development zone, the Opposition Progressive Labour Party refused to the end to give its support to the 1992 Bermuda Plan, which passed by a margin of only four votes in the House of Assembly on Friday.

Leading the attack against the plan, which imposes development zonings on all Bermuda property, including the pristine Catchment Hill area of Tucker's Town, was the Rev. Trevor Woolridge (PLP), who accused certain members of the United Bermuda Party of going back on their word.

Before the October election, "two (UBP) candidates, Maxwell Burgess and Wayne Furbert, gave every indication that there would be no development at Catchment Hill,'' he said.

"Now here they are in Parliament saying something else entirely.'' The Rev.

Woolridge railed against the way black Bermudians in the 1920s had been forced from their homes in Tucker's Town, near Catchment Hill.

Their properties were taken from them by compulsory purchase authorised by an Act of Parliament.

Now history appeared to be repeating itself with moves to develop Catchment Hill -- only the players had changed, he said.

It was no good Government now casually "passing off'' the importance of Catchment Hill.

The Rev. Woolridge accused Government of lack of vision and leadership, and incompetence.

"Bermudians now realise Government is not committed to preserving open space and the environment.'' Why allow Catchment Hill to be zoned for development? Why can't it be zoned a woodland area? The Rev. Woolridge said children were the future of Bermuda, and it was important for them that open space was preserved.

Would generations to come still enjoy driving down Harbour Road and South Shore Road in Smith's and Hamilton Parish without travelling into a concrete jungle? The future tranquillity of Bermuda depended on the safeguarding of open space.

Tourism, too, hinged on the Island retaining its natural beauty.

"I believe Government has failed to demonstrate leadership. We must protect the community, sometimes from Government.'' The Rev. Woolridge said Parliament was supreme, and had the power to resolve the Catchment Hill problem.

He called for the House to adjourn until next week, by which time an alternative Catchment Hill plan had been drafted.

Government backbencher the Hon. Ann Cartwright DeCouto commended the Rev.

Woolridge on parts of his speech -- particularly those which related to Catchment Hill. She also praised those who put together the Bermuda Plan 1992 and the Tribunal Report.

"I think on the whole it is a good plan.'' Mrs. Cartwright DeCouto said, however, she had two clear objections to Catchment Hill development.

The first was a planning protest, the other a moral one.

Dealing with the planning objection, she said Catchment Hill was a "highly visible and beautiful'' stretch of Bermuda.

It could be seen from across Harrington Sound by day and night.

She added: "It ought not, in my view, to be disturbed from its pristine state.'' Mrs. Cartwright DeCouto said her moral objection was based on events in 1920.

The story started when the Furness Withy company petitioned the House of Assembly.

It sought permission from MPs for the incorporation of the Bermuda Development Company for developing accommodation in Tucker's Town for the "comfort and entertainment'' of tourists.

The company proposed constructing tourist facilities, including a golf course.

The total area of land in question was about 510 acres, said Mrs. Cartwright DeCouto.

She said the Furness Withy petition was succeeded by the Bermuda Development Company Act 1920.

Under the act, the Bermuda Development Company was incorporated.

Mrs. Cartwright DeCouto said people in St. George's and Hamilton Parish then petitioned against moves for over 100 acres of their property to be compulsory purchased for the Bermuda Development Company. They also petitioned that "a company should not be permitted to acquire lands without the consent of the owners unless it can unquestionably be shown that such a company has been known and proved of benefit to the inhabitants of the locality wherein such company operates and that the company is not dealing in a speculative and precarious business''.

Mrs. Cartwright DeCouto said the words "speculative and precarious business'' were key, and formed the moral part of her argument.

She said Catchment Hill had been virtually undeveloped since 1920.

"We should preserve it for the memory of the country and not promote speculative and precarious business'' which was not contemplated by the Bermuda Development Act.

Mrs. Cartwright DeCouto said members of the House who passed that Act would be "rolling in their graves'' if they knew MPs today were contemplating passing a plan which allowed development of Catchment Hill.

"Should we allow development at that site. The answer must be no.'' Mrs. Cartwright DeCouto said Parliament could use sections of the Development and Planning Act 1974 to start resolving the problem.

The Environment Minister should immediately instruct planners to draft a document rezoning Catchment Hill.

