close to the heart of this Government and important for the future of Bermuda.

"The issue is the strengthening and streamlining the democratic institutions of our country to create a more just society for all Bermudians.

"The Progressive Labour Party Government has promised the people of Bermuda that it will ensure equality, accountability and transparency is more deeply embedded in our society. This promise is a long-standing one. Since the inception of the PLP in 1963, we have promoted a consistent message -- equality for all Bermudians through one man-one vote, each vote to have equal value.

"This audience will be well aware that our adherence to this principle was one of the reasons why the PLP did not sign the Majority Report from the 1966 constitutional conference held in London. The party took the view that some of the recommendations, particularly those relating to constituency boundaries, were unjust and undemocratic.

"It has taken almost four decades for an opportunity to right those wrongs.

We believe that generations of Bermudians have been very poorly served as a result. The PLP's promise to address this situation was included in our election platform and the people of Bermuda have a strong desire and legitimate expectation that we will tackle this injustice quickly now that we are in a position to do so.

"We know that the Government of the UK shares our desire to see Bermuda benefit from a more modern constitutional settlement. In the foreword to the Overseas Territories White Paper published in 1999, the Foreign Secretary, the Rt. Hon Robin Cook, exhorted the Overseas Territories to review their constitutions to ensure they remained appropriate and fully embodied modern democratic norms. The Government of Bermuda needed little encouragement to undertake this task.

"As a result of our deliberations, based largely on the helpful guidance set out in the checklist on constitutional modernisation, we prepared a paper with proposed amendments to the Constitution. It was my very great privilege to present that paper to the House of Assembly on 18 August last year. When I did so, I said that the time was ripe for a further spread of democracy in a country which boasts the oldest parliament within the Commonwealth outside of the British Isles.

"Let me return to the three areas I mentioned earlier in which we wish to effect change -- equality, accountability and transparency. First equality -- our proposals will for the first time bring each person's vote as close to equal worth as possible. This will be achieved by the removal of parish boundaries as the basis for electoral constituencies and by creating single seat constituencies, as is the norm elsewhere in the democratic world.

"Second, accountability -- our proposal to establish the office of Ombudsman will give Bermudians an additional remedy against maladministration and strengthen our system of constitutional chacks and balances. I have no doubt that the creation of an Ombudsman will exert pressure throughout the administration to improve working practices and decision-making. The increased pressure is to be welcomed. Government exists to serve the people, and the people deserve a champion of their rights when things go wrong.

"Third, transparency. The creation of the office of Ombudsman, the strengthening of the role of the Auditor, and the renaming of the Auditor as Auditor General will serve to make Government more transparent. As we bolster the mechanisms for reviewing and critiquing government activity, we open ourselves up to further scrutiny and deliver on our promise to be more transparent.

"None of our proposals are particularly novel or unusual. They merely serve to bring Bermuda up to the standards that are the norm in other parts of the world. We know that in the UK the Boundaries Commission regularly reviews and amends electoral constituencies to ensure, as far as possible, votes are of equal value. We know too that Ombudsmen are an accepted guarantor of citizens' rights across the world in jurisdictions as diverse as the United States, the Cook Islands and the Sudan.

"Given the simplicity of our proposals and the fact that they are accepted practice elsewhere, it is a pity that we have had to wait so long to bring them this close to realisation here in Bermuda.

"Yet -- simple as they are -- we were mindful that our proposals would rightly arouse strong public interest. And we have been keen to provide opportunities for consultation and input from all stakeholders. That is why I tabled our paper setting out the changes before the summer recess last August.

The purpose, as I stated then, was to enable people to consider our proposals carefully and to contribute to their further development.

"I said then in my statement that I hoped and expected a lively discussion would take place and that the views of as many Bermudians as possible would be communicated to us. This has certainly been the case. Through various means -- opinions voiced at our open public meetings, a lively and ongoing discussion in the press, meetings between MPs and their constituents, talk show discussions and written correspondence -- we have seen the active engagement of many Bermudians.

"My only slight disappointment is that some people may have been encouraged to focus disproportionately on the method of achieving the constitutional changes rather than on the substance of the changes themselves. Nonetheless, views on the changes have been widely aired. In this context, I should also note the further opportunity there has been this weekend to pass views directly to the UK government. Some, of course, have availed themselves of the opportunity to express views direct to London throughout the process.

