Supplement: House Assembly Debates...

Group Title: Official gazette, Barbados
Title: The official gazette
Full Citation
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00076861/00045
 Material Information
Title: The official gazette
Physical Description: v. : ill. ; 33-42 cm.
Language: English
Creator: Barbados
Publisher: s.n.
Place of Publication: BridgetownBarbados Published by authority
Subject: Law -- Periodicals -- Barbados   ( lcsh )
Politics and government -- Periodicals -- Barbados   ( lcsh )
Genre: periodical   ( marcgt )
General Note: Caption title.
General Note: Supplements issued for some of the numbers.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00076861
Volume ID: VID00045
Source Institution: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: aleph - 001043625
oclc - 12594829
notis - AFC6434

Table of Contents
        Page 809
        Page 810
        Page 811
        Page 812
    Supplement: House Assembly Debates for 19th October, 1965
        Page A-1076
        Page A-1077
        Page A-1078
        Page A-1079
        Page A-1080
        Page A-1081
        Page A-1082
        Page A-1083
        Page A-1084
        Page A-1085
        Page A-1086
        Page A-1087
        Page A-1088
        Page A-1089
        Page A-1090
        Page A-1091
        Page A-1092
        Page A-1093
        Page A-1094
        Page A-1095
Full Text






Gazette Notices
East Caribbean Currency Authority: Statement of
Assets and Liabilities at close of Business
on Thursday 30th June, 1966...................... 810
Executorial: Helen Bruce Mitchell..................... 809
Notice re the intention of St. Matthias Church Council
to introduce a bill into the Legislature asking
permission to sell a parcel of land at St. Matthias 811
Promotions: K. Murphy Assistant Superintendent,
Police Department to be Superintendent.......... 809
E. Goddard, Inspector, Police Department, to be
Assistant Superintendent....... .................. 809
Returns of Rainfall for 5th and 12th June, 1966..... 811, 812
liouse of Assembly Debates for 19th October, 1965.

Legal Supplement
(L.N. 97) Export Industry (Punched Cards for use in tabulating
machines and electronic computers) Order, 1966.



K. Murphy, Assistant Superintendent
Police Department, to be Superintendent;

E. Goddard, Inspector, Police Depart-
ment, to be Assistant Superintendent of Police,
with effect from 1st April, 1966.

(M. P. 3657/19; 3657/17)

NOTICE NO. 534 (third publication)
Re the Estate of

sons having any debts or claims upon or af-
fecting the estate of Helen Bruce Mitchell,
late of Worthing View, Christ Church in this
Island, who died in this Island on the 23rd day
of August, 1964, are hereby requested to send
in particulars of their claims duly attested to
the undersigned C/o Cottle, Catford & Co.,
of No. 17, High Street, Bridgetown, on or be-
fore the 15th day of September, 1966, after
which date I shall proceed to distribute the
assets among the parties entitled thereto hav-
ing regard to the debts and claims of which I
shall then have had notice, and I shall not be
liable for the assets so distributed to any
person of which debtor claim I shall not have
had notice at the time of such distribution, and
allpersons indebted to the saidestate are re-
quested to settle their accounts without delay.
Dated the 27th day of June, 1966.

Executor of the Will of Helen Bruce Mitchell,


NO. 61

a e








4) >




o ~



a c




P 0

a 0

U 4

u c

0 -


August 1, 1966


0 5








-3 0

0 U

U )



A t 1 1966



0 '0

Central Station .. .. .07 .09 .09 .02 .05 .32
District "A" Station .. .. .12 .21 .52 .85
"B" Station .. .. .13 .43 .24 .24 .08 .30 1.42
"C" Station .. .50 .44 .14 .05 1.13
District "D" Station .. .20 .28 .33 .60 .04 .05 1.50
"E" Station .. .. .30 .23 .05 .21 .04 .83
Crab Hill Station .. .. .06 .04 .03 .51 .02 .03 .69
District "F" Station .. .. .10 .19 .47 .02 .07 .03 .88
Belleplaine Station .. .. .07 .01 .03 .59 .55 .07 1.32
Holetown Station .. .. .12 .20 .28 1.15 .05 .04 1.84

AVERAGE .. .08 .12 .21 .41 .05 .15 .06 1.08

Police Headquarters,
Bridgetown, G. C. SPRINGER
Dated 8th June, 1966 For Commissioner of Police.



intention of the Saint Matthias Church Council
to cause to be introducedinto the Legislature
of this Island a Bill to vest in fee simple in
the Bishop of Barbados and Rector of the par-
ish of Christ Church "ALL THAT certain
piece or parcel of land situate at Saint Mat-
thias Road in the parish of Christ Church and
Island of Barbados containing by admeasure-
ment Eight thousand eight hundred and four
squarefeet be the same more or less BUTT-
ING AND BOUNDING on lands of M. A. Hunte,
on lands of G. H. Clarke, on Saint Matthias
Road, onlands of C. N. Atwell, onlands of one
Ashby andon a roadpartly Fourteenfeet wide

andpartly Ten feet wide over which there are
rights of way to Fourth Avenue, Harts Gap,
and also to Saint Matthias Road and however
else the same may butt and bound" (being the
premises commonly known as "the Poor
House") and to authorize the said Bishop and
Rector to sell the said property and to invest
the proceeds of sale remaining after payment
of all proper expenses in the joint names of
the said Bishop and Rector and to apply the
same or the income thereof for the benefit of
the poor of the District of Saint Matthias in
the said parish of Christ Church.

Dated this 25th day of July, 1966.

Solicitors for the Petitioner.



0 h H H

Central Station .. .. .02 1.20 .53 .02 .24 .10 2.11
District "A" Station .. .. .06 .55 .03 .83 .08 .02 1.57
'"B" Station .. .. .39 1.05 .01 1.06 .28 .17 .03 2.99
C" Station .. .. .48 .55 .03 1.00 .52 .09 .05 2.72
Four Roads Station
District 'D" Station .. .. .40 .82 .28 1.00 .05 .48 ,13 3.16
"E" Station .. .. .10 .79 .29 .77 .12 .80 .45 3.32
Crab Hill Station .. .. .10 .33 .13 .58 .37 .50 .04 2.05
District "F" Station .. .. .90 1.08 .34 .88 .46 .33 .02 4.01
Belleplaine Station .. .. .26 .88 .56 .84 .40 .59 .18 3.71
Holetown Station .. .. .61 1.51 .49 .45 .14 .33 .22 3.75

AVERAGE .. .33 .88 .22 .79 .24 .36 .12 2.94

Police Headquarters,
Dated 18th June, 1966


For Commissioner of Police.

Government Frinting Office.


,August 1, 1966


House of Assembly Debates




Tuesday, 19th October, 19C5

Pursuant to the adjournment, the House of Assembly
met at 2.30 p.m. o'clock today.

His Honour J. E. T. BRANCKER, Q.C., (Speaker);
Mr. L. E. SMITH, J.P.; Mr. E. D. MOTTLEY, C.B.E.;
(Leader of the Opposition); Mr. F. C. GODDARD; Hon.
C. E. TALMA, (Minister of Health, Housing, Local Govern-
ment and Community Development); Hon. J. C. TUDOR,
M.A., (Minister of Education) Mr. J. W. CORBIN: Hon.
G. G. FERGUSSON, (Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries);
Mr. W. R. LOWE: His Honour E. L. CARMICHAEL, J.P.,
(Deputy Speaker); Mr. L. A. LYNCH, J.P.; Mr. C. V.
BATSON, (Chairman of Committees); Hon. N. W. BOXILL,
(Minister of Communications and Works); and Mr. J. B.
Prayers were read.

