Concerns were raised last night about reported changes that could affect potential new members of the Progressive Labour Party.

A proposal put forward by David Burt, the PLP leader and Premier, said that people who publicly campaigned against the party in the past two general elections should be prevented from automatically joining.

It is understood that the “addendum to the 2026 membership process resolution” was moved at a central committee meeting on Monday.

Separately, news website TNN first reported that it was understood a motion presented at the same gathering proposed that people must have been PLP members for at least a year before being eligible to serve as delegates in the upcoming leadership election.

The RoyalGazette sought clarity and comment from the PLP through its public relations e-mail address yesterday, but no response was received by the time of publication.

However, a well-placed PLP source told The Royal Gazette: “What was agreed was quite simple. If someone is going to represent members as a delegate and help select the next leader of the PLP, it is reasonable that they should have been a member of the party for at least a year. New members remain full members of the party.

“It is equally reasonable that applications from people who were actively campaigning against PLP candidates as recently as last year should be reviewed rather than automatically approved. These are sensible safeguards for any political party.”

Jason Hayward, the Minister of Economy and Labour, is expected to face Curtis Dickinson, a former finance minister, when they vie for party leadership at the annual general conference in October.

The victor will succeed Mr Burt as PLP leader and, in turn, Premier.

A representative of “Team Hayward” was contacted for comment but none was received by publication time.

Mr Dickinson, who hosted a public event last night, was asked then about the reported motions.

“I wasn’t there. I’ve got reports, second and third-hand, so I’m in the process of gathering pertinent information and trying to understand what happened and understand what its impacts are,” he said.

“But it seems to me that we are a member-driven organisation, so I would like to understand why we would disenfranchise new members.”

Both candidates and their campaign teams have been signing up new members ahead of an August 31 deadline.

Members will then choose delegates from their branches who will vote for a new leader and deputy leader at the party conference.

A long-serving PLP member said that the reported proposals caught others by surprise and were not in keeping with the party’s constitution.

They feared that changes to the membership process were “deliberate” as they would likely affect members who are supporters of Mr Dickinson.

“My concern is telling members they cannot become delegates at this late hour,” they added.

The member remarked: “They are saying it can’t happen the way always did because it would affect Jason Hayward’s team … it’s unconstitutional.”

The member said that attendees believed the central committee meeting was a regular meeting but added that the introduction of the motions “was too major” for such a forum.

They suggested a special meeting should have been held with the party’s membership in advance, announcing proposed changes to the voting process.

A written motion, titled as a “party leader’s addendum” to the 2026 membership process resolution and seen by the Gazette, stated that “concerns have been raised due to membership lists now containing persons whose recent political activity may be inconsistent with supporting the aims and objectives” of the party.

It said that Article 8 (A) of the party’s constitution set out that party members were deemed to have undertaken to support the aims, objectives and policies of the PLP.

The motion stated that with immediate effect — in respect of applications for new membership — new members shall not be confirmed automatically where a valid objection is submitted on the basis that a candidate falls into one of three categories.

Those included anyone who was a One Bermuda Alliance or Free Democratic Movement candidate, or who stood against the PLP in the 2020 or 2025 general elections.

Anyone who nominated, campaigned for, publicly endorsed or otherwise publicly supported a candidate who stood against the party in the 2025 General Election, or who publicly criticised the party in connection with supporting such a candidate or campaign would also be affected.

The third category was for those who served as an election agent for any party other than the PLP or for any candidate who stood against the party in the 2025 General Election.

Asked about his thoughts on the addendum last night, Maxwell Burgess, a former United Bermuda Party MP who joined the PLP in 2011, said the move did not match the party’s constitution.

He added: “What I do know with immense certainty [is that] the founders wouldn’t have worked this hard so that the PLP would prevail and their prevailing comes to this.

“A threat to democracy somewhere is a threat to democracy everywhere.”

Ellen-Kate Horton, who said she had been a PLP member for more than 60 years, agreed the matter did not fit the group's constitution.

“I think it was a desperation move,” she added.

The 80-year-old said it had always been common for the party to increase in numbers during leadership campaigns as new members joined to be represented.

Ms Horton said she believed this limitation was done out of fear.

She explained: “Some people looked scared — I think they were feeling outdone.”

Ms Horton added: “It's this problem of ownership — don’t come into my neighbourhood, don't come into my constituency’.

“The constituency belongs to all of us.”

While the party’s constitution mentions the process for the selection of delegates, no reference is made to a timeline for membership.

It says that delegates and their alternates shall be elected at a branch meeting called for that purpose, with none permitted to be MPs or senators.

Under “annual general conference”, the constitution adds: “Only those delegates and/or alternates shall be entitled to vote. Each delegate shall have one vote.”

It said that each branch at the AGC — where the leader and deputy leader are elected every four years — shall have one delegate for every 20 financial members or fraction thereof.

“So if a branch has 100 members, it can have five delegates,” the unnamed long-serving PLP member said.

They added that while the delegates “are to follow the wishes of the branch”, they are not necessarily bound to do so.

The member explained: “If a new member is selected to be a delegate, he can throw his support behind Candidate A who is running for the party leadership, although his branch may support Candidate B.

“So in the current situation, you may have fresh new members who genuinely may want a change in the party leadership.

“In the previous leadership election, we had new members who signed up within a year and still became delegates … in less than a 12-month period.”

According to the written addendum moved for members, the PLP’s executive shall present its report and recommendations on “disputed memberships” for consideration by the party’s central committee at its meeting on September 14.

On that date, the committee will determine whether each membership should be confirmed or not approved.

Attempts by the Gazette to obtain comment from Mr Burt were unsuccessful.