"We, the Government of Bermuda, were pleased with the levels of support our proposals have received throughout this consultation period. That is why we moved the motion in the House to petition the UK government to propose an Order in Council to Her Majesty. Of course, there is further work to be done, and we shall continue to work in an open fashion in taking this forward.

"We have always been clear about our intentions. We have now consulted widely, engaging the people of Bermuda in the process. And we are confident that the time has come to move forward together to bring about the fairer and more just society we are creating here for all the people of Bermuda.'' Opposition Leader Pamela Gordon replied: "Constitutional change should not ever be taken lightly in a country because constitutions are the rights and privileges of people in a country and we need to ensure that any changes will be met with majority support of the people of the land.

"In 1966, we had the first constitutional conference which helped form the constitution, and another in 1979. Each were ratified by a general election, so people had the opportunity to have an input by taking a vote on issues at an election.

"Since 1979, the government of Bermuda was prevented from making significant changes in the Constitution because they stated if we wanted to make changes it would be as a result of us going to Independence where we were taking our destiny in our own hands.

"These changes could not be made until the change of Government in the UK in 1997 when the Labour Party was elected, making the invitation to modernise constitutions.

"They provided a checklist of 19 significant points. We were concerned because when we got access to this document, it was made clear that the position put by the Bermuda government was that only approximately three to four of these were being satisfied out of 19.

"When we did our Opposition responses, we tried to address the issues in the checklist that we believe affected people in Bermuda. We are very grateful that as a result of the request from the Opposition last week to Her Majesty's Government that they have seen fit to have a public meeting tomorrow evening so as many people can go who are interested but can't be here because they have to work.

"Reform is important and change is necessary and we all must not be afraid of change. Our concern as Opposition is when change is made in a manner that is exclusive of the broader community. Where we have 40 members of Parliament and 11 in the Senate deciding the goodwill of the people, that we are very educated people, who are very involved in the process and we are kept out of the process.

"Like in 1966 and 1979, we felt it (a Constitutional Conference) was necessary in 2000, and now 2001. We were made to understand through the FCO that constitutional conferences are considered outmoded and unnecessary, so we welcome any opportunity for people to make solutions, not just the Government and the UK government. We believe the people of this country should have a direct say and input in any constitutional change because it's the people's document and the people should have the final say.

"We believe in a referendum so the people have the right to clarify positions, so that all the issues are put forward and people have the opportunity to vote on all these things. We want to ensure that any amendments to the document, that when they are complete everyone will be able to embrace that document to ensure that any change is to the benefit of all people in Bermuda.

"The Opposition is still unclear about the ultimate outcome and what is expected of these meetings. We are here to participate fully and represent people who feel they are being represented and we have to behave responsibly and bring the views of people who heretoforth have not had the opportunity.'' The first speaker from the meeting was political analyst Walton Brown , who said Bermuda did not have a written constitution so any order in council by the UK Government could be made without any reference to the wishes of the Bermudian people.

"The FCO team say they are here for a consultative process and will take input. Is the FCO likely to include matters which go beyond what the Bermuda government have indicated they would like to change? Constitutional debate "How will they determine what represents the will of the people? We have heard much comment about reflecting the will of the people and an Order in Council doesn't necessary have any reference to the will of the people.'' Governor Thorold Masefield said the White Paper on Overseas Territories requested territories to modernise their constitutions, in parallel with the checklist.

Before making an Order in Council, the UK government "needs to be satisfied that there is adequate representation of democratic support there,'' he said.

The FCO team was trying to understand the detail and nature of everything being put forward.

William Lusher said if constitutional conferences were considered outmoded, had the 19 points in the checklist ever been published? Mr. White said it didn't matter what the process was called and "constitutional conferences had taken on a meaning that may not be helpful.

The general agenda is to come to understand what the people of Bermuda want by way of constitutional change. We want to improve our understanding before an Order in Council.'' He said the checklist was not a mandatory list of things that had to be in place. It was to steer different territories who may be at different stages of constitutional reform. "It was in no sense mandatory and was very much a steer.'' Owen Darrell said a "recipe for constitutional disaster'' would be to slash the number of MPs and keep the first past the post system. A simple majority could lead one party to having an overwhelming majority of MPs.

Matthew Warner , who referred to the FCO team as "you lot,'' warned them not to rely on The Royal Gazette because he claimed it had a right wing bias. He said it was clear the FCO was not interested in Bermuda.