Mr. SPEAKER: I apologise to the House. I am awaiting
my file in quest of which, in the absence of the Clerk, the
Deputy Clerk has gone.
Hon. J. C. TUDOR: Mr. Speaker, if I may have your
permission, I would like to find out from hon. members on
the Other Side whether they wish to do Private Members'
Mr. SPEAKER: The Hon. Leader of the House wants
to find out from hon. members of the Opposition side
whether they are desirous of doing Private Business. I
think it was last Tuesday that the hon. member intimated
that hon. members on the Opposition side would be given
the opportunity to do their business.

Mr. SMITH: Sr, I am very glad that the Hon. Leader
of the House raised this matter. Now, I do not have anything
on the Order Paper under Private Member's Business.
What little I had, according to the Standing Orders has been
already cut off only because we are always accommodating
Government Business and forgetting ours; forgetting that
the time is going to come when ours are going to be struck
off the Order Paper if it is not dealt with in time.

It was my intention to raise this matter for hon. mem-
bers who have anything on the Order Paper. It is not fair
that the Government should come inside here, meeting after
meeting, and move the suspension of the Rules, pushing
Private Members' Business back until the time comes for
you to strike them off. I hope it will not happen again during

this Session and I hope the hon. Minister will always ask if
Private Members want to do their private business.

Hon. J. C. TUDOR: I am sorry that the hon. member has
upset himself, but on all occasions that I have led theHouse,
and certainly now, I treat the House with the utmost cour-
tesy, and hon. members have nothing to regret, as far as I
am concerned. Therefore, there is no reason for the hon.
member to fret himself. On the last occasion, I was grateful
to hon. members on the Other Side for giving up their
time, and I told them that if theywish to use their time to-
day, we certainly would accommodate them. It is because
of that that I am now acting in accordance with the under-
taking which I gave.

Mr. SPEAKER: I take it that hon. members of the Op-
position have no opposition to the suspension of Standing
Orders today in order that Government Business may oc-
cupy the entire sitting. I see that there is no objection to
giving up Private Members time and, in fact, there is no
matter standing under the name of the hon. Junior member
for St. Jospeh.


Mr. SPEAKER: I have the honour to inform the House
that the Minutes of the 12th October, 1965, have been cir-
culated amongst hon. members and if there is no objection,
they will be confirmed. (A pause.)

There being no objection, I declare the Minutes of the
meeting of the 12th October, to be duly confirmed.


Hon. J. C. TUDOR: On behalf of the Hon. and Learned
Premier and Minister of Finance, I am commanded to
lay Statement showing Net Customs and Excise Receipts
for six months ended 30th September, 1965.


Hon. J. C. TUDOR: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Hon.
and Learned Premier and Minister of Finance, I beg to give
notice of the following:-

Resolution to approve the Order entitled "The Univer-
sity of the West Indies (Exemption from Betterment
Charge) Order, 1965."

Resolution to approve the Order entitled "The Urban
Development Corporation (Exemption from Betterment
Charge) Order, 1965."

Resolution to approve the Order entitled "The Special
Development Area (Cave Hill) Order, 1965."


Resolution to approve the Order entitled "The Devel-
opment Duty (Capital Gain) (Cave Hill) Order, 1965".

Resolution to approve the Order entitled "The Better-
ment Charge (Cave Hill) Order, 1965."
Resolution to place the sum of $34,715.509 at the dis-
posal of the Government to supplement the Estimates
1965-66, No. 22 which forms the Schedule to theReso-
Resolution to place the sum of $7,150 at the disposal
of the Government to supplement the Estimates
1965-66, Part I Current as shown in the Supplementary
Estimate 1965-66, No. 23 which forms the Schedule to
the Resolution.

Hon. J. C. TUDOR: In respect of the last Resolution of
which notice has just been given, I am going to ask hon.
members to indulge us by allowing us to proceed with this
Resolution in all its stages today.
2.55 p.m.

Hon. members will be circulated with copies of it
some time from now. It is only after hon. member have
studied the Resolution that we will be proceeding with it.
I therefore beg formally to give notice of my intentions to
proceed with this Resolution for $7,150.00 in allof its stages
today. With respect to the other Resolution for $34,715.50,
I beg to give notice of my intention to move the House into
Committee of Supply at its next sitting in order to deal with
that Money Resolution.

Hon. N. W. BOXILL: Mr. Speaker, Ibegto give notice
of a Resolution to approve the guarantee by the Government
of the sum of $600,000 to be borrowed by the Transport
Board for the purpose of meeting their obligations and dis-
charging their functions under section 15 of the Transport
Board Act 1955.


Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Junior member for St. Joseph;
his question relative to grazing facilities.

Mr. SMITH: Mr. Speaker,

To enquire of the appropriate Minister:-

Is the Minister aware that when, under the law relating
to soil Conservation, certain areas in the parish of St.
Andrew are proclaimed prohibited areas, many poor peo-
ple who raise livestock as a principal means of livelihood,
are forced to sell their animals before they wish to because
of the new loss of grazing facilities in the same areas?

Will the Minister consider advising Government to pro-
vide some sort of financial compensation for these people
handicapped by prohibited areas?

Mr. SPEAKER: The honourable and learned senior
member for St. James; his Question relative to Typists.

Mr. CARMICHAEL: Mr. Speaker,

To enquire of the appropriate Minister:-

Is the Minister aware that provision is made for only
four typists to the eleven Magistrates' Courts of this Island?

2. That at present no typist is assigned to anyone of the
three Magistrates' Courts of District "D", "F" (Bissex
Hill) and Belleplaine?

3. That the absence of typists in these Courts impose a
hardship on the general public and unnecessary inconve-
nience to legal practitioners.

4. That the inadequate number of typists for the Courts
causes much difficulty in the processing of work?

5. Will the Minister see to it that a sufficient number of
typists be provided without further delay for these Courts?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. senior member for St. Thomas
his Question re Nurses' Uniforms.

Mr. BATSON: Mr. Speaker,

To enquire of the appropriate Minister:

Is Government aware that the uniforms now worn by
Nurses at the various Government Institutions are not the
type best suited to the dignity of the professions?

2. Is the Minister also aware that the Blue uniforms
with aprons, laced shoes and black stockings keep the
Nurses very warm while on duty?

3. Is the Minister also aware that the present uni-
form prevents the Nurses while on duty from working in
comfort and deprive them of giving of their best?

4. Will the Minister also review the conditions of
working with a view to inducing many qualified Barbadian
Nurses who are in the United Kingdom to return home to
give of their experience?

5. If the answer to the above are in the affirmative:

Will the Minister explore the possibility of going into
the matter, with a view of adding colour and fashion to the
Nursing profession by changing the said uniform for a mo-
dern type of uniform probably all white?


Hon. J. C. TUDOR: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move that
Standing Orders 5, 14, 16, 18, 40 and 45 be suspended for
the remainder of this day's sitting.

Hon. C. E. TALMA: I beg to second that.

The question was put and resolved in the affirmative
without division.


Hon. J. C. TUDOR: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move that
Government Business be now taken.

Hon. C. E. TALMA: I beg to second that.
The question was put and resolved in the affirmative
without division.


Mr. SPEAKER: The first Order of the Day under Gov-
ernment Business stands in the name of theHon, Leader of
the House, the Hon. Minister of Education:- To move the
House into Committee of Supply to consider the grants of
sums of money for the service of the Island.

Hon. J. C. TUDOR: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move that
Your Honour do now leave the Chair and the House go into
Committee of Supply, and that it be an instruction of the
House when in Committee to deal with the Resolution for
$7,150 of which notice was given at today's sitting.

Hon. C. TALMA: I beg to second that,

The question was put and resolved in the affirmative
without division.

Mr. SPEAKER left the Chair and the House went into
Committee of Supply, Mr. BATSON in the Chair.

3.05 p.m.



Head 1 Governor was called.

