This is the text of the speech delivered by Governor Sir John Vereker at the Speaker's Dinner on Saturday.

I am grateful to you, Honourable Premier, for that introduction. It is, I think, no secret that my wife and I are hugely enjoying our time in Bermuda and if we are able to make some contribution to keeping this wonderful island secure, prosperous and attractive, that is its own reward.

Well, almost its own reward. Henry Wilkinson's fascinating book about the ‘Adventurers of Bermuda' records that the Somers Island Company provided the Governor, in return for faithful performance, three shares of land and, after seven years, a twentieth of the net profits on whaling and pearl fishing. I have to say, Attorney General, that I can find no record of this admirable arrangement being repealed and Lady Vereker and I have spent a few imaginative hours exploring the Island and choosing our shares. We are, as a concession to the Minister of Finance's admirably tight grip on the public purse, prepared to forego the profit on whaling and pearl fishing.

Since we last enjoyed the hospitality of your formal dinner, Mr Speaker, in November 2002, we have participated in three elections - here in Bermuda, in July 2003; in the United States, where my wife votes, in November 2004; and in the United Kingdom, where we both vote, earlier this month. It is a source of some satisfaction that of these three the one with least controversy surrounding the actual running of the election was the one in the territory I govern, rather than the one into which I married or the one in which I vote. Bermuda should be proud of its constitutional democracy, which is strongly rooted.

You would expect me, Mr Speaker, to say something on this occasion about the future of Bermuda's constitutional relationship with the United Kingdom, since the report of the Bermuda Independence Commission is only a few weeks away. It is not for me to offer judgments about the balance of the arguments that will be presented; that is for the people of Bermuda; self-determination must be the guiding principle. There are however two points that it may be timely for me to repeat.

First and perhaps most important, I have made no secret of my own support for the process which, you, Honourable Premier, have set in hand to ensure that Bermudians are properly informed about the implications of Independence before the question is put to them. Let me say again that I think it right that a Government formed from a party with such a strong historical commitment to Independence should bring the matter to a head, rather than allowing uncertainty to undermine our stability and unity.

Unity, yes, because at the end of this process we surely all want to see a more united society rather than a more divided one. Those on each side of the debate have a duty to understand the arguments of the other. The advocates of Independence need to recognise that there are real concerns about the balance of costs and benefits. The advocates of the status quo need to understand that for many Bermudians, Independence is the natural culmination of decades of responsible self-government. It is important that everybody participates in this debate, and that an open mind is kept by all. It is important that when the debate is concluded, everybody has contributed to the outcome, and that the outcome is then respected by all.

And second, there are some issues arising from the Independence debate that are unequivocally a matter for the UK to settle. The legal vehicle for Independence is an Act of the British Parliament. Such an Act would be placed before Parliament only if British Ministers are satisfied they can defend it. That is why I have already made it clear not only that our present assumption is that a referendum would be the right way of establishing whether Independence is supported, but also that it is the UK who will take the final decision on whether a referendum should be held and if so what form it should take.

That is also why I have made it clear that the normal arrangements for citizenship on Independence are for British citizenship to be withdrawn, except for those who can claim it by virtue of parentage or grandparentage. In voting for Bermudian Independence, Bermudians would be voting for Bermudian citizenship. Newspaper reports to the effect that the UK may allow everyone to have it both ways are misleading, and rushing out to acquire British passports in the hope of retaining them after independence would, let me make it clear, be pointless.

You and I, Honourable Premier, have of course regularly discussed these issues. I have often thought what a pity it is that the media are not present during our weekly meetings. They, and the wider public, would I think take great comfort from the serious, and if I may say so professional, nature of the discussion we have across the whole range of issues that face Bermuda. For my part I respect, of course,the role and responsibility of the elected Government of Bermuda, just as you invariably respect the role and responsibility I am given by the Constitution and by Ministers in London. But that has never inhibited either of us from sharing our thoughts on what may be best for Bermuda as we face increasingly challenging times; I have learned much from you, as I did from your distinguished predecessor, and I would like to think that was mutual.

