oversee the development of the Base lands.

But approval only came after Opposition proposals to have the former Canadian base at Daniel's Head removed from the purview of the Bermuda Land Development Company were narrowly defeated.

United Bermuda Party dissidents the "People's Five'' -- who joined the Progressive Labour Party on Friday to postpone debate on the bill -- split on last night's proposal, which was defeated 19-18 with UBP rebel Dr. David Dyer casting the deciding vote with the Government.

The Base Lands Development Act then passed, paving the way for development of the lands.

Earlier, Finance Minister Grant Gibbons said the 131-year period for which the lands will be leased to the company by Government was an important time frame for the Government to efficient management of the Base lands.

Dr. Gibbons was speaking at the committee stage of the resumption of the debate of the Base Lands Development Act 1996.

Dr. Gibbons stressed that the figure -- which had been criticised as too long by MPs -- was not an arbitrary one but was consistent with other jurisdictions that have had United States bases close.

He said these countries have usually taken 20 to 30 years to develop their sites.

Government, he said, holds freehold title to the returned land and he added that he had received assurances from both the United States and Canada that the land does come back to Bermuda.

Moreover, he said the United States Government will not retain any rights of re-entry once they have abandoned the land.

Dr. Gibbons said the management company will lease the land and will be indemnified against any claim made by a foreign Government.

The Finance Minister said the 1970 Act provided for the original owners of the land to have the right of first refusal if Government decided to sell it. They would have to pay the full market price.

He said the Government was still in negotiations with the United States regarding the cleanup of the property and the removal of unsafe structures.

Dr. Gibbons said Government would not be involved in the day to day running of the lands. That will be the job of the management company.

Shadow Finance Minister Eugene Cox reiterated calls for ordinary people who were alive when the land was transferred from them to the US in 1941 to have first right of refusal to take up the property.

He said this amendment was made with the understanding that if a person who was living at that time was still around, they should have the first right to buy.

Mr. Cox said the PLP wanted ordinary people who were heirs and successors to have the same rights in perpetuity as corporate entities.

Home Affairs Minister Quinton Edness said the Government took on board the principle put forward by Mr. Cox.

But the immediate advice given to Government was that the amendment could not be included in The Base Lands Development Act.

It should be included in the Acquisition of Land Act 1970.

Mr. Edness said Government gave an undertaking to discuss the matter with the Attorney General.

"We will investigate this,'' he said, prompting an outpouring of scepticism from the Opposition.

Mr. Edness said broadening the rights of Bermudians to get first refusal on Base lands was a complex issue.

"What would happen if a man owned the land and his son, who did not have any children, died intestate or without a will?'' Shadow Minister of Legislative Affairs Lois Browne Evans said she was amazed at the verbal agility of Mr. Edness as he attempted to smooth things over.

The fact was Government had been caught out because the legal draughtsman had not considered widening the rights of Bermudians with a moral claim on the Base lands.

She demanded an explanation why such a provision could not be inserted in The Base Lands Development Act 1996.

Mrs. Browne Evans repeatedly called for the head lease between Government and the proposed company to be tabled, as promised.

Copies of the head lease were then tabled.

Mrs. Browne Evans said she had grave reservations about Bermuda taking back hallowed land -- the Base lands -- and giving it away again for 131 years.

Works Minister Leonard Gibbons said The Base Lands Development Act was to do with leasing land from Government -- not selling.

In contrast, the Acquisition of Land Act 1970 was about selling land. It was, therefore, the correct piece of legislation for Mr. Cox's proposed amendment.

Minister of Technology & Information John Barritt backed up Mr. Gibbons' point.

"We are dealing with leasing of the property. The Acquisition of Land Act 1970 deals with selling of land. There is a major distinction between selling and leasing.'' House passes Base Lands Development Act Mr. Barritt said the Opposition had glibly talked about heirs or successors receiving right of first refusal.

"It is the controlling legislation which should be changed.'' Government backbencher Ann Cartwright DeCouto agreed an amendment to the Acquisition of Land Act was appropriate.

She said it made sense for such an amendment to relate to all land which Government acquired for a particular purpose which was now exhausted.

"I think the right to acquire back should be looked at.'' Mrs. Cartwright DeCouto went on to repeat calls for Government to clarify whether immigration policy relating to sub-leases of Base lands to non-Bermudians would be changed.

"What kind of sub-leases do we hope to accommodate under a head lease?'' Dr. Gibbons said he did not expect a great deal of leasing to foreign entities.

"My suspicion is that a lot of companies will set up local companies.'' Dr. Gibbons stressed the BLDC would not be able to lease land to anybody for more than 21 years without the approval of MPs.

"We are not giving away land, but using it for the benefit of all Bermudians.