Hon. J. C. TUDOR: Mr. Chairman, I beg to move that
the sum of $2,306 be voted under Head 1, Item 19- Fur-
niture and Fittings.

The explanatory note indicates that in 1966 there are
going to be visits from members of the Royal Family and
other distinguished persons, and it is therefore necessary
that since these visits are going to be of more than one
day's duration, we should carry out certain structural re-
pairs and improvements to GovernmentHouse, particularly
with respect to furniture and fittings. To carry out this,
Supplementary provision to the order of $2,306 is required,
and I now beg to move that Head 1 -- Governor, stand part.

Hon. C. E. TALMA: I beg to second that.

The question was put and resolved in the affirmative
without division.

Head 5 Judiciary was called.

Hon. J. C. TUDOR. Mr. Chairman, Under Item 18 -
Fees to Counsel Assigned in Capital Cases, representations
have been made to the Ministry of Finance and the Ministry
of Home Affairs on this matter, and in consequence of these
representations the Cabinet has upgraded the Fees which
are paid to barristers assigned to defend persons accused
of capital offences. The number of cases in which it has
been found necessary to assign barristers to this particular
form of work has of course increased in the last year or
so to a figure above that which was contemplated when the
Estimates for the current year were drawn up. In order
therefore that funds may be made available to the end of the
present financial year to employ such barristers as may
be required to defend people who cannot afford to pay for
their own defence, it is necessary to seek supplementary
provision of the estimated expenditure for the rest of this
financial year.

I beg to move that Head 5 Judiciary stand part.

Hon. C. E. TALMA: I beg to second that.

Mr. MOTTLEY: I hope I am not feeling out the hon.
Leader of the House, but since we are voting this extra
amount, I should like to know what is the basis on which
these fees have been made. I believe the hon. member can
tell us that because he would know that to arrive at the
amount he needs here.

Hon. J. C. TUDOR: If the hon. member would give me
a little time, I will find the information for him.

Mr. CARMICHAEL: Mr. Chairman, I am very happy
to speak in favour of this Resolution, as wherever British
justice is being exercised, it is necessary that a person
accused of murder should be represented. In the past it
was regarded as an honour by junior counsel to be called
on by the Chief Justice to defend one charged with murder.
Today it is not so regarded by junior counsel to be an hon-
our. Litigation has increased, and the work of a barrister
is more varied, and because of that, not long ago even
junior barristers transcended the traditional practice and
are known to have refused when called on to defend one
charged with murder, and it is therefore necessary that
more provision should be made, rather than give an hon-
orarium of 10. It was regarded as unjust for a junior
barrister to be called on to defend one charged with mur-
der, because when a man charged with murder has to be
defended by one given by the Crown, it means that he or
she is absolutely without any help, and often the cases are
such that would take a senior barrister. I think that the
Hen. Leader of the House may soon be able to tell the hon.
senior member for Bridgetown the scale of fees, but as
far as I remember, it is in theneighbourhod of 50. I do
not want to answer if the Hon. Minister has the facts, but

the fees are very much different from what they were be-
fore. I do not want hon. members to believe that what is
being paid now to Junior barristers or even to senior bar-
risters can be regarded in any way as adequate for them
to defend one charged with murder.
Mr. CHAIRMAN: The question is

Mr. MOTTLEY: Mr. Chairman, I asked the Minister
a polite question and he said he would give me an answer
if I gave him a chance.

Hon. J. C. TUDOR: Mr. Chairman, this whole matter
arises, so far as I can see, from a Resolution passed at
a meeting of the Bar Association on the 12th March, 1965,
and the Resolution was forwarded to the acting Chief Jus-
tice with a request that he place the matter before the Gov-
ernment. The Resolution said that a voluntary roster of
barristers in order of seniority should be set up from which
the Chief Justice should select Counsel to take the defence
of capital cases, and that such Counsel should be paid a
minimum of $500 plus $5 a day refresher after the third
day in Court.
3.15 p.m.

This matter went of course to all the people whose
opinions we thought it would be worthwhile to have and,
eventually, the Cabinet decided on grounds which wethought
were reasonable, that the fee payable to Counsel in a
capital case should be fixed at $252 and that a refresher
of $25.20 should be payable on the fourth day of any such
trial, and the total amount payable in respect of any one
case should be $504.

That probably does not meet the original request, but
it is much in excess of what has beenthepractice up to now,
and we are certain that it would go a long way to enable
poor people charged with murder to have the best defence
availbale to them, although I do not say that those who found
themselves in that position did not have the best defence
available; but certainly the idea of a refresher after the
fourth day is to make Defence Counsel more alert and lively.
We are saying that this will enable Defence Counsel not to
weary in their defence. Those are the facts. Because of this
and because of the number of cases which we may have
between now and the end of the financial year, this supple-
mentary vote of $1,520 is being sought.

Mr. MOTTLEY: I thank the Hon. Minister for this in-

The question that Head 5 JUDICIARY stand part
was put and resolved in the affirmative without division.

Head 17 Premier Home Affairs, was called.
Hon. J. C. TUDOR: In respect of Head 17 Premier -
Home Affairs, Item 31 (New) Special Refund, this item
represents one curious case. We are asking for $132 to
pay a Mr. Banfield who is the legal personal representa-
tive to the estate of the late Thomas McDonald Thorne who
died on the 30th June, 1962, in the surgery of a private
practitioner and the sum of $131.21 was found by the Police
on his person. In accordance with the law which regulates
this procedure, this money was paid to the Accountant Gen-
eral to the credit of the Police Reward Fund in accordance
with the Police Act of 1961.

There is no law which makes provision for the paying
out in this matter of this money from the fund, so that in
order to allow Mr. Banfield, who is the personal represen-
tative of the deceased, to get this money, we have to take
it out of the General Revenue because the Police Act makes
no provision to withdraw the money from the Police Re-
ward Fund in circumstances like that.
I think I can tell the House that as a result of consider-
ation given to this case, the Cabinet has it in mind that a
more smooth procedure in accordance with the law should
be discovered; otherwise, until the law is altered, money


in this respect will go into the Police Reward Fund and
can only be paid out by a Resolution from this House.

I beg to move that Head 17 stand part.

Hon. C. E. TALMA: I beg to second that.

The question was put and resolved in the affirmative
without division.


Head 24 Premier Cabinet and General, was called.

Hon. J. C. TUDOR: Mr. Chairman, under Item 17 --
Government Hospitality the sum of $12,000 is being
sought. From the occasions upon which it has been neces-
sary for Government Hospitality, the sum has increased
not only in the numbers and varieties of occasions, but it
has increased as well in the wide range of persons; and in
the light of the expenditure in the first half of the financial
year, it is considered that the vote should be supplemented
by $12,000.
I will say that I do not want hon. members to feel that
this is anything other than a straightforward proposition
because the expenditure in connection with the Queen's pro-
posed visit is nothing at all to do with it. Apart from the
activities already gone into this financial year, so far as I
think, the House ought to know that this Island expects to
receive possibly two distinguished Heads of State next year.
I mean two foreign Heads of State-and most certainly one.
We have to make provisions for this besides the other ne-
cessities for the balance of the financial year. Apart from
this, there is a tremendous amount of activities going on
in Government now. There are a lot of visitors coming
to the Island people who were asked from time to time
to assist this Government by giving their advice. There
are also people who come to us who want to see what goes
on in this Island, and because there is sufficient evidence
of their distinction, we entertain them. For all these
reasons, which are quite genuine, it is necessary that we
ask for this supplementary provision.

I beg to move that Head 24, stand part.

Hon. C. E. TALMA: I beg to second that.

Mr. MOTTLEY: Mr. Chairman, I would be the last
person to oppose the voting of money to entertain Heads
of State of various nations who may come here. I myself
feel that such Heads of State although the Hon. Minister
has not mentioned who they are, are people for whom we
should give a special vote from this House.

