the Opposition Progressive Labour Party yesterday and passed new clean air regulations without objection.

After voting down a PLP motion to adjourn the debate to give the public and MPs more time to prepare, the Government took advantage of near-empty Opposition benches to end the debate after only four MPs had spoken.

The major victim of the tactic was Independent MP Mr. Stuart Hayward , who had left the chamber to use the bathroom before speaking. He returned to find Environment Minister the Hon. Gerald Simons had moved approval.

Opening the debate, Mr. Simons said the regulations provided standards on a substance-by-substance basis which followed more than two years of official investigation.

Mr. Simons said they were substances that could cause harm to certain people, wildlife and plants.

He added that attention was paid to the effects of pollution on the 10 percent of the population who suffered from asthma, lung disorders and other complaints.

For example sulphur dioxide can cause acid rain which is damaging to fish and irritates people with reduced lung functions. Nitrogen dioxide can cause similar irritation and be harmful to vegetation.

The import of controlled chemicals will be regulated so that people receiving them know of the possible dangers to health they can cause.

Mr. Simons said: "Pollution can affect the population of Bermuda and its visitors, which could lead to problems with tourism if it is not regulated.

He said: "The act deals with ambient air. That is the air we breath every day, in the background.'' The regulations also deal with horticultural chemicals, smoke emissions and open fires. He said it would not affect family barbecues.

Mr. Simons said that National Trust calls for banning of lead in fuel and powers to enter properties were already in force.

He said: "The standards chosen should be as high as the strictest in Canada.

So long as we are flexible administration should not be carried out in a harsh manner.

"We all breath the same air and no-one can escape to a corner of this small island to get away from it.'' Shadow Environment Minister Mr. Julian Hall praised Mr. Simons on the tone of his introduction which he said was completely different to that of his predecessor the Hon. Ann Cartwright DeCouto, who he described as "rude'' and "insulting.'' Mr. Hall said such an important matter needed a longer time for discussion and asked for the regulations to be adjourned for at least three months to give the Opposition time to study the document properly.

But he said: "Why is there this unseemly rush towards this current legislation. There is only one explanation -- an election in the summer.

"Has the Premier already called for an election and already added this into his propaganda?'' Mr. Hall said he found a story in The Royal Gazette unprecedented because of the National Trust's attack on government for not consulting them over the Clean Air Regulations.

He said in the past the Trust had given "kneejerk support'' to the United Bermuda Party, and last week, he said, under the presidency of Mr. David L.

White it would accept blindly, like Pavlovian Dogs, anything the Government suggested.

But Mr. Hall said that the National Trust attack could have been an attempt to give it some credibility and try to prove that it was not governed completely by the UBP.

He said the National Trust, under Mr. White, should not have the power to stop legislation, although he was calling for an adjournment.

He said that people needed to have time to become educated about pollution and chemicals.

There was no provision for the enforcement of the regulations to be open to the public, Mr. Hall said. That could be the subject of future amendments, but why not now? "Because of the paucity of people who would understand these things,'' shouted the Hon. John Stubbs (UBP).

"We don't know who understands it,'' Mr. Hall said. "We want to arrive at a situation where the whole community understands it.'' The taxpayers pay for the wisdom Government has and should "have the full and unfettered access to it.'' The National Trust is correct when it says the public should have the right to comment and object to applications for operating licences, Mr. Hall said.

Records of monitoring levels of controlled plants should also be made public.

And with proper warning, a lead ban in fuel should be imposed immediately, he said.

Mr. Hall then moved that the debate on The Clean Air Regulations 1993 be adjourned.

As the near-empty Government benches began to fill, Finance Minister the Hon.

David Saul said Mr. Hall's motion was an attempt to "guillotine'' the debate that was "not in the best interests of the country.'' To that, Speaker of the House the Hon. David Wilkinson said if the House agreed to adjourn the debate, it would only be until the next day of sitting.

"It can't possibly be guillotined,'' he said.

National Liberal Party Leader Mr. Gilbert Darrell said Mr. Hall's motion was "just wasting time.'' Opposition Whip Mr. Stanley Lowe then rose on a point of order and said the Speaker should put the motion to a vote immediately. But Mr. Wilkinson said any MP who wished to speak would be heard.

Mr. Darrell then resumed. "I see no reason for the motion to be adjourned,'' he said. "The Government says `I'm there to govern.' Let them govern.'' Dr. Stubbs then rose and said Mr. Hall had pointed out the paucity of people in the House who understood the regulations. Would that change, "by some alchemy,'' through an adjournment? The motion was "the most lamebrained and specious suggestion I've ever heard,'' Dr. Stubbs said.

Opposition Leader Mr. Frederick Wade said: "The debate ought to be adjourned just to allow the Government to follow its policy of participatory democracy.'' Government had cited that principle in bringing forward other laws, but it appeared to be "poppycock.'' Deputy Speaker Mr. Ernest DeCouto (UBP) said Mr. Hall's motion was in order, but only two members had spoken on the regulations so far. It would be unfair and only cause delays to approve the motion.

Mr. Hall "just wants to delay this debate because he's not fully prepared.'' Premier the Hon. Sir John Swan said participatory democracy begins in Parliament and "it is the freedom and the right of every member of Parliament to express his views.'' After that happens, the House must decide how to vote, Sir John said. To allow two members to speak, then "move a motion that cuts the other members off'' was "a contradiction.'' The Minister would not use a draconian approach and was willing to meet with affected parties and the National Trust "and if necessary come back to this House and amend those regulations,'' Sir John said.

The argument on air quality standards was technical, not philosophical, and Mr. Hall's motion "will not serve the purpose that's intended,'' he said.

"Allow the Minister to get on with the job that he's got to get on with.'' Mr. Hayward then rose and was cautioned by the Speaker to address only Mr.

Hall's motion and not the regulations. He would have a chance later to speak to those.

Mr. Hayward said he too thought it was unfair to adjourn the debate until more MPs had spoken. Members' speeches, his own included "would perhaps provide educational material for the public,'' he said.

Delaying a decision until the public was better informed also had merit, and resolving how to handle the motion "might be an incredible opportunity for us to display the wisdom that our constituents hope that we have,'' Mr. Hayward said.

Mr. Simons said he was pleased with the way the debate began and "it's unfortunate that we should have reached this point.'' Even the National Trust, while asking that approval be deferred, had asked that the debate proceed, Mr. Simons said. It was "important for all members who wish to speak to have an opportunity.'' The Clean Air Act was nothing new and "it disappoints me enormously that the Shadow Minister Mr. Hall should admit that he's not ready to debate,'' Mr.

Simons said.

When the Opposition wants a matter deferred, arrangements are made between the Whips, he said. "If I had known before today that the honourable member Mr.

Hall was not ready for this subject, I would have given every consideration to take it up on Friday.'' The remainder of last night's debate will be published in tomorrow's newspaper.