the bases, it would be best to make in advance some basic decisions about the base land. Last Friday's House of Assembly debate indicated that very few politicians have any idea at all about the bases agreement, how it worked or what it meant to Bermuda. Many of those talking at length on the floor of the House knew none of the history of the establishment of the bases. It would be too bad if ignorance led to bad decisions or to emotional decisions.

It is clear that some of those who spoke in the House were dealing in only histrionics and emotions.

It seemed to us that St. George's South MP Mrs. Grace Bell made great sense as she was reported in this newspaper.

Mrs. Bell pointed out the hardship suffered by those who gave up their land for the base. There was clearly massive disruption and great sacrifice on St.

David's when people moved from their homes and the US military arrived. It was a hardship for the war effort which other Bermudians were not asked to bear.

Yet the sacrifice by St. David's Islanders led to an airfield which, after the war, allowed Bermuda's tourism to boom. As Mrs. Bell pointed out, because of that sacrifice Bermuda in general became one of the wealthiest places in the world. That wealth did not always extend to St. David's Islanders who had made the sacrifice.

Mrs. Bell said that it was important more than 50 years later that St. David's Island should reap any rewards from the closure of the base.

The other St. George's South MP, Mr. Richard Spurling, was quoted as hoping that houses bought from local people would be offered back to the same families.

It seems to this newspaper that the first major decision should be to give the land and any man-made land which abuts it, back to those people from whom it came or, as best we can, to their direct heirs. We say "as best we can'' because some land will have to remain as it is now for the operation of the Airport. It would be a complex process but it would be an honourable decision.

If the people involved then wish to sell the land for general usage, it is their business. If they wish to keep the land, it is also their business. The relatively small sums of money they were paid for the land when they gave it up should simply be considered as rent paid to them for the usage of their property this past 50-odd years. The land was given up in war time as part of a massive war effort. The war is long over and the military usefulness of the base has run its course. It seems to us that the honourable decision would be to give the land back to those people who so honourably gave it up.

There is plenty of precedent in other countries for returning land to those who gave it up to assist the public good. It will be argued that Government provided money to pay the owners. However, the owners did not sell voluntarily and might have achieved great profit had they still owned the land after the war, certainly if they still had it to this day. Their land was taken for the public good and it is no longer needed for that purpose.