As I take it, Sir, this vote was $12,000 and it was sup-
plemented by $8,000 earlier this year and now it is to be
supplemented by $12,000. That would make it $32,000.

It is stated in the Note to the Item: "The occasions
on which it is necessary for the Government to offer hos-
pitality have increase and in several cases it has been ne-
cessary for the Government to entertain large numbers
of persons."

This has been always so in my view, since we have a
responsible Government. The note goes on to state: "In
the light of the expenditure during the first half of the fi-
nancial year it is considered that the vote should be supple-
mented by $12,000."

Am I to understand that in the first half of the finan-
cial year we have expended $18,000?
3.25 p.m.

The note says this: "In the light of the expenditure
during the first half of the financial year, it is considered
that the vote should be supplemented by $12,000." During
the first half of the year you would have expended $17,000
and that would have been done without the approval of the

Legislature. I do not know if that is so or not, but it does
look so to me from my own calculations. Having set out
here that for the first half of the year you have spent
$17,000, which would be up to the end of September, I
would like to have some information. It is true that you
have your Parliamentary Secretaries now, which would be
the only increase in expenditure as far as Government
members are concerned. I should like to know why it is
that you have this tremendous increase. The members of
the Peace Corps must be entertained, somebody connected
with the Ministry of Agriculture must be entertained, and
similarly in the case of somebody who is connected with
the Ministry of Communications and Works or somebody
connected with Civil Avaiation. I would like to know on
what basis this entertainment is done. The hon. member
must tell us how this is being done. We cannot just sit
here and vote for this thing to go on in this way. The in-
crease from $12,000 to $20,000 is something which we
would have to ask about.

In the year before, in 1963, the vote was $12,000 and
this year it will be $32,000. You will remember, Sir, or
you will have read that during the regime of the last Gov-
ernment, I joined with members of this Government to
criticise the excessive expenditure on entertainment. I
would be the last person to say that when dignitaries other
than members of the Royal Family come here to Barbados,
we should be parsimonious by way of entertaining them.
I feel that we should entertain dignitaries in the proper
way; I refer to people who come from Asia, Africa and
places of that sort. I do not know whether that is included
in this Resolution or not; but when you have an increase of
$8,000 and now $12,000, that is something which leaves us
in doubt as to whether we should vote for this increase as
it stands today or not.

Mr. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, the last speaker said that
he would be the last person to criticise a vote of this sort.
Well, Sir, I do not mind if I am termed the first person to
criticise it. If we should read the explanatory note, this is
what it says:

"The occasions on which It is necessary for the Gov-
ernment to offer hospitality have increased, and in several
cases it has been necessary for the Government to enter-
tain large numbers of persons. In the light of the expendi-
ture during the first half of the financialyear it is consid-
ered that the vote should be supplemented by $12,000."

Sir, this note tells us that the Government was enter-
taining very heavily for the first part of the year and surely
the Hon. Minister should be in a position. (ASIDES) Mr.
Chairman, I cannot hear what Iam saying: there are mem-
bers here who are talking around the Table.

Mr. CHAIRMAN: I am appealing to hon. members to
allow me to hear the hon. member who is speaking.

Mr. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, Iwas saying that the Hon.
Minister should be in a position to give us a breakdown of
this money for the first half of the year, and let us know
what has already been spent. We are now entering the
seventh month of the financial year and if you have got so
far as to say that you want $12,000 to carry on, I would
think that this $20,000 has already been spent or very
nearly so. The Hon. Minister will be in a position to tell
us how much has been spent even for the first three months
of the year because they were spending heavily for the
first half of the year. It is of no use telling us that they
were spending heavily and now they are asking for $12,000
I am not against voting this money, but I want to know what
I am saying "Yes" to when I vote for this amount. It is
not good enough for us to be asked to vote this $12,000 and
we have only just voted in March or April the sum of
$20,000. If you are spending at that rate, I suppose that
by next January you will be asking us for another $24,000.

The hon. senior member for the City has said that he
would be the last person to criticise a vote of this sort.

Mr. MOTTLEY: On a point of order. Mr. Chairman, I
have never said that. I said that I would be the last person


to criticise a vote for the entertainment of Heads of State,
more especially those who are coming from Asia, Africa
and so on. I went further to say that such entertainment
should be brought down by a Special Resolution to this
House. That is what I said.

Mr. SMITH: I thought that the hon. member had said
that he would be the last person to critize a Resolution of
this sort. I can be termed the first person to do so be-
cause it is not good enough to ask us to agree to a money
Resolution and we have not got any breakdown of it, There
was a time when the present Government criticisedthe last
Government for spending too much money, even on allow-
ances to hon. members who were doing the business of this
country. We were criticised by hon. members who were
sitting around this Table and now we must say "Yes" to a
Resolution when we do not know what this money is being
spent on.
3.35 p.m.

The Government must have a Hospitality vote because
you cannot play a boy-in-the-yard when a person comes
among you. Even at my home Iwouldhave to buy a pint and
a half of rum instead of a nip when a friend is coming; so
what do you think of the Government? Yetyou should let us
know how much money you are spending. It is not good
enough and I hope the Minister will be able to satisfy us;
otherwise I would not be able to vote for this. He must tell
us how much was spent for the first three months, because
he must be in the happy position of knowing from what he
now wants.

Hon. J. C. TUDOR: Mr. Chairman, I think we have to
maintain a sense of proportion in these matters. Any Gov-
ernment, Mr. Chairman, provided it does so with the appro-
val of the House, sets aside in its budget a certain amount
of money for official entertainment. It bases its estimate
from year to year first on what has gone on in the preced-
ing year, and then by a reasonable assessment or evalua-
tion of what is likely to take place in the following year.
This can never be a hard and fast estimate, because there
are always contingencies which cannot be taken into account
and circumstances which are unforeseen. Now, Sir, $20,000
were put in the Estimates this year. Up to the middle of
September, $17,302 were committed and how did this happen?
This happened because in this year there were some extra-
ordinarily large expenditures in connection with Government
entertainment. Forinstance, I lookhereatrandomfor April
and see there was a party in honour of the Standing Advisory
Committee on Medical Research to the tune of something
like $1,100. Then in May, for instance, the Queen's Birth-
day Reception which of course, fell to the Government as
distinct from the Governor, $1,875. Then the party in hon-
our of the Australian and West Indian Cricket Teams and
local sports lovers a very big one $1,745.88; and in
that month of May when we not only had the Queen's Birth-
day Reception, and a party inhonourof the Cricket teams,
we had a Civil Servants Conference here, and there was a
party here in honour of the West Indian Civil Servants dele-
gates. In that month alone, the Government hospitality came
to something like $5,789. Again in July, accommodation and
transportation of the United States Thunderbird Jet Team,
a team which paid visit to the island, and that cost $1,975,
and then in August several big parties in honour of volun-
tary associations -- Mental Health Association people, visi-
tors to my own Ministry, party in honour of the Inter- Gov-
ernmental Conference of the Regional Shipping, party in
honour of the Caribbean Cane Farmers Association -- all
these were three big occasions, and the amount for August
was something like $4,197.

Now it would be unfair for me to pretend, Mr. Chair-
man, that for October, November, December, January,
February or March we would in each case have to offer
entertainment on this scale, but it has happened in this year
that apart from the normal things like small luncheon par-
ties or small cocktail parties which would well have been
taken care of with the money voted, we have at least eight
big occasions on which the entertainment itself cost nearly
$2,000 each. I was not hiding anything from hon. members;

I was very straightforward: but when you have the Queen's
Birthday Party Reception, the Cricket team reception, the
West Indian Cvil Servants Conference, the Cane Farmers
Shipping Conference and things of that magnitude in any one
year, you cannot expect to spend less than $2,000 on each,
and this is entertainment which we have to offer. As I told
the Committee, there is nothing we have to hide; those are
the facts.

