claimed could enable it to put off an election if opinion polls were unfavourable.

Late in the debate, Home Affairs Minister Quinton Edness moved to delete a clause in the Parliamentary Election Amendment Act which would enable the Governor on the advice of Cabinet to put off an election or referendum if "electoral supplies or materials'' were not available.

The move came at the end of a lengthy debate in which the PLP accused Government of using the clause in the bill -- which would also enable Government to postpone elections in the event of a natural disaster or civil disorder -- to delay a vote.

Home Affairs Minister Quinton Edness told MPs earlier that the bill was prompted by the row over the one-day postponement of the Independence Referendum in 1995 in the wake of Hurricane Felix.

Mr. Edness told the House that a clause in the bill, which is based on legislation in Jamaica, to allow for cancellation in the event of election materials not being to hand or the Electoral Register not being complete was a matter of common sense.

He said that in the computer age there was a risk -- no matter how small -- of a virus or power failure disrupting polls.

And he added: "There is, in fact, a requirement in law for the Registrar to have these lists ready.'' But Mr. Scott saw a conspiracy in the clause.

He said that it was to be expected that Government would seek to adjust the law after the Referendum row.

But he insisted that any legislation introduced should only cover "acts of God''.

He said: "You may not delay an election because you don't get your printing done -- you do not delay an election because you have misplaced your list.'' And he said Government could use the Act to delay elections in key constituencies if the polls were not going well.

Mr. Scott accused Mr. Edness of trying to "sneak through'' the disputed clause "among some very serious considerations.'' And he pledged that the Progressive Labour Party would campaign against the Act if the offending item was not removed.

But Minister of Technology and Information John Barritt said it was human nature to make mistakes.

And he pointed out: "If a Member or Members of this House, or indeed a member of the community, was at any time concerned that the Act or its provisions were being misused or abused, they can take the matter to court.

"But in this case there is nothing sinister -- it's merely an option to cover something which might occur, no matter how remote a possibility that might be.'' Ottiwell Simmons said a democratic society must assist people in voting for the Government of their choice -- and that choice must be made "comfortable and simple.'' But he insisted: "If something is going wrong with the Government's opportunities to get power, they will create a reason to postpone that election and put them in a better position.'' Maverick UBP backbencher Ann Cartwright DeCouto , who campaigned against Independence, said she was only too aware of why the bill had been brought forward.

She said she had no problem with cancellation on most of the grounds, especially because it would be up to the Governor of the day to order postponements -- not politicians.

She repeated her call to Minister of Finance Grant Gibbons to bring a report on the feared computer chaos caused by the approaching turn of the century.

Mrs. Cartwright DeCouto added that the law already provided for paper copies of the Electoral Register to be available for inspection at a number of places. And she said that the returning officer must have a certified copy of the eligible voters list on nomination day.

She asked for an explanation of why the Electoral Register would not be available on the day of election when it had to be on hand for nomination day.

And she said: "I don't want to put through any legislation which, on a spurious excuse, could keep polling stations in this Country closed on polling day.'' The Rev. Trevor Woolridge , Shadow Minister of Community Affairs, feared a hidden agenda over the clause.

He added: "It beggars the mind that the Minister has the unmitigated gall to insult the intelligence of 39 other Members by expecting us to believe this is possible.'' But Finance Minister Grant Gibbons said individuals and firms took out insurance "to cover us against things we believe will never happen''.

He added: "We are taking precautions, as any Government would, for any eventuality. All computer systems can be corrupted. There is a very small likelihood of the voters list not being available -- very small but possible.'' And he added "2000 bug'' had nothing do with the Act being before the House.

Shadow Health and Social Services Minister Renee Webb said that keeping an Electoral Register up to date in Jamaica, which has a population of 2.5 million, and Bermuda with 36,000 registered voters were not the same thing.

She added: "We have a hard copy of the registration lists and I'm sure the Premier could check that before calling an election. My problem with this is the potential for misuse.'' Ms Webb said Bermuda had a history of riots and it was possible that people might want to riot in order to postpone an election.

But where she drew the line with the Bill, she continued, was where it said an election could be postponed if electoral supplies or the voters' list was not available.

This left the door open to someone taking advantage of their position, she claimed.

she said the Government should always be ready so that even if an election was called for tomorrow then it could go ahead.

If an election was called and the Government of the day did not like how things were going, then they would have a nice little out.

It was the Government's responsibility to ensure that an election did take place, not that one did not take place, she stressed.

Deputy Premier Jerome Dill said under the Westminster system of Government it was the Premier who decided when an election took place.

It was insulting to suggest that the Premier should liaise with the Registrar before doing so and then not to call it if the Registrar was not ready.

