the Cabinet, at least for the foreseeable future.

There are sound political reasons not to do so, and there are also good policy and Constitutional reasons, at least at this stage, to hold off on any such move.

But the fact that Ms Smith has come out and made her position abundantly clear is important and should clear up any misunderstanding. Asked if the shuffle of Ministerial responsibilities was a precursor to reducing the size of Cabinet, she replied: "No.'' That leaves no doubt about her position.

Should Ms Smith have chosen to cut the size of the Cabinet, it would have resulted in the Progressive Labour Party having a large and unwieldy backbench, filled with MPs whose Cabinet hopes had been dashed, along with a few ex-Ministers who will not have taken their demotion happily.

That's a combustible combination for any government, and as a general political rule, a large majority makes it worse, not better, as the need for party discipline slips.

Nor would a smaller Cabinet make sense unless the smaller Cabinet was made up of full-time Ministers who were paid as such. Clearly, meeting the responsibilities involved with running six or seven "mega-Ministries'' would be a full-time job.

Beyond that, any reduction in Cabinet size ought to come as part of a broader debate on the overall size of the House of Assembly. This has been a plank in the PLP's platform for some time, along with single seat constituencies.

The latter changes require amendments to the Constitution, which in turn requires the approval of the British Parliament; any such changes have traditionally been agreed at a Constitutional Conference beforehand.

Following the 1979 Constitutional Conference at Warwick Camp, the UK indicated it would not agree to another Constitutional Conference unless it was a precursor to Independence.

Government has stated Independence will not be on the cards until it has been fought as a General Election issue; nonetheless, if Government wishes to proceed with changes to the House and to the constituencies, it is possible that the British Government would change its policy on staging a conference.

It is far from certain, however, that a smaller House or Cabinet is in the best interests of the community.

It has been suggested that Bermuda is over-governed, but there is a good deal of merit in having MPs who, because they represent a relatively small number of people, really have their ears to the ground. A smaller House would invariably result in MPs being less in touch with the voters.

There are other arguments, both pro and con, in redrawing constituency boundaries and on how many MPs should represent a district; all of these matters are best decided in a Constitutional Conference.