Cook's White Paper on the Overseas Territories gives some indication of where debate on the proposals are likely to go.

Mr. Santucci's objections centre on what moves the UK is likely to make on homosexuality and capital and corporal punishment.

For the most part, Mr. Santucci says, Britain will require Bermuda to adhere to a more liberal stance on social issues.

He said: "It's my contention that the content of this White Paper is so broad, it impacts on every aspect of our lives in terms of morality, social demographics, education dynamics -- the Government needs to speak clearly in terms of its impact.'' Government has said on its first reading of the White Paper that there does not appear to be anything threatening in the document.

Britain has stated that it expects Bermuda to abolish both capital punishment and judicial corporal punishment (when a court sentences a person to corporal punishment, such as birching, after conviction for a crime). It has said that if Bermuda is unwilling to do this, then Britain itself will do so by an Act of Parliament passed at Westminster.

Britain has also said it expects the overseas territories to decriminalise homosexuality, something Bermuda did some years ago when the Stubbs bill was passed.

On these points we agree with the Government. There is nothing threatening in what Britain is asking of Bermuda. Capital punishment has not been used in Bermuda in more than 20 years and corporal punishment has lain dormant even longer. The death penalty is of course a divisive subject and most people have strongly held views on it. But this newspaper has consistently opposed its use and does so still. Equally, corporal punishment has no place in modern "correctional facilities'', and it should be noted that Britain is not requiring the end of corporal punishment in the schools or in the home.

Mr. Santucci is fearful that closer alignment with British positions on these social issues will open Bermuda up to further reforms, resulting in greater rights and freedoms for homosexuals based on the European Charter on Human Rights.

Speculating on what future requirements Britain may have for Bermuda is difficult. But when you focus on what is actually contained in the White Paper, it makes no further recommendations in this area.

Mr. Santucci also accuses some MPs who are members of the AME church of "spouting a gospel, but practising hypocrisy in relation to that same gospel''.

This is a dangerous accusation. Is Mr. Santucci suggesting that MPs should be entirely guided by their church's teachings when they enact legislation? It is quite possible for individual members of a church to disagree with one tenet of the church while accepting the church's overall direction.

There are reasons why church and state are separated in the United States and one is to avoid a single church having undue influence over a whole country where there may be people of many different beliefs.

Bermuda's MPs should of course be guided by their church's beliefs. But when they vote, they should be acting on their consciences.