A bill expanding the powers of the Bermuda Small Business Development Corporation was given semi-approval by MPs on Friday, with a caveat it will be revisited before full approval.Under the Bermuda Small Business Development Corporation Amendment Act, the body will now also be able to help medium sized businesses; it will be renamed the Bermuda Economic Development Corporation accordingly.However, One Bermuda Alliance and United Bermuda Party MPs complained the bill was poorly drafted and open to interpretation, with Deputy Speaker Randy Horton saying he found aspects of it challenging.Premier Paula Cox told the House of Assembly the bill’s third reading would be put back to a later date, meaning it could be reworked before coming back before MPs.Community Development Minister Michael Weeks presented the bill on behalf of Economy Minister Kim Wilson, telling the House of Assembly it will help entrepreneurs overlooked by the current legislation, which focuses on small businesses only.Mr Weeks said under the act the Corporation will be able to:l provide support and services to medium-sized businesses;l give the BEDC power to hand out cash grants to medium-sized businesses and vendor markets presently not included;l allow the BEDC to acquire, hold and manage land “for any purpose deemed reasonable to meet its mandate” as approved by the Minister.Mr Weeks told the House: “BEDC’s new organisational structure will reflect the three core markets that it will serve: small businesses, medium-sized businesses and the economic empowerment zones.“A key national objective is empowerment and entrepreneurship and as such the Government intends to broaden its reach and expand its mandate to be the advisor on local economic development issues and to foster local economic development activity.“Without question, the Government is serious about encouraging a viable and reputable local business environment through the Bermuda Economic Development Corporation, providing support, advice and services to the small and medium-sized business sectors and the economic empowerment zones and vendor markets.“To this end, the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry will continue to make local economic development an imperative, by putting businesses and entrepreneurs first and creating sound, progressive policy and support for their success.”Following a succession of complaints from the OBA, Shadow Works Minister Mark Pettingill issued a motion for Government to rise and report progress meaning the debate would be stopped and the bill would potentially be redrafted. But that motion was defeated 19 to ten with all Government MPs voting against it.However, as the OBA continued to make its case, Ms Cox met them half way by suggesting the third reading a necessary step before any legislation can be sent to the Senate be put on hold.During the debate, Mr Pettingill had expressed concern Mr Weeks’ briefing failed to provide information on how the Corporation would give grants.“It’s a simple five letter word with big implications,” he said.“What does that mean? How does that work? How much do you have to pay to get a grant? Do you have to pay to get a grant? These points should be embedded in the legislation and on the face of it, they’re not.”UBP leader Kim Swan echoed Mr Pettingill’s fears, calling for the amendments to be held back so that aspect could be addressed.“We don’t have to be in such a hurry, for there is an opportunity to go back and clear up the legislation,” he said.Government backbencher Wayne Furbert said that while the original BSBDC act did not mention grants, it did say that the Corporation could offer, in addition to loans and guarantees, “other forms of financial assistance”.“It’s not defined in here, but it could be interpreted as a grant,” Mr Furbert said. “I don’t think it’s an impediment. I think it’s clear what the Corporation is trying to do.”Shadow Finance Minister Bob Richards said the legislation had “troubling anomalies”, saying that if the Corporation would be assisting medium-size businesses in addition to small businesses, it would require more capital.“Where is the capital?” Mr Richards asked. “There is no mention of the capital. Either capital has to come from the Government, the banks, or both.“We don’t object to the idea but the story is incomplete. If it’s coming out of Government, where is it in the budget?”He described offering for-profit businesses grants as a “moral hazard”, saying: “This word grant has no business in this legislation.”Attorney General Michael Scott fired back, saying he was “amazed and appalled” that they were objecting to what he called economic stimulus.“You have not changed,” he told the Opposition parties. “You are merely repeating the depressing discouragement that too many of our people already encounter.”OBA MP Grant Gibbons however said that if the capital is not in place for the BEDC, the legislation would be nothing more than an empty promise.“We on this side of the House have a particular affection for the BSBDC,” he said. “If the Corporation doesn’t have additional capital, it doesn’t have the power to loan, grant or guarantee.”He also noted that while the initial legislation limited the amount the Corporation could guarantee or loan based on its capital, the amendments added no such limitations for grants.Dr Gibbons spoke prominently on this issue as the bill went into the committee stage, saying: “This is just prudent governance to put this control in place.”Ms Cox responded that in reality the Minister would have power over policy and would ensure limits on grants are in place.UBP MP Charlie Swan spoke against the wording of the legislation, prompting Environment Minister Walter Roban to dub the Opposition’s stance “foolish”.Mr Pettingill replied by saying legislation is sacrosanct, and calling for Government to rise and report, only to be convincingly voted down.But the act’s passage came to a temporary halt after Mr Pettingill complained it was unclear over why and how the BEDC can acquire land.Mr Horton told the House: “I’m having some challenges as we move forward with this. I thought we were there, but now there seems to be much unreadiness. I’m just trying to see what we need to do here.”Dr Gibbons replied: “Clearly you are uneasy. We are very uneasy here to simply give a blank cheque. I think this is a good time to rise and report progress.”Mr Horton said: “You can see that I’m not happy with the fact that there is complete clarity on this.”Ms Cox said: “If members of the Honourable House feel they want further clarification I would suggest we have two options.”Option one, she said, was to rise and report progress; option two is to delay the third reading.She said: “I would respectfully suggest ‘two’ is the better option.”The bill was passed but Mr Weeks did not ask to give it a third reading; that will be done at a future House sitting.