It is "impractical" and "unworkable" to have the general public participate in designing the new electoral boundaries as recommended by the Boundaries Commission, according to political scientist Walton Brown.

Mr. Brown was asked to respond to comments by constitutional lobby group the Association for Due Process and the Constitution that the public has been deprived of the tools needed to give their views on the location of the boundaries.

Association Secretary Warren Cabral is considering legal action because Government refused to give him access to the software used to help the Commission generate the boundaries.

Mr. Brown said that the public now has a chance to comment on the entire Boundaries Commission report which he reminded The Royal Gazette, was merely a set of recommendations to Parliament.

"It is impractical for the public to be involved in the designing of 36 constituencies - it is unworkable," he said.

"That Commission Report is a recommendation to Parliament. It is not binding on Parliament, it is a recommendation."

Mr. Brown added that, should there be a public outcry in response to any aspects of the report, the British Government would have to take it into consideration.

The British Government will make the final decision on the next steps after a House debate on the report which has been scheduled for October 11, before making an order to change the Constitution and usher in a single seat electoral system.

Delaying the process with a "legal challenge" with "no meaningful and substantive component" would be "wholly inappropriate", Mr. Brown said.

Mr. Brown said that the Association, which sees itself as a watchdog for the public's interest, had no legitimate reason for demanding the software used to generate the boundaries.

"Warren Cabral's group does not have the legitimacy that the UBP and the PLP have. They are the ones elected by the people to represent their interests. In a parliamentary democracy power rests with those people who have been elected to represent their interests. They are doing so and the public has a further opportunity to represent their interests."

The UBP's John Barritt, who sat on the Commission, did say in his dissenting view that the Commission should have released an interim report to enable the public to comment on the location of the boundaries before disbanding the Commission, but he made no mention of public access to the software.

Mr. Brown pointed out that both parties had embraced and participated in the electoral reform process.

But he had his own criticism of the process. "Unfortunately it is still the case that changes to Bermuda's Constitution need to be vetted and approved by the UK Government. This seems to take away from the spirit of democracy which we have all seemingly embraced and this is what the move toward single seat constituencies is meant to accomplish."

He repeated earlier criticism that the Constitution was being changed in a "piecemeal" fashion, and said that he would only support a constitutional conference if it involved "some meaningful matters" such as "a timetable leading to self-determination. Anything else is irrelevant," he said.