PLP backbencher Dale Butler slammed his party's secrecy over its submission to the Boundaries Commission and called on the document to be released to the public.

He said it was `nonsense' to keep the paper under wraps when it concerned everyone on the Island. And he was joined by commentator Rolfe Commissiong, who claimed that most of Mr. Butler's backbench colleagues didn't even know what the proposals contained.

When asked whether it should be released to the public, Mr. Butler said: "Most definitely. I would support that.

"I am surprised and I don't understand why it shouldn't be (public) in the sunshine of public scrutiny. It should be. Why this secrecy? Hand it to the public and let them know where we are coming from.

"We represent the entire Island we represent everybody... All this secrecy nonsense has to stop. It will eventually leak out anyway.

"Put the damn thing out to the public. Big deal - I don't see what the fuss is. It's something that's been talked about for years. Obviously it's now a public document put it out."

Fellow backbencher Wayne Perinchief also called for it to be released, revealing details about the meeting itself.

He said the two-hour meeting, chaired by the Premier, had been attended by about 50 people including MPs and party stalwarts.

He said the meeting had voted overwhelmingly for the Premier's suggestion, although the other options had not been much different, with the debate boiling down to whether it was an even or odd number. He said everyone was sworn to secrecy over the result though nobody raised any strong objections. He said: "As far as I am concerned it should be public over the submission.

"It's something on the PLP's platform so it's not a hidden agenda. The others have released their submission, what's wrong with that? It would be persuasive if the PLP released theirs. I believe in openness when it comes to matters of the public, there is a need for confidentially in some instances but this is a democratic process, we have a mandate to do what we are doing so everything should be in the open."

Mr. Perinchief refused to say what number the party had decided upon. "I voted for an uneven number, that's all I will say."

Their comments came as it was revealed that the PLP discussed its submission to the Boundaries Commission just a day before the Commission's deadline.

Mr. Commissiong said: "What chance does the public have when the truth of the matter is the PLP and most of the backbench have no idea what the proposals contain as well - if that's any cold comfort. I'm not going to be diplomatic here, but this is another example of the serious shortcomings, to put it lightly, of this leadership."

Key figures in the party say that members had ample opportunity to give input.

Some PLP parliamentarians did admit to not knowing what the party's position was, but they insisted that their ignorance was probably their own fault.

"I haven't seen it," said party whip Ottiwell Simmons. But he had been away, he said, and was `out of the loop'.

He said he believed a meeting was held on the subject last Thursday - a day before the Commission's deadline for written submissions. "Nobody's kept it from me. I know discussions have taken place," Mr. Simmons said.

Asked to elaboration on why the party has not released its submission publicly, he said: "We don't do anything without good reason."

Party chairman Neville Tyrell said it was `not material' when the meeting took place. "We had a deadline to meet and we met the deadline," he said.

Backbencher Stanley Morton told The Royal Gazette he was familiar with the contents of the party's submission.

"I consider that we are in a state of political warfare," he said. "This is the environment the Opposition has created and the enemy is using all kinds of methods to seek and find any kind of information to destroy the party and I have no comment to make."

Community and Sport Minister Randolph Horton did not attend the meeting, he said.

He said he hadn't seen the submission but knew what was in it. "If I told you that I wouldn't be a Minister next week," he said when asked what's in it.

Those close to the leadership insist that it is not usual practice to publicly release position papers which are being considered by a Commission.

For Mr. Commissiong the point is that the Premier had said, when she first announced the Government's electoral reform programme, that she expected `vigorous debate'.

"Yet the summer came and went and there was nothing," he said. "Most of the problems associated with this initiative have been largely of the leadership's own making. Because by not having an education and public relations campaign already in place before putting it in the public domain she (Premier Jennifer Smith) thereby created a vacuum which the opponents of these reforms have gladly filled."

"The PLP is a big party and we are able to tolerate different points of view within the party," said Transport Minister Dr. Ewart Brown, when asked his response to the criticism.

"There were many opportunities for people who wished to express themselves at any of the three meetings or through the other channels of party operations to do so. I thought the public meetings were poorly attended - another example of the unfortunate level of apathy in the country regarding political issues."

As to whether the party's supporters had a right to know what the party's position was, he said: "They will find out. Remember this - the PLP has no obligation to operate on the schedule of the Opposition." Dr. Brown did attend last week's meeting. Backbencher Arthur Hodgson didn't even know about the meeting. "I don't know," the former cabinet minister said when asked whether he knew the party's position.

"It could be my fault that I don't know, but I don't know." He admitted he was `more than curious' to find out what his party's delegates had submitted to the Boundaries Commission.

"I have some firm views as to where we should be going. And I have a responsibility I am a member of parliament."

Arthur Pitcher, another Government backbencher, said he knew of the meeting but `I guess I forgot'. Asked whether the submission should be made public, he said: "It will be - when the party hierarchy decides so."

Dr. Brown denied a suggestion that the party's silence could be damaging the chances of its position being accepted by the general public. "It depends on how well we deliver it when we decide to do it. That will be the true test," he said. "It's not how well we dance to other people's drums that count."