Cabinet Minister Alex Scott was criticised yesterday by electoral lobby group The Association for Due Process and the Constitution for his defence of his party's decision not to publicly release its Boundaries Commission submission.

However, the Minister is standing his ground and says he continues to believe that the Boundaries Commission prefers political parties not publicly release their submissions.

"Mr. Scott insults the intelligence of the Bermuda public by suggesting they are unable to understand the issues being considered by the Boundaries Commission," said Association Secretary Warren Cabral.

"The public are not so ignorant as he seems to think."

He said last summer's Order in Council, which empowered the Boundaries Commission to recommend the number and boundaries of seats in a revamped single seat electoral system, gave the public a right to express their views on the functions of the Boundaries Commission.

"One of those functions is to consider the reports of the political parties. How can the public exercise their right to express a view on that particular function if they have not seen the submissions of the political parties?"

The Progressive Labour Party (PLP) has been criticised by the Opposition United Bermuda Party (UBP) and some of its own supporters for not releasing their Boundaries Commission submission.

Last week, Mr. Scott defended the decision and criticised the UBP, saying that the integrity of the Commission will be compromised if the political parties released their submissions publicly.

"My experience on the Pitt Commission and my experience in politics lead one to reason that they could have their integrity compromised if they (Commissioners) are seen to favour one view or the other," he said.

"It is a bit rich for Mr. Scott to say the Boundaries Commission has been compromised by the release of the UBP submission," Mr. Cabral continued.

"If anything, the Boundaries Commission was compromised from the very outset by the decision of the Government to lumber the Boundaries Commission with an essentially political question, namely how many MPs there are to be in the House of Assembly. This question is most properly considered by a constitutional conference, as we have consistently argued throughout. The process has been subverted by the misguided approach of the Government in forcing what should have been a technical body to become a political body."

He added: "If tradition and experience are to be thrown out the window by this Government then why should we be having regard to Mr. Scott's background 20 years ago with another Commission ?"

Mr. Cabral has led efforts to force a constitutional conference, arguing that major changes to the constitution cannot be made otherwise.

"The Progressive Labour Party has had 40 years to prepare for this moment and yet they have been unable over the course of the last two years even to articulate their rationale for the proposals to change the system," he said.

"Instead, everything has been shrouded in secrecy and achieved by stealth. They seem to think it sufficient simply to say `we want it and we're going to have it'. That is not a reason."

He asked "why is it they have no detailed position paper? Was it just thrown together at the last minute, so that the PLP is now embarrassed in comparison with the well reasoned papers from others? Why is it that they are afraid of the public commenting on their position so as to be able to give to the Boundaries Commission an informed viewpoint in accordance with their statutory right to do so?

"If the PLP's submission contains something difficult or outrageous then of course, the public should have a prior right to comment on that so that the Boundaries Commission can be in no doubt as to whether or not the PLP's suggestions are acceptable."

Yesterday, Mr. Scott repeated his earlier statements that he believed that the Commission preferred that the parties not release their submission to the public.

He added: "I would never, ever diminish the intelligence of the public. In fact I am encouraged by the public and discouraged by Mr. Cabral, when it comes to the public's ability to digest complex issues."

He said the Commission had a mandate to give their views "not the PLP's or the UBP's.

"It is left to the Commission to digest this information (the submissions) and present us with their final report."

The PLP's submission, he said, was "probably as robust as the Opposition's - if not even more so" and was as detailed as necessary.

"The party was trying to work within the sentiment of the Commission. And I still believe this is the sentiment of the Commission."