Mr. MOTTLEY: Mr. Chairman, I am wondering if the
hon. member made a mistake or if he would like to correct
what he said. He said that the entertainment at Government
House for the Queen's Birthday Party was paid out of the
Entertainment Allowance of the Government. I do not think
he would willfully mislead the House, but I would like to
ask him, if that is so, what is the Governor's duty allowance
for. As far as I know, the entertainment for the Queen's
Birthday at Government House has always been paid for
from that allowance. If the hon. member would look at Head
1, Item 2, he would see that there is a Duty Allowance
which pays for all the whiskey, rum, cigarettes and so on
used at Government House in these circumstances, and I
have reason to believe that there was no exception this year
that the Government paid for. When the Governor invites
you to a party, that is the Governor's Party; but when the
Minister of Education or the Minister of Health requests
you to attend a party, we have voted money to pay for that;
so I want to know how this $1,800 was paid out of this Head.
This is rather strange and this is the first time we are
hearing this. I realize that under the circumstances things
must increase, Mr. Chairman, but in 1964-65 you voted
$12,000 and you went up by $8,000 in 1965-66. Now you
want to increase $12,000 again. Something must have gone
wrong. I am not going to be extravagant and say we do not
expect to have this entertainment. I believe you should have
it, hut to go up in one year by $8,000 and before the end of
that year to come for another $12,000 is extraordinary. We
cannot sit here and allow a thing like that to go on.
3.45 p.m.

To tell us that an invitation by the Governor of Barba-
dos not by the Government of Barbados to a party in
respect of Her Majesty's Birthday is not paid for out of
Duty Allowance but is paid for out of the Government's
Entertainment Allowance, I don't know how to take it. The
Hon. Minister knows well enough that his Ministry sends out
invitation cards as well as the Ministry of Agriculture and
the other Ministries. The invitation cards state: "The Gov-
ernment invites you to so-and-so." Therefore, I think It
needs a lot more explanation before we can support it.

Mr. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, before the Hon. Minister
replies, I just want to say that this is not the first year that
we celebrated the Queen's Birthday. This is celebrated
annually; therefore, you need not try to make this Chamber
believe that this is done for the first time this year. If
$12,000 was spent last year, and the Government came
and ask to make it $20,000 increasing it by $8,000 and it is
now coming for $12,000 more, something ismore thanwrong i
and we would be only idiots to sit and vote for this. You
asked for $8,000 to bring it to $20,000, and now you are
asking for $12,000 more andyou bring In the Queen's Birth-
day as a reason when the Queen's Birthday was celebrated
before Iwas born. I sayif thisis so, then we have to take
off our hats to the last Government because they never
spent money from this vote like this.

The Hon. Minister of Communications has just made a
sotto voce remark. He is blue vexed because we are talking
about the taxpayers' money, and he is getting very little out
of it because only yesterday he was made a Pope. We can-
not vote for this amount until the Hon. Minister satisfies us.

Mr. WALCOTT: Mr. Chairman, I was not here early,
but fromwhat I heard the Hon. Leader of the Opposition say
and the hon. Junior member for St. Joseph more so, the
Hon. Leader of the Opposition because the hon. Junior mem-
ber for St. Joseph is only looking for an opportunity where
he can sing a chorus and, more so, when he Is joining In a
chorus with the Hon. Leader of the Opposition I do not


entertain what he has said on this matter. Of course, the
Hon. Leader of the Opposition gets on with these things
when it suits him.

The hon. Junior member for St. Joseph said it looks
funny. I would say that there were occasions in the past
when people found themselves making these unnecessary
criticisms. These are not past days when there were or-
dinary members of the Government. These are days of a
Cabinet system of Government: and if Government under-
takes responsibility of entertaining, then the method of
entertaining is not the question in point. The question in
point is if you know that the money has not been spent on
public entertainment but it is utilised for other purposes
by Government. If you know that that is so, you should say
so; do not say that something must be funny.

I have said already on many occasions in here that it
depends on what type of entertainment the Government
wants to undertake and is going to pay for. Do not talk about
the Governor's Duty Allowance. Is anyone going to suggest
that the Head of the Administration is going to keep the Duty
Allowance and bank the money? Or, are you going to suggest
that he is not spending the Duty Allowance, or that he is
asking you for more money than he is spending? If you feel
that it is corruption and the Government is not spending
what it is spending, then it should be a vote of "No Confi-
dence" in the Golernment. Therefore, do not say that it
looks funny.
In Barbados, we have to get over this cheap sphere of
politics. If you have to entertain people, you lust have to
entertain them. Feel those kind of days are over so far as
this kind of debate is concerned. You are spending $12,000.
If you want to know how the money is being spent, say so;
but do not say that it looks funny. The Government is there
to give an explanation. You do not have to say in here that it
looks funny.Members of the House of Assembly should not
say so because we are in a position to say that we want an
explanation. We do not have to talk as if we are not mem-
bers of the Chamber. We have already agreed to the prin-
iple that the Government should entertain and we do not
pass a Resolution on the basis that 'thou shalt not spend
any more.'

Sir, I do not like this idea of your saying, something
looks funny. That is a political gimmick as if you are in
St. Joseph holding a mass meeting. It Is time politicians
in Barbados stop these innuendoes that all they are saying
to each other is that each of them is a dishonest person,
thus seeping into the whole of the community that the whole
bunch of politicians are dishonest. You are talking as if
somebody is dishonest and everybody is doing it. The hon.
member by innuendo is saying it looks funny. That is the
sort of thing you are seeping into the community and it is
going to backfire; and when it backfires, people do not like

I have been in here for a long time and I would charge
the Government for anything if there is cause for it; but hon.
members know that I have been very scrupulous even with
my political opponents. I am the lastperson to accuse any-
body by innuendo. If you do something which I do not like,
I say so and I am not afraid to say it.

As regards this vote of $12,000, how much does that
amount mean in terms of public entertainment? A cocktail
party costs you $2 or $3 per head. Members can make
their own calculation. If a cocktail party costs you at the
rate of $4 per person, see how many persons you can in-
vite from that amount Sometimes instead of a cocktail
party, you have a luncheon or a dinner party,
3.55 p.m.

Some Ministers have luncheon for people because it is
not suitable to have a cocktail party on each occasion. If
they are going to have a lunch, where do you want them to
carry people for lunch? At "Ermie" in Nelson Street or
do you want them to go down to Baxter's Road or King
Street and callforbread andfish with the frying pan with the
steam coming into your face? What kind of entertainment do
you expect to have? If you are thinking in dignity of enter-
tainment, then you must think in terms of that. I have at-

tended cocktail parties held at private people's homes, at
"Miramar" and so on, and we know what they cost. I feel
that when you add up and multiply it, the cost is not so
great as what you think. This is a matter of $12,000, but
for whom and on how many occasions? Take this question
of the vote for the Queen. There was an occasion when the
Birthday vote for the Queen was increased, and it was ex-
plained why it was increased and therefore what we have
here is nothing new. What I find is this; at this time it
looks to me as if hon. members are looking for arguments
that have already been passed. You pass a Resolution for
something at Government House and the Governor paid for
that at Government House. This is not the first occasion on
which this sort of thing has happened, and now you are
raising something as if you are breaking new ground. Mr.
Chairman, I really cannot subscribe to this sort of thing.
The Government Hospitality vote will always be subjected to
treatment like this. You are dependent on the circumstances
unless you are saying that you will not have any more en-
tertainment after you have passed a certain amount, and you
will ask the House if they are going to allow you to entertain
any more.

Mr. CRAWFORD and Mr. MOTTLEY rose to speak.

