Former independent senators express concern about ‘rush’ to pass laws

The two independent senators who demitted office with the appointment of attorney Tricia Watson and businessman Ryan Walters as opposition lawmakers in the Senate have expressed concern about what appears to be a rushed and untidy legislative process in the Upper House.

Political scientist and academic Dr Kristina Hinds and former diplomat and Director General of the Inter-American Institute for Cooperation on Agriculture (IICA) Dr Chelston Brathwaite shared their observations in separate interviews with Barbados TODAY on Tuesday.

They were appointed in 2022 when there was no opposition leader to make Senate selections after the Democratic Labour Party (DLP) suffered its second consecutive general election shutout.

While declaring their near-two-year tenure was a valuable and learning experience, the former senators expressed concern about some aspects of the functioning of the Upper Chamber.

“I learned a lot, and I am thankful for being able to have sat in the Senate,” said Dr Hinds, who heads the Department of Government, Sociology and Social Work at the University of the West Indies at Cave Hill Campus. “But I think that we need to conduct some of these affairs in a way that provides the kind of time that is required to resolve, rather than seeking to push through legislation as if every piece of legislation is urgent, rather than having time for deliberation.”

She suggested the deliberations on bills were strained by the length of time lawmakers had to peruse bills and hinted at a lack of planning by the government which, until Monday, held complete control of the legislative process.

“I have several concerns,” said Dr Hinds. “One of my main concerns is that when senators receive legislation, I find that it is too late to provide a thorough appraisal of the legislation. And this is not just to critique the legislation, but to read it and do the level of research and study required to understand the particular piece of legislation, because nobody is an expert on everything.

“More time is needed . . . .For the almost two years that I was there, I found the process to be rather rushed. I believe there should be a timetable . . .a legislative timetable which indicates that these are the things you are expecting to be addressed over the next three months, six months . . . something, and that was non-existent.”

The senior lecturer in political science argued that “sometimes there were pieces of legislation that you had for [long periods] that one didn’t look at, and other times there were pieces of legislation you had for a few days and it was addressed in the day.”

“Those kinds of things I really would have liked to see tidied up,” she added.

Dr Hinds also spoke out against the suspension of the Standing Orders to facilitate all three readings of bills in a single day: “I don’t think that is the best way to conduct parliamentary practice. I think there is a reason that the Standing Orders provide at least seven days. I think it is to read the first and the second readings so that people can have enough time to digest legislation.”

She insisted that the committee stage of bills is not used appropriately to allow clause-by-clause discussion so that senators can raise any concerns, suggest amendments or seek clarity on the intention of each clause and the legislation.

“I don’t find that that procedure was carried out very well, and the stage that I expected from a theoretical perspective in the committee stage for the discussion on legislation, too often was absent,” the university academic pointed out.

But Dr Hinds also said she derived valuable knowledge and experience from being in the Senate, listening to “interesting contributions from interesting people”, and learning about the functioning of Parliament in a practical way while gaining knowledge on the procedures that need to be corrected.

She said she thought she represented herself well by bringing a more critical eye to legislation and thanked President Dame Sandra Mason for selecting her to sit in the Upper Chamber. Both she and Dr Brathwaite hailed the choices of the senators to replace them.

In a separate interview with Barbados TODAY, Dr Brathwaite, a former Ambassador to China, described his time in the Senate as “exciting”.

“It gave me the opportunity to better understand the governance of my country, understand the legal framework and how the laws are defined and developed; and also an opportunity to represent what I think were concerns of the average person,” he said.

“I would also say that it gave me the opportunity to put on the table an issue that has been of importance to my career and my development, which is a question of food security in Barbados. I was able to do that by a Private Member’s resolution that I brought to the Senate in June of 2022 . . . and had it debated by the entire Senate.”

Describing that as a momentous occasion, the food security advocate said he was able to make not only the Chamber but the whole of Barbados focus on food security, which he described as a weak point in the country’s development strategy.

But Dr Brathwaite also expressed concerns about the functioning of the Upper Chamber, zeroing in on the review of bills as they pass through the final stage to going to the Head of State for signature into law.

“Where I found there were differing views on bills and on proposals, invariably, there was no established mechanism, that these legislative procedures could go back and be revised,” he said. “Invariably, when issues are brought forward and we objected to clauses or recommendations of legislation, because of the constitution of the Senate where government senators were in the majority, even if we went to a vote we could easily be outvoted.

“Consequently, it creates for the Senate, a situation. . . where [when] there is a dissenting voice or opinion, these opinions do not go back for revision. There have been a few cases where a Leader of Government Business would say, ‘We are going to take this back to the Law Reform Commission’. But we had no evidence that these changes were made.”

He complained that the government never came back to the Senate to assure members that the changes were made.

Dr Brathwaite suggested that senators be given a guarantee that their objections were taken into consideration.

He also expressed concern that the government did not take the issues raised in the Auditor General’s reports seriously.

emmanueljoseph@barbadostoday.bb