Challenging times, yes. Governors and politicians, if they are doing their jobs, spend more time on the difficult things than on the easy ones. So challenges have, inevitably, often occupied our thoughts. Bermuda's prosperity does not immunise it from social needs; Bermuda's ethnic mix does not immunise it from racial issues; Bermuda's isolation does not immunise it from the outside world.

Let me in this context reinforce a point made powerfully already, by both the Bermuda Independence Commission and the visiting United Nations Special Committee on Decolonization: whatever else Independence might bring, it should not be expected to provide solutions to the deep rooted social difficulties which are so often discussed in my office. We must look to our existing structures and institutions for those answers.

Foremost among those institutions lie the products of representative democracy. Of course, democracy can sometimes take us by surprise. Consider this. A Progressive Labour Party is re-elected with a reduced but comfortable majority. It owes its success to its overwhelming strength in the constituencies furthest from the capital. It immediately finds itself embroiled in a debate about its leadership. The Government appoints sufficient of its supporters to the Upper House to ensure it has more than the Opposition. The subsequent Queen's Speech contains some 50 legislative measures and is dominated by the social agenda. Sounds familiar? Yes, that was the UK when I was there earlier this month - though the Queen got through her speech in a mere eleven minutes.

Our own Constitution has stood the test of time, guaranteeing the fundamental freedoms of the individual in the context of the rule of law. Westminster style democracy as practiced in your House, Mr Speaker, and in yours, Mr President, ensures a lively and public debate. The two party system may at times appear unnecessarily confrontational; it is designed, however, to ensure that policies are scrutinised and challenged, to encourage transparency in decision making, and to hold those concerned accountable for their decisions. Cabinet Government, as practiced under your chairmanship, Honourable Premier, and that of your predecessors, ensures that policies are backed by collective decision. The Civil Service, under its successive heads, follows the British tradition of political neutrality and public accountability.

We should not take these things for granted. Such strong institutions are, sadly, the exception rather than the rule in the world outside Bermuda. This is what Emperor Haile Selassie, in what is still one the most powerful speeches ever made to the General Assembly of the United Nations, said in 1963:

“The preservation of man's basic freedoms and rights require courage and eternal vigilance: courage to speak and act - and if necessary to suffer and to die; eternal vigilance, that the least transgression of international morality shall not go undetected and unremedied.”

Since your last dinner, Mr Speaker, Bermuda has demonstrated its commitment to democratic values, in an impeccably ordered General Election. But eternal vigilance remains as relevant to Bermuda in the 21st Century as it was to Ethiopia in the middle of the 20th. Freedom is true freedom only if it embraces opportunity for all of the people; rights are true rights only if they can be exercised without intimidation. Our young people must not be allowed to take these things for granted; as Haile Selassie concluded:

“These lessons must be learned anew by each succeeding generation, and that generation is fortunate indeed which learns from other than its own bitter experience.”

The Constitution can and does provide a stable framework for an ordered society; the forces of law and order can and do provide a means of addressing the symptoms of disorder when it arises; but these institutions of the State cannot and do not address the causes of that disorder. It is far better that each new generation of young people learn the basic obligations that all individuals owe to society on the knees of their fathers and mothers, and in their schools and colleges, than that they learn it through “bitter experience”. The 378 people currently held in our corrections system, 130 of them admitted this year, represent effective work by the Bermuda Police Service and the Director of Public Prosecutions; but they also represent a collective failure to transfer knowledge and understanding from one generation to another. Among that knowledge must be an awareness that each individual is part of, and has duties towards, a wider society; among that understanding must be a recognition of the duty each generation owes to its successor.

Mr Speaker, well over a thousand Bermudians visited us at our Open House in Government House this afternoon; my wife and I spoke to many of them. They came from all walks of life, and from all parts of the political spectrum. They illustrated so much that is good about Bermuda: they were respectful, courteous, interested and lively. Most had never had the opportunity to visit Government House before. On a fine Saturday afternoon in this Quincentennial year, Bermudians were able to enjoy the history embodied by Government House without needing to quarrel over how long a Governor should reside there. The cut and thrust of debate should be vigorous, but not so vigorous as to leave wounds. For after the debate is over, we and the generations that follow us all have to continue to live together on this very small, but wonderful, island.