The House of Assembly is where the people’s business is expected to be discussed, and where legislators create and approve legislation that is supposed to be for the benefit of the country and its citizens.
There are times, however, when citizens are forced to question in whose interest are some pieces of legislation pursued in the House of Assembly. Are they in the interest of big business and may – either intentionally or inadvertently – disadvantage the masses?
These are all legitimate queries that the man in the street is entitled to have answered.
In recent times, we have seen the government take a second look at some pieces of legislation it had been pursuing due to public outcry or alarms raised by certain groups.
This was the case with the recent child protection and child rights legislation which were sent to a joint select committee for review.
As the proposed legislation returned to the House, Minister of Labour, Social Security and the Third Sector Colin Jordan forcefully rejected contentions that the Bill sought to diminish the power of parents over their children, while giving increased power to the state.
“This piece of legislation is far from trying to take up people’s children, change their gender or the sex of people’s children. . . . The legislation that is appended to this report contains nothing in it that could be considered a slippery slope,” the St Peter MP contended.
Why did the debate over updating child protection legislation in Barbados devolve into such a highly contentious public spat? We maintain that this arises when politicians fail to adequately engage the public on legislative objectives.
One could also argue that it points to an elevated level of suspicion of government and its intentions.
Prior to the defection of now Opposition Leader Ralph Thorne from the administration, earlier this year, the government enjoyed an unprecedented level of control of Parliament, save for a few Independent Senators in the Senate Chamber.
In such an environment, we have seen a rapid increase in the number of citizen advocates, particularly online, who felt it was their duty to fill the void created by the absence of an official opposition in Parliament.
This week, as the Upper Chamber debated the Barbados Blue Green Bank Bill 2024, it was clear that even some of our legislators appeared not to be fully apprised of the details of the very legislation on which they are expected to vote.
Independent senator and businessman Andrew Mallalieu called for “full transparency” on the operations of the proposed Blue Green Bank which has already secured commitments of US$30 million in funding from the governments of The Bahamas and Guyana, along with US$15 million from Barbados.
“I am really looking for transparency in this new bank,” Mallalieu said in his contribution to the debate. “Currently, the Audited Financial Statements must be posted within three months of the bank’s fiscal year. I do hope that we will hold this new bank to that.”
“Further than that . . . I think that there should be full and complete transparency on all the loans that they are making, because they are making it for the benefit of all Barbadians,” he added.
Were there a survey undertaken today among Barbadians to determine their knowledge of this new financial institution that is meant to reduce the costs associated with financing climate resiliency, we suspect that very few would have any idea about the institution or the reason it was created.
The institution is being created in the name of the people of Barbados and it is incumbent on the government to fully inform the public how the institution is going to work, how it will benefit citizens, and what it will cost the public to operationalise.
Senator Mallalieu raised some important questions for which answers should be provided. The fact that loans as well as grants will be provided, questions about the transparency of the process for disbursing grants, and authorising loans and the publishing of quarterly financial statements, need to be addressed.
We concur with the senator that the board of directors of the Blue Green Bank should be subjected to the provisions of the integrity legislation.
It was also instructive that Senator Mallalieu, who is a real estate developer, questioned why real estate developers were “singled out in the legislation to benefit” from the provisions of the Blue Green Bank.
