some of the changes involved are sufficiently substantive that a fair and democratic Government would want to ensure: v As wide a public discussion as possible to fully inform it's citizenry.

v Welcome feedback from the public before finalising decisions; v And encourage representation from the Opposition party, which represents 45 percent of the electorate, through a tripartite constitutional conference.

Ms. Webb has tried to justify not having a conference by saying it is a waste of the tax-payers money, and the positions, the amendments are to bring, are all well-known PLP positions, some of which were included in the party's platform. I cannot think of anything more important to spend money on than to properly inform the public about major changes to the Constitution that will forever affect their lives. I can think of so many more trivial things on which tax-payers money has been wasted recently.

Ms. Webb seems to have missed the profoundness of the changes on the life of every Bermudian and how important it is for them to understand what is being proposed. Albeit the changes may very well be for the common good.

Among the changes to be made to the Constitution, in lay terms, are: v Altering the composition of the House of Assembly by reducing the number of members. (This is achieved by replacing section 28.) Comment; The Public is not being told by how much it is intended to reduce the representation of members in the House of Assembly and the method being proposed, that of a Boundaries Commission, will prevent any public discussion. I would like to come back to this point.

v Amend the Constitution to change "British Subject'' wherever it is used, to Commonwealth citizen (within the meaning of the British Nationality Act).

v Replace section 52 with a new section. This is the section that will divide Bermuda into single-seat constituencies. In doing so it also abolishes the Parish Boundaries as the basis on which constituency boundaries are drawn, this is to help ensure that the constituencies contain, as far as is reasonably practicable, equal numbers of persons qualified to be registered as voters. How many Constituencies will not be known until after the constitution is amended and a Boundaries Commission held. This is a logistical matter because of the way the Government has chosen to amend the Constitution and implement the changes, but surely there should be some direction given to the Commission by the Legislature, and input and representation by the Opposition Party. It should not be left entirely to a Boundaries Commission to decide the political make-up of our country. This is not the same as the normal work of adjusting boundaries done by the Boundaries Commission. It is indeed similar to when the boundaries were first set up, they were given direction from a constitutional conference, approved by Order in council in the British Parliament, and approved and adapted by the local Legislature.

v Section 30 of the Constitution is to be amended by deleting subsection (1a).

Subsection (1a) read with section (1) reads as follows: (1) No person shall be qualified to be appointed as a Senator or elected as a member of the House of Assembly who (a) is, by virtue of his own act, under any acknowledgement of allegiance, obedience or adherence to a foreign power or state; This has become known as the Dr. Ewart Brown amendment. The section presently prevents a Bermudian who swears allegiance to a foreign flag from being elected or appointed to the Legislature. Abolishing that subsection will do away with that restriction.

v "The Auditor'' becomes "The Auditor General'' by an amendment to section 88, and finally: v A new section 93a creates the post of an ombudsman for Bermuda. It can be seen these amendments are quite substantial. The people of Bermuda should not be expected to understand and accept them simply because they were mentioned generally in a manifesto. If they are to be implemented the time has come for proper communication to the public, discussion and representation. The UBP opposition should not publish its reaction to these proposals.

The Government may find there is more support for the principles they wish to achieve than they think if only people are fully consulted and have an opportunity to understand what is being proposed. Surely the goal is to create a fairer and more harmonious society rather than one where the majority population is dominated by the minority and the societal environment is one of unfairness and prone to racial invective. Changes in modern Bermuda must also protect the representation of the minority population as well to be truly democratic. These matters can only be properly discussed and sorted out in a tripartite constitutional conference. It will be money to move Bermuda properly into the twenty-first century.

Quinton Edness is a former-UBP MP and Minister for Home Affairs.