Mr. CHAIRMAN: The hon. senior member for St. Philip
caught my eye first.

Mr. CRAW FORD: Mr. Chairman, may I begin by saying
that everything has to be related. I am sure that the hon.
senior member for St. Peter did not mean to insinuate that
when the Government spent $12,000 a year on a hospitality
vote, the entertainment should be held in Nelson Street or
that they should entertain people with fish fried at some
place in Nelson Street. Last year we voted $12,000 for
Government Hospitality and this year it is $20,000 more.
Even the hon. senior member for St. Peter must agree that
in the context of what we can afford to spend on hospitality,
the sum of $20,000 is too much. There is no question about
that at all. There must be extravagance somewhere. I can
speak with experience of our expenditure on hospitality in
relation to people coming here. From time to time there is a
big entertainment to be put on and, occasionally, a Minister
has an individual guest or a small number of guests whom
he has to take to lunch or dinner. Invariably he goes to some
hotel. Some Ministers like to go to their own homes. I have
done It myself; but it is not that the lists of entertainments
referred to as having taken place this year is immeasurably
greater than thosewhich tookplace lastyear, ortheyear
before or even three years ago. In any given year you will
find things like intercolonial people coming in or trade
missions or members of the Royal Family visiting here or
something like that taking place. The question is whether
the jump from $12,000 to $20,000 is warrantable. If you are
in straitened circumstances, you have to watch your hospit-
ality vote. Naturally, as a countrygets more into recogni-
tion in the eyes of the world and people come to our shores,
more entertaining will be done and that is why we jump
the vote from $12,000 to $20,000, If In the ordinary course
of events the vote went to $25,000 we can cover it, but
not to treble the vote in six months. I am moving that
this amount be reduced by $6,000 and all hon. members
who feel like supporting it can do so, and those
who do not feel like supporting it, that is a matter for them.
who do not feel like supporting it, that is a matter for them.
I am sure that no member of the Government Bench can
justify, up to now, the claim that another $20,000 will be re-
quired this year. I cast my eyes back at what has happened
so far and I cannot, for the life of me, think of our having
already spent funds on events which will necessitate such
an abnormal increase in the vote. I mean not even over and
above any major events which have transpired last year or
the year before.

If the hon. senior member for St. Peter had found him-
self today not supporting the Government, you would have
heard his voice in here for the next six hours, not accusing
any hon. member of corruption but of a wanton and wilful
waste of public funds and not keeping any proper account on
the Public Treasury of this island. Naturally, if people
know that they are not going to be subjected to the scrutiny
of Parliament or because their actions purely because of


public entertainment or games could be carried on ad lib,
there may be the inducement to extravagance. But I do not
suggest for a moment that the only way in which you can
discharge your responsibility for entertaining is by spend-
ing larger and larger sums of money all the time. When
there are special occasions for expenditure under this vote
in this direction, special provision is made for it. For in-
stance, we may I say this advisedly have to entertain
Royalty next year and that is, as hon. members are aware,
the subject of special provision for the purpose of defraying
the expenses Involved.
4.05 p.m.

We already have additionally provided for other expen-
ses at Culloden Farm; this is also being done extra. In my
Own Ministry, for instance, I am sure that I spent less this
year in entertainment than I spent last year. I speak sub-
ject to correction, but I am almost sure I did. I cannot re-
call now any extraordinary occasion which involved more
expenditure this year than last year. The biggest party I
have ever had was when the Australian Trade Mission came
here about three months ago; btt all the items in connection
with the Educational officials or something like that coming
in, my Permanent Secretarywould say, "Well, Mr. Minister
we have some money to arrange a dinner", and I would tell
him to go.ahead and make the arrangements, and he would
tell me the place and the hour. We are only six months in
the current financial year, Mr. Chairman, and I submit
that if after nine months in the current year the Government
sees justifiably that the vote of $20,000 or $26,000 is
going to be overspent, they can come to the Legislature with
a reasonable statement and presentation showing the manner
in which this money had been spent, and having justified
every member of this Chamber, they would move the
expenditure. But I would suggest that in view of the extra-
ordinary rise from $12,000, to ask for an additional
$12,000 today is to demonstrate an utter disregard of what
we can afford in terms such as this, and is certain to create
the impression that in the realm of Government hospitality,
there is no limit to what the country can afford.

Three or four years ago, Mr. Chairman, the amount
was not even half of what this Resolution calls for today.
Let us concede that with the advance of internal self-Gov-
ernment, with the more rapid interchange of officials be-
tween this Island and other territories in the area or even
persons from further abroad it might involve additional
expenditure; yet still I do want to say that to ask us to jump
from $12,00 to $32,000 in one year is an example of an
unprecedented rise in expenditure. If we were to duplicate
this in other avenues of Government expenditure, the coun-
try would soon be bankrupt, and therefore I say to the Gov-
ernment let us have a sense of proportion. Let us continue
our entertainment with dignity; do not let us go into Nelson
Street or anywhere else, but let us realize that the public
purse is not entirely inexhaustible.

Mr. MOTTLEY andMr. WAL COTT rose.

Mr. MOTTLEY: Mr. Chairman, this is the second time
I have risen to speak, and you have not looked in my direc-

Mr. WALCOTT: The Hon. Leader of the Opposition
must set a lead if he wants the debate to proceed with dig-
nity. There is nothing I want to say that cannot wait, be-
cause I have not lost my nerves yet. I too can lose my
equilibrium in battles like these.

Mr. MOTTLEY: Mr. Chairman, the hon. senior mem-
ber for St. Peter came in and admitted he did not hear every-
thing that was said, but he started off by accusing somebody
of intimating some dishonesty. I am sure the hon. Minister
would agree.............. ....

Mr. WALCOTT: On a point of order, I used words
precisely and do not have to take them back. I have not
accused anyone of dishonesty.

Mr. MOTTLEY: The hon. member accused members
of implying dishonesty. He further accuses me of implying

Mr. WALCOTT: On a point of order, If Iwanted to ac-
cuse the hon. member of anything, I would say it without
implication. I would say just what I mean. If the hon. mem-
ber wants me to repeat what I said, I said that it was stated
that something was funny in this, and I said that if someone
felt that something was wrong or corrupt about this, he
should say so, but not by innuendo, because there are too
many innuendoes in this country aboutpeople's dishonesty.

Mr. MOTTLEY: Politicians have been implying dishon-
esty to each other, but nobody has implied any dishonesty
in this respect in here at all. When I asked the Hon. Min-
ister for information, he told us the necessity for the
tremendous increase of $12,000. He read out that among
the entertainment which they had this year was that for the
Queen's Birthday Reception, but I drew to his attention that
we had passed in the Estimates $9,600 Duty allowance for
the Governor which, I understand, is used for entertain-
ment by the Governor, and is separate and distinct from
entertainment by the Government. You cannot tell me that
that money would have gone by May or June, because it
would have been after three months. Nobody implied any
improper or dishonest motives to anybody in this at all. But
what we do say is this: it does seem strange to methatthe
Government should be paying for the Queen's Birthday Re-
ception entertainment. I have never objected to the entertain-
ment which the Ministers have for dignitaries, because I do
not believe in being parsimonious in this matter. I am at a
loss, therefore, to understand how the Government can pay
for Her Majesty's Birthday Reception, and that is why we
feel that the increase seem to us very high at this stage.
The hon. member was not here, but he started to make
these suggestions, and I am glad that he has said that it is
time that politicians stop accusing others of dishonesty, be-
cause it seems to do absolutely no good to the general pub-
lic in Barbados. The suggestions of dishonesty have been
going on for a long time, and the hon. senior member for
St. Peter knows very well what politicians have suggested
about himself and about me.
4.15 p.m.

