An Economic Empowerment Zone bill promised in the Progressive Labour Party’s 2005 Throne Speech was passed in the House of Assembly late last night.

Designed to provide entrepreneurs in North Hamilton with Government incentives and tax breaks, the bill’s introduction in the House spurred a marathon debate, not because the two sides disagreed, but because both parties wanted to claim the landmark legislation as their own.

Members of the House very nearly pulled hamstrings in their rush to rise from their seats and offer comments.

Opposition MP Grant Gibbons said at one point: “Everyone’s trying to claim this baby one way or the other.”

The bill amends an existing law called the Industrial Development Act 1968. The new measure will be called the Economic Development Act 1968.

The just passed Amendment allows provisions like waived Customs duty, payroll tax concessions, and relaxed immigration laws to be given to new business owners in North Hamilton. The exact provisions will be voted on later by both the House and the Senate.

Finance Minister Paula Cox said: “Government is committed to new wealth creation and expansion. This approach is about creating a buoyant vibrant economy wherein the economic pie can be expanded.”

Although the official boundaries are not specified in the Amendment, the Minister of Finance said the North Hamilton area includes Cedar Avenue to the west, the Pembroke Canal to the north, King Street to the east and Victoria Street to the south.

At present there are 100 commercial enterprises, 350 homes and about 900 residents in the area.

Because the Progressive Labour Party was expanding on a 1968 law, back in the days when the United Bermuda Party was in power, current UBP members laid claim to the idea as their own visionary property.

Opposition MP Patricia Gordon-Pamplin>said: “Clearly the sensitivity that has been displayed on this side of the aisle in advancing that type of approach to doing things,has very correctly and very rightly been adopted by the Government.

“This is something that perhaps 40 years ago the founding fathers may not have had it quite right, however I believe they tread down the correct path.”

Government MP Glenn Blaken$> called Mrs. Gordon-Pamplin comments ironic because he said the UBP never acted on their ideas to help the people who needed it most.

Opposition Leader Wayne Furbert yelled from his seat: “All you did was change the name,” referring to the alteration of the word ‘industrial’ to ‘economic’ in the Bill’s title.

Mr. Blakeney said: “Yes, we changed the name, changed the psyche, changed the vision, changed the opportunities, changed a lot. And that is what this Government is about — change, progressive change. You are absolutely right, Mr. Opposition Leader.”

In public statements leading up to the debate, the PLP promised economic empowerment particularly for young black Bermudians.

During last night’s debate the UBP argued the Government did not have a monopoly on that demographic.

Opposition David Dodwell <$>said the idea went back to his party’s 1998 and 2003 platforms and suggested the PLP was late in raising the issue.

Mr. Dodwell told House Members: “The principle of this Bill is something we put forward many many years ago.

“We talked about creating an economic development authority, an entity that sits on top of all the economic development in this country. It’s about getting blacks upwardly mobile.”

Government MP Ottiwell Simmons joined the debate next to say: “It seems to me we are all on the same page. We are all in agreement.

“This piece of legislation is a piece of legislation I want to see mobile, unlike the 1968 Act that was stagnant.”

Mr. Simmons also shared his hope that the Economic Empowerment Zone would not be the end of the journey for new business owners, but rather the beginning.

He said: “This piece of legislation should be a stepping stone from small to greatness.”

Opposition Maxwell Burgess <$>warned that North Hamilton may not be ready for economic empowerment until crime was brought into check.

He said: “I want to go on record of warning the Government that North Hamilton has some particular problems that I would have like to have seen sifted out or combated before we proceeded.

“No amount of concessions are going to encourage people to go out there and do business if they have to walk over a malaise of drug dealers — stepping over them, trying to do business. You’ve got to clean those streets up first.

“I think if we clean those streets up and get on with the empowerment program as well we may be pleasantly surprised just how well we can do.”

Government backbencher Renee Webb thought the ideas behind the new Economic Empowerment Zone could one day blossom to the level of entrepreneurial success for blacks in South Africa following apartheid.

She urged Government Ministers to not only help the businesses get started but to also prop them up with viable business opportunities.

Mr. Furbert urged Government to push the effort farther, beyond North Hamilton, so that it would promote economic prosperity regardless of geography.

Deputy Sper Dame Jennifer Smith <$>expounded on that point when she rose to contribute her comments to the debate.

She said: “There is no doubt in my mind that this Act will, in time, come to benefit the constituents of the World Heritage Site in St. George’s which will be the next Economic Empowerment Zone. So that those persons can get some relief from the (historic building) constrictions placed upon them.”

The Bill as proposed by the Finance Minister does not currently suggest any expansion beyond North Hamilton, but it was clear during the debate that if the idea is successful it could be used in other places around the Isd. MPs debate ‘daunting challenges of education:<\p>Page 7