This draft document could be placed before the House of Assembly next Friday.

The Minister could then set up another three-member tribunal which would hear submissions from all interested parties.

Recommendations could then be made to the Minister, who would give his deliberations to the House.

Mrs. Cartwright DeCouto pointed out what would happen if the Minister did not act on the wishes of the House.

"This House will prevail.'' Opposition leader Mr. Frederick Wade said Mrs. Cartwright DeCouto's speech sounded good.

But he asked what would happen if a new tribunal came up with the same recommendation as before.

He said MPs would be back where they started.

"Why are we playing footsie? It is our view this injustice started in this House and should end right here in the House today.'' Mr. Wade said scores of black Bermudians had been displaced in Tucker's Town, to make way for white foreigners.

That displacement had been brought on by Parliament of the day.

"This House must do whatever it can to right this wrong.'' It would be wrong to leave the matter to a tribunal when Parliament had the power to resolve the matter.

"We ought today to vote against this report and let Government go away today and do what should be done and come back next week with a new draft for Catchment Hill.

"Anything else is playing games.'' Mr. Wade said Human Affairs Minister the Hon. Jerome Dill should get involved -- since the issue was a "racial matter''.

Black Bermudians had been the victims, and turfed out of their homes for white foreigners.

Now was the chance for Government to show leadership.

Mr. Wade called for an immediate adjournment so a new draft -- signed by the Minister -- could be brought before the House.

Community Affairs Minister the Hon. Wayne Furbert , who represents Hamilton Parish West, said he was against Catchment Hill development.

But he questioned why the Opposition had not objected to previous plans relating to Catchment Hill.

Mr. Furbert, however, firmly believed the House would not allow any development at the site.

Transport Minister the Hon. Maxwell Burgess said he'd like it to stay as it is.

The best way to make sure of that was to pass the 1992 Bermuda Plan which contained more restrictive zonings on Catchment Hill than the 1983 Plan. "If I opposed it I'd be acquiescing to a plan that allows more development,'' he said.

Mr. Burgess urged MPs to consider that a vote for the Plan does not guarantee development of Catchment Hill.

"It does allow for an application which may or may not get permission (from the Development Applications Board),'' he said.

"Passing the plan will not guarantee a developer rights. If this Plan passes, don't rush out tonight and buy a piece of property thinking you're going to make a killing in the morning.'' Mr. Burgess implored MPs to consider the broader question of Bermuda under the new Plan.

Premier the Hon. Sir John Swan took issue with Mr. Wade's speech and advised MPs not to play emotional politics.

"This House has a greater responsibility, to make sure our affairs are conducted in a way that is seen as fair and just,'' he said.

He chastised the Opposition Leader for saying the way to correct the injustice of the displaced black Tucker's Town residents was to take the property away from the owners.

The Premier said the statement was tantamount to taking away due process. It would be an irresponsible abuse of Parliamentary power and one that would affect the Island's reputation internationally.

Bermuda Properties, he said, deserved a fair hearing.

"The leader of the Opposition is way off base to say we should re-zone the property without regard for the owners,'' Sir John said.

The Premier said it was obvious on both sides of the House that what happened in the 1920s was wrong and "that it must be set right.'' Property was taken away for development of the hotel industry. "But because one wrong was committed doesn't mean a second wrong should be committed.'' To do as Mr. Wade suggested "would bring the integrity of this House into question.'' "Government's intention is that there be no building on Catchment Hill but due process must be respected,'' he said. "The owners must know they had their opportunity to make their case.'' Mr. Nelson Bascome (PLP) said the Bermuda Plan did not take into account the need for promoting community-oriented developments.

Health Minister the Hon. Quinton Edness attacked Mr. Wade for saying "Government could at the stroke of a pen take that property.'' "I have never heard such an irresponsible speech by a learned member of this House,'' he said.

The statement was in "total disregard of the law and an abuse of the power of this House. It's the worst thing I've heard.'' Mr. Edness said the House had gone through a lot to establish laws and practices by which decisions could be taken about land.

"There were some 1,188 objectors to this Plan. Why should they not get something for the stroke of a pen. That's what would happen if we were to set this precedent.'' "They'd have every right to do so and this House would be hard-pressed to say no. When we stray from the law we get in trouble.'' "We make the laws,'' Mr. Walter Roberts (PLP) shouted.