There was no logical basis for the Opposition to object to the simple piece of legislation which prepared Government in case of an event that would interrupt a poll.

The UBP were frequently accused by the PLP of being unprepared and of bringing piecemeal legislation to the House, he noted.

Yet when it brought legislation that dealt with an identified problem and looked to the future it met with objections.

Mr. Dill pointed out that it was the age of the computer and documents were prepared by computer which were not error free so Government wanted to be prepared for any eventuality.

He added that the Governor would make the decision on the postponement of the election which injected a sense of impartiality into the legislation.

Deputy Opposition Leader Eugene Cox said the legislation was designed to allow Government to be in a position where it could delay, postpone or defer an election.

He said what had happened during the Referendum on Independence was not caused by having no legislation in place but by a defect in the chain of command.

Changing legislation so people in authority could have their own way did not make sense.

Computer systems all around the world could be backed up so Government should do the same thing to ensure it could produce voters' lists and electoral materials.

It was "the height of idiocy'' to say an election had to be deferred because of a computer virus and the best thing Government could do to save face, he added, was to delete the amendment Stanley Morton (PLP) said the debate was a clear symptom of election fever.

He said he was sure the competent people in the Parliamentary Registrar's office could deal with an election at a moment's notice.

It was expedient to have a back up in place, he added.

He then moved a motion that the Bill be given a "six month hoist'', a Parliamentary device which would effectively kill it.

But House Speaker Ernest DeCouto reminded Mr. Morton that the motion to read the Bill for a second time had been agreed to already.

UBP backbencher Maxwell Burgess asked why anyone would call a general election only to postpone it.

And he wondered how the Premier would accomplish it as he or she would have to prove there was a shortage of supplies which could mean getting the Parliamentary Registrar to throw away supplies and that was "arrant nonsense''.

Mr. Burgess said the idea of the Premier telling the Parliamentary Registrar to lose the voters' list was also "arrant nonsense''.

What was being suggested was a conspiracy, he continued, and for there to be a conspiracy, the Civil Service would have to be involved.

That seemed to be what the Opposition were suggesting they were capable of, he said.

If that was not what they were suggesting, and they believed the civil servants would not take part in a conspiracy, then there could be no conspiracy at all on Government's part, he added.

David Allen (PLP) said he had seen various legislation come before Parliament in the past that did not work in the best interests of democracy.

This was just another part of the UBP's "tripwire democracy'' which worked to keep them in power.

The legislation and the PLP's opinion of it had nothing to do with civil servants, although he pointed out that it was a matter of public record that a "powerful civil servant'' had listened a little too much to the UBP during the Independence Referendum.

Mr. Allen also noted that Governors could be biased and easily persuaded and that electoral materials were too easy to be fiddled with.

Paula Cox (PLP) said the election process went to the foundation of democracy.

The essence of the debate was Government having the power to postpone elections.

The way the legislation was being handled gave people in power the ability to curb the free flow of the election process.

She said it was normal that factors outside people's control should be governed but instead of trying to itemise these, the legislation should be more generic and encompass all factors outside control.

There were things which could affect an election that were not cited, she pointed out, and these needed to be considered.

The PLP was not saying Government should not look ahead, she continued, but if there was to be change then it must be substantive change.

Anything outside of control should be covered by the legislation, she stressed.

Shadow Minister of Legislative Affairs Lois Browne-Evans said it was interesting that the part of the legislation under contention was taken from Jamaican law by the UBP.

This was a country normally spoken about in a derogatory fashion by Government, she said.

Given the history of elections in Bermuda, she continued, it was understandable why people were suspicious about this legislation.

Mrs. Browne-Evans said if she was the Premier then she would check with the civil servants to make sure everything was in order before she called an election.

She said if it was the Governor who was going to make an announcement on whether an election was on or off, then the Bill should state how far in advance he had to give it.

And she added that it was a step backward for those Government members who supported Independence to put all this power in the Governor's hands.

Mr. Edness said the Governor would make a proclamation on the advice of the Cabinet.

He said the amendment was brought with good intent but the PLP had created an aura of conspiracy by suggesting the UBP had a sinister motive.

There had to be a valid reason for any Government to postpone an election, he noted.

Mr. Edness said the voters list must be accurate because the Registrar must be certain that persons who have died or have been incarcerated are not included.

However he said that there were things that could happen which prevent the list from getting to returning officers on polling day such as a hurricane.

Consequently it was wise to look at the eventualities that could postpone an election or part of an election.

But Mr. Edness then moved an amendment in committee to delete the offending clause which was supported by the Opposition.

The bill was then passed.

DROPPED CLAUSE -- Quinton Edness