erred in stating that part of the Government's Civil Service review would result in cutting the number of Cabinet Ministers and Members of the House of Assembly.

It is refreshing to see a Minister not find a scapegoat -- whether they are civil servants or the media -- and to take responsibility for his actions.

But the error does show that Government and the Cabinet Office must do better in coordinating policy and speeches. This was, after all, a speech made by Mr.

Allen on behalf of the Premier and the Government.

If Mr. Allen's mistake can be forgiven, the negligence in not vetting the speech before it was delivered to as eminent and influential a group as the Bermuda Society cannot; that's just plain sloppy.

Even if the cuts are not planned as part of the Civil Service review, the fact is that Government clearly does intend to go ahead with a reduction in the size of the House and the Cabinet. Mr. Allen said that he combined several paragraphs of his speech, thus giving "the wrong impression'', but he did not deny that the changes were planned.

It is logical that a reduction in the size of the Cabinet will follow a reduction in the House; as has been pointed out by the United Bermuda Party, reducing the number of backbenchers on the Government side would be dangerous for democracy.

It should be noted that cutting the number of MPs will not necessarily improve the quality of legislators on either side of the House -- it is more likely that the proportions of good and bad politicians will remain the same, there will just be fewer of both to go around.

Nor is it a given that a smaller Cabinet will lead to greater efficiency. What is certain is that the legislators will now have more duties and will seek -- and get -- higher salaries.

Opposition MP John Barritt is absolutely correct in his call for the Civil Service Review to be tabled and debated in the House of Assembly. Equally, a White Paper on the Constitutional changes planned by the Government is needed -- the current method of proposals being released in "dribs and drabs'' does not serve anyone well.

If Mr. Allen cannot keep the distinctions between Civil Service and Constitutional changes straight, then the public is even more at sea.