Over 100 written submissions have been sent in to the Boundaries Commission, which is currently deliberating electoral reform recommendations.

Commission chairman Sir Frank Blackman, even ‘irrelevant' submissions will have some impact and likely be mentioned in its final report.

“We would be expected to concentrate on what we have to do, but in doing that we would all have been influenced by what we have heard or read and, in some cases, by our own personal experiences,” said Sir Frank in an interview with The Royal Gazette.

“The report, I expect, would mention some of the submissions that have been made and I have no doubt that it will mention submissions that we consider to be beyond our remit but we cannot develop that.”

He said it would be impractical to attach all the submissions to the Commission's final report or provide a public record of the public meetings. The final public meeting takes place today.

The Commission will adjourn for a few weeks and is likely to resume in March. In the interim, submissions will continue to be examined by the members of the Commission. And, while the final cut off date has not yet been decided upon, there will be a few more weeks for people to make written submissions, he said.

He revealed that the Commission had identified a “noted” psephologist from the United Kingdom to assist with their deliberations and said: “We expect to sit with him very shortly”. Sir Frank is no stranger to Bermuda, he has served on a previous Boundaries Commission and has family here.

“People seem to be more keenly interested in what is happening,” he said, when asked if he had noticed any changes in political discussion over the years.

“I get a clear impression that they are closely following what is happening and they are requiring of their representatives on both sides of the House information on what is going on and what they plan to do. One impression I have formed, however, is that in spite of their interest in what is going on, the people do not seem to be informed as to the sources of information to assist them in their talks with politicians or with others.”

He said it is standard in many places that any document laid in parliament becomes public property.

He said he was a bit surprised” at the calls for more information at the public meetings, because in many cases the information asked for was already in the public domain.

Sir Frank added that people had been asking ‘what were the reasons for changing the number of MPs?'.

“They seem to be expecting that we, the Commission, know the reasons for reducing or retaining the numbers but we haven't shared them with them.

“We are in no better position than they are - we are operating on the basis of the Constitution Amendment Order and that does not include any reasons for changing. The Order tells us what changes we are to consider and we are doing just that. And we are doing it on the basis of the information we have which the public now has.”

He described as “misleading” comments that information being used by the Boundaries Commission was not being made available until the end of the meeting.

“That is misleading for the reason that when it first became available we said ‘here it is, it is now available to you'. You can collect it and get the details from certain places... Surely then members of the public knew, from then, where the information is. So, to say that they still don't have it, is a little bit misleading, I think.”

And he said it would have been distracting to have people peruse documents while others are speaking. The current handling of the process of electoral reform is being opposed by the Association for Due Process and the Constitution, which believes that the Constitution should not be changed without a constitutional conference. An Association sponsored multiple choice form, designed to assist the public make submissions, which was published in newspapers last month led the Boundaries Commission to state publicly that many of the points were outside its mandate. Premier Jennifer Smith has said the Commission will change the number of seats to anything between 20 and 40.

In an advert in today's Royal Gazette, the Association says 20 seats would be unworkable because if 12 were needed for the Cabinet and the ruling party had 11 MP's, Cabinet would be one short and there would be no backbench.

It compares Bermuda to Guernsey, which has a population of 58,000 and 57 seats, and very strong committees, diminishing the power of Cabinet.

The advert gives examples of how the Island would be carved if the number of seats were changed but still based on parish boundaries.

If there were 33 seats, St. George's, Hamilton, Smith's and Southampton would get three seats, Paget would get two, Sandys and Devonshire would get four, Warwick would get five, and Pembroke would get six.

If there were 39 seats, St. George's, Hamilton and Paget would three seats, Smith's and Southampton would get four, Warwick, Sandys and Devonshire five, and Pembroke seven.

Based on 43 seats, Paget would get three, St. George's, Hamilton, Smith's and Southampton four, Devonshire and Sandys five, Warwick six, and Pembroke eight.