How the Governor was brought into this was because
of the fact that the Hon. Minister in reply to me that
one of the big Items would be the Government's expenditure
on the cocktail party for Her Majesty's Birthday. If you had
been in here long enough, you would find out that no Minis-
ter of Government is inviting you if the Governor is having
a party. I am not implying anything to the Governor. Nobody
is implying any improper motives to anybody in this matter,
but we think it so strange. That is what we said.

Mr. WALCOTT: Mr. Chairman, I was defending the
Government on this matter. I have been in the House long
enough and my memory is good enough and I am going to
remind the Hon. Leader of the Opposition of certain things
now. I believe it was the same hon. member who criticized
the idea that Government House parties were restricted
to a narrow class of people anddid not represent the com-
munity as it stood. When this Government took over the
Government House reception parties and I have not been
always there they brought a larger number of people to
Government House than ever in the History of the Island.
The point is that if you invited two hundred then, from two
hundred you went to 1,000. Previously, you had the long
Jacket people invited to Government House; now you have
the felt hat people. I have heard it said that the invitations
have gone from two hundred to five hundred.

I am surprised at the hen. senior member for St.
Philip who has not only been a recipient but a person who
has been permitting this. I do not know if today's speech by
him is his first since he has resigned from the Government.
If it is, Iam amazed to hearhis maiden speech as a member
of the Opposition. He is criticising the Government on this
matter when he said persistently that his Government is
spending the money as wisely and prudently as possible for
the years that it has been in office. Am I to understand that
in less than a month the Government has become a spend-
thrift and is not spending the money with due consideration?
It Is the same Government that he said that Is not only
spending money prudently and wisely, but It has remedied


the imbalance that existed before. Now, today, the hon.
member as part of the Opposition is chiding the Govern-
ment for a vote which he has already participated in.

Mr. CRAWFORD: I rise on a point of order. I am not
chiding the Government for any vote which I participated in.
The fact is that the vote which I participated in was increas-
ing it by $8,000. That is raising it from $12,000 to $20,000/
Now they are carrying it from $20,000 to $32,000.

Mr. WALCOTT: The hon. member has participated in
the Government's Hospitality vote already. The fact that
they needed more money and he agreed to it shows that he
has already participated in the original amount. Therefore,
what I said was that I am sorry that he is taking part in a
vote in which he has already participated. The hon. member
cannot come now and say that he has not participated in the
vote. It is really a very sad case that the hon. member is
criticising a vote in which he has already participated. It is
not a new item as one say, that we are going to buy a nuclear
reactor and the hon. member thinks that the Government has
no need for a nuclear reactor. But this is a vote in which he
has already participated because he collectively agreed in
raising the amount to $20,000. This is a vote in which he has
already participated.

Therefore, it is not a question of his absolving himself
because when he was a Minister, he had collective respon-
sibility. In effect, what he is saying today is that when he
was a Minister, they spent money badly on the Government
Hospitality vote because if they had not spent it badly, they
would have no need for this vote today. It is unfortunate that
the hon. senior member for St. Philip is attempting to have
a reduction on something which he has participated in orig-

Sir, you cannot help people commit crime and then
like Pilate, you wash your hands away. The hon. senior mem-
her for St. Philipwants towash his hands, Up to a week ago,
this money would have been brought down and he would not
have said one word against it; but in the changed circum-
stances, he criticised it.

Let us use a hypothetical case. This is not the first
vote which has exhausted the amount. It was explained in
this Chamber already that the Government House Hospital-
ity on the Queen's Birthday had exhausted because of the
fact of the large numbers of people who were invited to Gov-
ernment House; therefore, the Government decided that they
would supplement that vote. When the hon. senior member
for the City said that this was not the first time that they
had a cocktail party for people on the Queen's Birthday at
Government House, that is true; but itis the first time that
we have had invitations in such a large number. Why is it
that the hon. member is making a row now that you are
bringing in John Brown with the felt hat and before when you
brought the fancy people, there was no row? Is it because
the political character of the country has changed? When you
have a cocktail party, it is known that the larger the party,
the more expensive it will be. If the party at Government
House for Her Majesty's birthday is larger than it was be-
fore and is of a number which is indicative of what is taken
place in the nation today, then it would cost much more.
4.25 p.m.

That is why I said that the hon. senior member for St.
Philip has chosen the wrong debate inwhich to make his
maiden opposition speech. He should not have chosen a
money vote like this to make this speech. This is a money
vote on which the hon. member is speaking as if he were
in the Opposition for the last few years; but the hon. mem-
ber has been a member of the Government for the last three
years and this vote has been increased, It is not that you
would have agreed to spend this money; we do not say that.
It is a question of the figure; because you ask for $12,000 on
the $20,000, that looks as if it is a big amount. The question
which you have to ask is this: Are you satisfied that the
reasons which have been given warrant this expenditure?
This is a question of policy. What the hon. senior member
for St. Philip is saying is that the Government in which he
participated up to a month ago, the Government which he

defended, was a Government which worked in the interest of
this colony, and I can bring speech after speech in this re-
gard. My position is not any different from what it was in
this Assembly for the last ten years when I was a member
of no political party, but the hon. members position is dif-
ferent from mine. For the last three and a half years the
hon. member was saying not only that the Government has
been spending money carefully, but that itwas taking care
of every cent: but since he has left the Government he is now
saying that it spends money badly. I say that if the Govern-
ment is spending money badly, then the hon. member was
participating in that. They would only need $12,000 more
during the time that the hon. member was there.

With collective responsibility, the hon. memberwas
Deputy Premier and some of this vote was spent by the hon.
member directly. He would have been at some time or other
responsible for this vote, at some time when the Premier
was out of the island. What Is the hon. member introducing
now? When he was in the Government they were spending
money carefully, and now he is not there, they are spending
it foolishly. They have gone to sleep. You cannot get all this
information to us in the few days during which the hon. mem-
ber has resigned. For my part, I will support the Govern-
ment always, if they are sound, and not otherwise. It is only
in Barbados that we discuss the details as to expenditure of
money on Government hospitality, because you are either
satisfied that what is being done is done properly or thatit
is not done at all. I may make mention of Government House.
I have heard hon. members say when it suits them, that you
do not invite certain people to certain things and now that
you are inviting a large section of the people of this island,
are they quarrelling about that? All it means is that the
kind of people whom you are entertaining now should not be
entertained by the Government. All this introduces is the
narrowness and class prejudice which want to show its ugly
head in that you are making a criticism of a country which
has budgeted for $33 million and you are making a quibble
of $20,000 of $32,000 byway of entertainment is extravagant?
If you say that, where are you going to end in your thinking?
You are not entertaining for the sake of entertainment. The
hon. member was a Minister of the Government, and for him
to suggest or to ask that this Government vote be reduced is
a very improper thing in the context of things. All it means
is that he was participating in the expenditure. The hon.
member is saying that when he was a Minister he told his
Permanent Secretary about entertaining people and he only
had occasions to entertain people. All it means is that-.....

Mr. CRAWFORD: On a point of order. Mr. Chairman,
I did not say that. What I said was that occasionally if I had
the odd person to take to lunch or to dinner, my Permanent
Secretary would say that we should entertain So-and-So and
he would make the arrangements as to the time and place.
That is what I said.

