The Opposition yesterday tabled a motion to have a select committee appointed to investigate the Bermuda Homes for People project at Southside.

The scheme, which was initiated by local businessman, Clifford Schorer, would see 200 homes built at a 15.6-acre Southside site within two years ? with many of them being offered at prices starting as low as $195,000

Under the plan ? a joint Government-private sector initiative ? 100 of the homes would be available at market rates, averaging $595,000, while the rest would be restricted for income-qualified buyers at prices starting at $195,000, all drawn by lottery earlier this year.

At a total cost of some $80 million ? $20 million of which was pledged by the international business community ? the two, three and four bedroom homes were to be built by a new non-profit company called Bermuda Homes for People.

But right from the start the project was plagued with problems, culminating when Mr. Schorer, who spearheaded the plan, resigned. The project was then taken over by the Bermuda Land Development Company in April this year.

Before the could continue with his motion, he was interrupted by, who told the House that Bermuda Homes for People was a private company and Mr. Furbert could not ask the Government to select a committee to investigate. However, Mr. Furbert maintained that the Premier was the one who referred to the project as joint Government-private sector initiative and that the former Works and Engineering Minister, Ashfield DeVent had openly said it was "his plan".

He told the House that he was not there to "point a finger" but someone should be held accountable for a project in which no one currently knows what is going on.

He said what went wrong was that it was never Government's project, but that Government had been "saved" by the architects and designers since they had no plans for housing.

"The Government had no plan," he said.said Mr. Furbert was "misleading the house" and as the beneficiaries of the Bermuda Housing Scheme were still going to have the homes they were promised.

"And to say the Government never had a plan overlooks the fact that over 800 folks have either been put into housing, or provided with mortgages as I speak from 1998 when we came to power," he said.

The Premier said: "So it is inappropriate to say that Government does not have a plan, or did not have a plan. This partnership has produced a programme that is going to be carried out by the BLDC, so the Member Opposite is misleading the public when he makes it appear that the partnership, of which the Government is a part of, we are not carrying our responsibility forward. We are and the housing programme is going ahead."

Mr. Furbert asked why a due diligence report was never done by the Government at the very beginning with the Bermuda Homes For People.

"Did they do the necessary work to make sure if the project and cost made sense? " he asked, adding that it was his opinion this was never done.

Premier Scott said the KPMG report made it quite clear ? the price and the fact that it was a viable project.

But Mr. Furbert said the KPMG report was done "after" the project ran into problems, not right at the start.

"Government should have done due diligence at the very beginning, not at the end," he said.

Justifying his request for a select committee to investigate the matter, Mr. Furbert stacked up the questions.

Why were no Bermudians involved in the development? Why did Mr. Schorer back out of a project he believed in? Were insurance companies involved? Is it true there was no written contract between the BHP and the Government? When will the project begin?

"We want a select committee to find out what really took place," he said.

Mr. Lister responded by stating that Mr. Furbert had failed to make a case for a select committee because the Government can not investigate a private entity.

Both and argued to keep the motion debate alive.

Mr. Brunson said: "The Government, with reference to the BHP, has mismanaged the project. We believe that in the nature of free access to information and transparency, this Government owes the people an explanation for its failure. It has been proven that this project is insolvent."

But Mr. Lister called for the motion to be struck from the order paper and was supported by the Government benches.