Government's call for feedback on its draft freedom of information bill prompted 437 responses, the Cabinet Office revealed yesterday.

Politicians said last night that the figure was "phenomenal" and "extraordinary" with Progressive Labour Party Senator Walton Brown describing it as "an incredible expression of democracy".

Former Premier Alex Scott, who first promised the Island public access to information (PATI) six years ago, said: "Excellent! Wow! That's extraordinary and most encouraging and gratifying."

The PLP backbencher said The Royal Gazette's A Right To Know: Giving People Power campaign for FOI had done much to raise public consciousness on the issue.

"I do think that the newspaper deserves a vote of thanks because by publicising this very, very important piece of legislation I think it has brought home to the community the significance of PATI."

The proposed Public Access to Information bill was unveiled by Premier Ewart Brown on October 15, when he asked citizens in a televised address to give feedback so it could be tabled during the current parliamentary session.

No deadline for submission was originally given but at a meeting on November 17 it was announced that Monday, November 30 was the last day on which responses would be accepted.

Only 24 submissions had been received by the end of Thursday last week, but Cabinet Secretary Marc Telemaque said yesterday that many more followed, with between 340 and 350 sent on Monday.

Dr. Brown's spokesman said yesterday: "Obviously, we are pleased that there are submissions and they will be considered."

Senator Brown said: "I don't think I have seen such a volume of submissions but I don't know what people submitted when there was a Green Paper on immigration.

"I think it's a good thing that people have such a keen interest in this. That shows that it [the public consultation] has been successful. I just think that over 400 is a very good number and it demonstrates the degree of active citizen participation in it."

Both the United Bermuda Party and the Bermuda Democratic Alliance made submissions on the draft bill.

John Barritt, the UBP's spokesman on legislative and public administration reform, said of the final tally: "That's terrific. It's certainly better than 25, which is what it was looking like last week.

"I'm surprised at the number but pleasantly surprised. I think it's great. I think this kind of interaction needs to be encouraged and I'd like to see it happen on other legislation. I'd like to see a parliamentary website where different bills are posted to allow people to review and comment."

Michael Fahy, from BDA, said: "I think it's actually phenomenal. I think it's a fantastic number. I am glad that there is feedback. I think it's incredibly important and goes to show that people take this legislation seriously.

"I would go as far as saying I suspect that's probably the most number of responses they have ever had on a subject on this Island. I would be surprised if there was anything higher than that number."

He added: "I'm obviously curious to know what people are saying. Hopefully they'll release the submissions as appendices to a report on the bill. After all, it's in the spirit of transparency."

Asked if the submissions would be published, Mr. Telemaque said: "The Premier will give a ministerial statement in the House on Friday on this and these matters will be fully addressed at that time."

Mr. Scott, whose 2005 discussion paper on PATI only prompted about five responses, said a front-page story in this newspaper on Monday — outlining The Royal Gazette's submission on the draft bill — may have spurred some people to respond.

The story detailed this newspaper's concern that the Premier — as the Minister proposed to be responsible for the law — would be allowed to make regulations excluding any public authority from PATI using the negative resolution process, which does not require MPs' approval.

Mr. Scott said: "We always envisaged that this legislation, this initiative, would and must be the property of the public. It was to empower the community. In that regard, any legislative device that came between the public's right to know and... anything that curtailed their ability to have full access to the information, should be reviewed or should not be introduced."

Senator Brown said he felt the headline of the story — "PATI bill gives Premier exclusive powers" — was misleading. "The negative resolution process is a common component of much legislation because it allows for housekeeping matters to be acted upon without having to go through the formal parliamentary approval process," said the Junior Minister.

Both the UBP and BDA submissions suggested that the affirmative resolution process would be more appropriate for the regulations. Mr. Barritt said: "It [the negative resolution process] is used a lot but it ought not to be on something as important as PATI."

Sen. Brown said he expected many of the submissions would urge Government to make the law retrospective. "I agree that it should be retroactive and that it should have protection for whistle-blowers," he said.