Mr. Edness said there was no one on the Government side who would like to see Catchment Hill developed. "And who would not like to set right what happened to our black brothers and sisters. But what I hear from the Opposition is `let's seek vengeance'.

"Somehow or other justice must be done. The people who own property and their rights must be honoured. Heaven help us from the kind of abuse of power if the PLP came to power.'' The Minister also took issue with a statement by Mr. Wade that the owners of Catchment Hill could sue the Government if they were not happy with loss of their development rights. "We have a responsibility to the taxpayers to avoid that sort of thing,'' he said. "A lawsuit on that particular property would be in the millions. That's not the way to go.'' Ms Jennifer Smith (PLP) said the House of Assembly took land from Bermudians in the 1920s to support tourism. It did not take the land so foreign companies could speculate in Bermuda real estate.

Ms Smith said a 1983 development zoning did not have to remain.

Talk of compensation seemed to be uneven. Picking up the Objections Tribunal report, she said had not heard any talk of compensation for the Williams family of Smith's whose land went from medium denisty to woodland reserve.

"I hear a lot of talk about justice and rights but I only hear it applied to this company. I don't hear it for Bermudians. "We're too small to sacrifice open space to satisfy foreigners.'' Ms Smith called for compensation for Bermudians and a land title registry for a clear idea of ownership.

Ms Smith suggested the objections tribunal's decisions smacked of favouritism toward more powerful entities than average people.

As an example, she cited a residential development zoning for Mid Ocean Club on a steep slope site and a rejection of development St. George's property that also was on a slope. She cited another case where Cable & Wireless got a development zoning on Cut Road while the neighbouring property owned by a Bermudian did not. "We wonder why people say there are two standards,'' she said. "When it comes to ordinary people we see no quarter given, no sympathetic response.'' Mr. John Barritt (UBP) praised the tribunal for their hard work which came in a year faster than the 1983 tribunal. Mr. Barritt said it was time that Government took up the issue of compensation for loss of development rights.

"As the cry goes up for more preservation, it requires us to examine the issue of compensation,'' he said. "It's got to be examined and considered and there's got to be movement.

"The problem is where does the money come from.'' Mr. Barritt also noted that the tribunals recommendation that more sidewalks be built was sensible.

Tourism Minister the Hon. C.V. (Jim) Woolridge said few issues had generated as much concern among MPS as Catchment Hill.

"I think we all agree Catchment Hill should be preserved as open space.'' Compensation should be considered for the owners.

Mr. Woolridge said his role as Tourism Minister led him to say that Bermuda should preserve as much land as possible.

He cited a recent statement by Mr. Tim Marshall, chairman of the National Trust's Environmental Committee, who said he "doesn't think he should have to tell his children what Bermuda looked like from a photograph.'' Catchment Hill represented one of the remaining areas of wooded land.

"I'd like to see all the land from Harrington Sound to the South Shore frozen,'' he said. "We don't want the look of Hong Kong here.'' The fact that 1,300 members of Mid Ocean Club had protested development of Catchment Hill underscored the broad section of the community that wanted the land preserved.

Mr. Woolridge said the hilltop land was not to be used for speculation and gain. He figured its development rights would cost about $1 million an acre.

"I'm not suggesting Government go into its pocket,'' he said. "We could do a trade-off'' in other areas. There are no losers in this. We're trying to preserve something we no longer have. They're not making any more land.'' Mr. Woolridge said Bermuda was not obliged to build houses for the rest of the world. If they were for Bermudians that would be different. But there was no need for local housing.

Mr. Woolridge said he was taking the Education Minister at his word.

"And as a member of the Cabinet I will ride herd to make sure that commitment will be brought back to this House,'' he said.

Dr. Ewart Brown (PLP) said the message from the other side of the House was that "we should be trusting that this will be carried out in the interests of Bermudians. "What should we base that trust on?'' Dr. Brown said he questioned Government's "newfound senstivity'' to the historical injustice over Catchment Hill given the background of "illogical planning decisions'' that have affected hundreds of Bermudians in the past.

He also questioned Government's ability to treat people the same. Lack of action over Ross Perot's destruction of a reef near his home "sent the message the people of Tucker's Town are above the law.

"So we take the position that the trust factor is not there.''