That is the whole reason for this bill.'' Mr. Cox indicated to the House he was withdrawing his amendment.

MPs went on to discuss a clause under which Government will indemnify a BLDC director who "in the case of a criminal or administrative action or proceeding that is enforced by a monetary penalty, believed on reasonable grounds that his conduct was lawful''.

Mrs. Cartwright DeCouto said Government should not provide such indemnification if it did not totally own the company.

What would happen if Government's shares in the company were sold off? Ottiwell Simmons (PLP) said he was concerned by the indemnification clause.

"It is making a criminal innocent,'' he said.

Dr. Gibbons said the clause was designed to indemnify directors for technicalities which could be construed as criminal.

"We want to make sure they are protected.'' He added any move by Government to sell shares in the company would have to be approved by the House.

Walter Roberts (PLP), MP for Sandys South, tabled an amendment for Daniel's Head to be removed from the jurisdiction of the planned Base Lands company.

He said Sandys South residents wanted the land kept open space and to remain in Government hands.

They did not want it turned into a "tourism-oriented'' area.

Mr. Roberts said the residents -- a Sandys action group -- had received help from professionals in putting together their plan.

It was believed buildings at the site could be used for a security station, a culture restaurant selling farm and fish produce, offices, boat rentals, warehouses and a caretaker's residence.

There were also ideas for a cultural centre displaying arts and crafts, a multi-purpose area for camping, and a single apartment complex for senior citizens.

In addition, beaches could be expanded for recreational needs, tennis and basketball courts could be leased to professionals, and there were places available sailing programmes.

He said the parishioners believed a horse path or cycle track could be set up around the whole area.

"I am presenting to the House the wishes of parishioners,'' he said. "It does not mean I agree with all the suggestions.'' Mr. Gibbons said Government wanted the Base lands to earn foreign currency.

"If we don't get foreign currency there will be a lot of time to go to the beach,'' he said.

Youth and Sport Minister Tim Smith said Mr. Roberts was wrong to assume the Base Lands company would not consider Daniel's Head for community and recreational use.

Opposition Leader Frederick Wade stressed Mr. Roberts had been putting forward ideas of Sandys parishioners -- not the PLP.

Clarence Terceira (UBP) said he sympathised with Mr. Roberts' amendment but the West End's development needed to be looked at from the overall interests of Bermuda.

Dr. Terceira suggested that the PLP MPs from Sandys should go before the management company and put their proposals for Daniel's Head forward.

Mr. Cox said the whole Daniel's Head region should be removed from the schedule and left with the Department of Works.

Mr. Simmons supported Mr. Cox and said the amendment would not cost Government any money.

He said the amendment was a chance to give Government an opportunity to discuss and negotiate a deal so the "deprived'' people of Sandys could be given access.

Mr. Edness said it was wrong to imply that Government was not interested in the welfare of Bermudians.

He said the real issue was whether the people would be better served if the Base lands were handled by the management company or the Government.

While Government wanted to see the land used for recreation it also had to ensure the land earned money for the country as well.

Shadow Tourism Minister David Allen said he supported Mr. Roberts' amendment because the Daniel's Head area was of a different order than the other base lands which were semi-industrial and better suited to development.

But Daniel's Head was more natural and suited more as open space.

Mrs. Cartwright DeCouto said she was not sure that the amendment did what Mr.

Roberts wanted it to do.

She said she always thought that the Daniel's Head area should be integrated into the Parks system.

Originally she said Government's plan was to zone the area for tourist development and she had some sympathy with that.

But she now felt a more hybrid use of the space was called for with some parts slated for a tourist resort and the other part as open space.

She said she agreed with the idea of exempting Daniel's Head from the other Base lands and placed under Government until a better plan was arrived at for its use.

Former Tourism Minister C.V. (Jim) Woolridge (UBP) said Government needed to take another look at the entire issue because issues of security and its maintenance required expert advice.

But Maxwell Burgess (UBP) said delaying the issue would send the wrong signal to the community because Government had already invited bids from around the world.

Finance Minister Grant Gibbons echoed these sentiments and said the 80,000 square feet up at Daniel's Head was not virgin territory.

And Government needed to look at the issues from a long term perspective and not on the whims of short term political expediency.

He said an earlier piece of legislation had earmarked the site for tourist development and if the amendment passed it would be inconsistent with this legislation.

Five short-listed companies with substantial local components had already invested large sums of money in the proposals that they were developing for the site so if the amendment passed it would be a blow to the process.

Taking out Daniel's Head would send the wrong signal to the community, and would place the entire Base lands development at risk.

Moreover, it would cost Government $1 million to maintain the grounds if the amendment went through and a subsequent $765,000 each year after that.

The Government then rejected Mr. Roberts' amendment and the bill was passed.