"You have your relationship with Europe and you have your Foot and Mouth disease. Why don't you give us Independence, just leave. Slavery is over, you don't need us as a calling station, just go.'' Mr. White said it was right to be sceptical of the media because they sometimes get things wrong, but all newspapers were not bad. The FCO was not relying merely on the media.

He restated that the White Paper ensures that any territory which wants to break the link to Britain is entitled to do so and the UK will not stand in its way. But Britain would be proud to maintain the link with those territories which want it.

"We are not hanging on to remnants of empire. I hope you have the impression that we are (only) maintaining a relationship with those territories who wish to retain the link with Britain. If you want to be independent, it's up to you, not up to us.'' MP Trevor Moniz said if Bermudians wanted Independence it should go to a referendum and be supported by a substantial majority. He asked what the timeline was for these proposed changes and when the FCO will get back to Bermuda with a decision.

Mr. White said there was no timetable, and it depended on "how much progress we make here''.

The Governor said other than Government's proposals and the White Paper, there was a third strand in the process which complicated matters. Britain has incorporated the European Convention on Human Rights into UK law, and it was up to territories to choose if they wanted to also do so, but this was at an early stage.

Former UBP Minister Quinton Edness said it was important the people of Bermuda understood what the changes were and "I don't believe most people know what's being proposed and how it will affect their lives.'' Claiming the process was "rushed,'' he said the public meetings and small adverts in The Royal Gazette did not constitute proper consultation. "I am surprised the UK government didn't give us a mechanism for people being properly informed.'' Mr. Edness said the Premier was wrong to compare the role of the Boundaries Commission in the UK -- which periodically reviews the size of constituencies -- with a Boundaries Commission in Bermuda, which is charged with altering the Constitution.

UBP Sen. Maxwell Burgess asked: "How will the UK government satisfy itself that the people of Bermuda have been properly advised and informed?'' Mr. White answered: "We came here with no preconceived plans and preconceived tests.'' A lot of questions would arise surrounding the practicalities of suggested reforms.

Lawyer Warren Cabral accused the British government of "inventing the procedures as it goes along''. He said there were existing conventions which had the effect of "established law'' for changing constitutions.

FCO deputy legal advisor Ian Hendry said he did not understand what he meant by established law. There were practices and conventions.

Former UBP Cabinet Minister Sir John Plowman said he supported change, which was "overdue'' but said Bermuda was going down a "dangerous path'' by allowing political parties which can be voted in and out of office to change the constitution.

He was in favour of proportional representation with a single transferrable vote. He said Attorney General Dame Lois Browne Evans had ridiculed the idea, and the concept had never been properly discussed.

"If we say what a majority of the House wants is what the people wants, we are going down a dangerous path,'' he said.

Telecommunications Minister Renee Webb said she travelled to London to the FCO in 1995 and was told by officials it was not the FCO position that Bermuda could not change its constitution unless it wanted Independence.

As a result of this, some MPs in Bermuda tabled motions in the House of Assembly.

Referring to Ms Gordon's claim, she asked: "Was the UK Government opposed to Bermuda changing its Constitution, or were they told `Don't come to us unless you are looking at independence'?'' Mr. Hendry said: "There have been changes to the constitutions of overseas territories for as long as I can remember and there's never been a period when there's been a moratorium or threat that unless we want Independence we won't look to you.

"The policy of the UK government has never been to refuse a request to change a Constitution.'' But Ms Gordon hit back saying: "Bermuda was considered so constitutionally advanced that nothing other than that would deem it necessary for self-determination.

"It was clear that we would be able to make minor changes, as in 1979, but any major constitutional change would require self-determination. I am quite surprised that you're not aware of that.'' Mr. Hendry replied: "We've not been able to find any assurance to that effect.'' Former Deputy Governor Peter Lloyd said there was a difference between types of constitutional change. Many territories had changes in the 1980s which devolved more power to themselves, but Bermuda would have been told to go independent if it asked for more power. But it could seek the kind of changes proposed by the PLP, which did not involve asking London for more power.

Former UBP MP Dr. David Dyer said the only way to achieve constitutional change was for a conference to hear views from all shades of opinion.

"In meetings of this nature, it is virtually impossible to get any sense of where your minds are and what you understand the people of Bermuda are asking you,'' he said.

Concluded in tomorrow's Royal Gazette