Mr. WALCOTT: And there are occasions when the Min-
ister himself did that. I did not make any quarrel about this,
because I did not want anybody to think that we were begging
for entertainment, We find that the Chamber of Commerce
is doing something and if anybody comes here, the Minis-
ters would feel that they should entertain people from the
Chamber of Commerce. When you have to do these things,
you do them in order to make people who come to the coun-
try feel comfortable. I am saying that we should not reduce
these things to cheap political remarks, that you remember
something. This is a case where the hon. senior member
for St. Philip was a member of the Cabinet. He participated
in the Cabinet decisions in relation to Government hospital-
ity, and Government hospitality had a certain form to cover.
If we are satisfied that too much money is being spent on
entertainment we have to say the type of entertainment which
we should provide, but do not let us say that $12,000 is too
much because you have asked for $20,000. Mr. Chairman,
if I am not mistaken, the hon. senior member for St. Philip
gave that explanaiton in the House already in relation to the
vote at Government House, and about the parties there be-
ing bigger than what they used to be and what the Govern-
ment had to do. You go and search the debates of this House
and see if the hon. member did not make that explanation
to this House in relation to what the Government had to do
in regard to this matter of expenditure.
4.35 p.m.


Only a couple of weeks ago, the hon. senior member for
St. Philip would have been there saying that: so I would
advise him to let the grass grow under his feet first and then
make these criticisms, because inmy opinion it is not the
sort of criticism that would have any weight. I am support-
ing the Government. I supported the Government when they
did not need any support from me, and I also criticised the
Government when other people were supporting the Govern-
ment. The Hon. Leader of the Opposition supported the
Government because he said that the Government should be
in power for three hundred years. I would never be so extra-
vagant to say so.

Mr. MOTTLEY: I am never afraid to admit what I say.
In 'my remarks to a member here, I said that if my Party
could not get into power, that this Party should be in power.
but it suits the hon. member to take what I said out of the

Mr. WALCOTT: I agree that the hon. member said that
if his Party could not get in power, but what does thatmean?
The hon. member foresees a complete metamorphosis, but
the people would have to be blind or foolish. Does the hon.
member believe that the people in this country would go
back to the days when they allowed the Conservative Party
to sit down in judgement over them? He could not mean that.
I do not believe that he would say that to his son, because
the mere fact that the hon. member has seen their numbers
being reduced from being a complete House of Assembly
twenty-five years ago, and that the numbers have gradually
diminished until they have got to four means that there is
an arithmetic progression where the numbers are taking a
retrogressive turn. When I came to this House there were
eight Conservative members, and the number has become
less and less each time, and it will reach the stage where
people will allow him to hold the flag for sentimental reas-
ons, but not for philosophical reasons. (Mr. MOTTLEY: What
do you hold yours for?) My flag is a flag that is indicative
of the growing aspirations of the country. I can only hold
this flag because I have nobody with money to backme. I do
not have wealth to back me: so it is only my ideas that back
me in politics, not money. Money could not back me, because
I am too forthright a man and Iam obliged to crush people's
corns. Those who back me, therefore, back me for what I
stand for. The hon. member, however, said something Iwould
not say, because I would not say now or ever that if I could
not get in power any Government must be in power for
twenty-five years or three hundred years, because I am not
going to dedicate future generations to any Government or
Party notwithstanding what it does. I am not going to be
extravagant to make a statement like that, or to say that
any Government has any right to be in power longer than
its term unless it can justify itself.

The hon. Junior member for St. Joseph was specific
in what he said, but he would use any occasion to criticise
the Government, and more so when he gets a lead from the
Leader of the Opposition, because although they represent
two completely philosophically different facets, yet you find
this agreement. When I say that to him, it is quite patent,
because the hon. member would criticise the hospitality
vote, but he seems not to remember that a decision like this
has already taken place at Government House where it was
larger than the original vote. It suited hon. members to say
that you did not invite different people to Government
House, and now that they are being invited and the cost has
gone up, they are saying that you are too extravagant. What
they mean therefore is to drop out the ones you used to
invite and only bring in the new ones as replacements. I
cannot subscribe to that. Some people feel good at Govern-
ment House, and if it is the last remnant of their social
position, let them go. I would have been in agreement with
the two hon. members if the Hon. Minister could not explain.
Let the hon. member call the occasions when he criticized
the hospitality vote. I am one of those persons who said that
the Leader of the Government should have a House, because
the Colonial Secretary had one, the Commissioner of Police
had one and the Chief Justice had one; so what is wrong with
giving the Premier of the Island a house You do not give
him a house as a personal property; The last Chief Justice
lived in a house which we brought, and now he is living in

his own house, and the present Chief Justce is living in the
house. The hon. member said that the Premier has a house
now, and it is obvious that when it comes to Government
hospitality the vote is going to increase as night follows
day, because if I were Premier I would be tempted to
invite people to my own home. They would not feel the same
way, but more entertainment would take place as a result
of that. Do you think that anybody would question the Prime
Minister of England if he invites somebody to come to
chequers and sleep? The Prime Minister of Trinidad and
Tobago went to his private home and slept there; so if the
Premier has a house, more entertainment will take place
in his hdme than in a private home.

Mr. Chairman, we have been very prudent in a general
way about spending money, but I would like to say to hon.
members that there is no point in making these statements
and then at other points making other statements. Ifeel that
the time has come when members of this Chamber should
begin to understand that the method in which entertainment
is done and the way the country is run will be different, and
you cannot run the country on any parsimonious, pork-
knocking, hole-in-the-wall basis. When the hon. member
talks about this in the context of Civil Servants salaries, he
has gone back to the 1937 days.

Mr. CRAWFORD: I did not say in the context of Civil
Servants salaries. I said in the context of the general finan-
cial commitments of the country and then I cited the in-
stance of Civil Servants salaries. The Government does
not only spend money on Civil Servants salaries.

Mr. WALCOTT: Let us take $12,000 and gave it to the
Civil Servants and see how far youwould get. $12,000 mean
nothing to them, but again it is spurious argument to say
that because you spend $12,000 which is 50% or 60% more
in entertainment, that you should give that to Civil Servants.
$12,000 in the context of Civil Salaries cannot come to the
same figures; you would have to talk about $ 4 million or
$5 million. What you have to ask is whether the entertain-
ment you have done or expect to do is worthy or worthwhile.
I would say that the hon. senior member for St. Phillpwas a
member of the Government, and from the point of view of
new matter I would have been able to see with him, but I
cannot agree with him on an old horse like this. (Mr.
CRAWFORD: It is not an old horse.) It is an old horse, Mr.
Chairman, because we are not voting for a new item; we
are voting for supplementary provision of $12,000 to the
$20,000 already voted, and the hon. senior member for St.
Philip was a Minister of the Government and was respon-
sible for some of the original money that was spent; so
he cannot now say how much his Ministry spent. He would
have to say that the policy in spending Government funds
during the time he was a Minister was improper, and that
by implication is what he is saying. All we can say now,
therefore, is that he was aiding and abetting the Govern-
ment in spending money badly. He did not resign on those
grounds, and now that he is speaking against the Govern-
ment for the first time, he is chiding them for spending
additional money in which he was a direct participant both
in entertainment and in being entertained.
4.45 p.m.

Mr. CRAWFORD: Mr. Chairman, I will try to clarify
the situation. To begin, this $12,000 which has been asked
for has nothing at all to do with entertainment at Govern-
ment House.

Mr. WALCOTT: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of
order. I said the Government Hospitality vote. The hon.
junior member for St. Joseph said that he does not under-
stand the argument of Government House coming in today
because we have had cocktail parties in the past at Govern.
ment House and this is not the first time.

Mr. SMITH: The hon. senior member for St. Peter
wants to defend the Government, but he is catching the
wrong bus. It is going to go around the corner and turn over
with him.
Mr. WALOOTT: The Hon. Leader of the Opposition
seems to be a man who can make a swing in midair .


a complete somersault because all I said was what he
said. I could not say what the hon. Leader of the House said
because I was not in here when he spoke. What I said,
both the hon. leader of the Opposition and the hon. junior
member for St. Joseph repeated. They said that this is
nothing new. We give the Governora Duty Allowance. I said
that going to Government House is not anything new because
on former occasions we voted money from the Government's
Hospitality vote for entertainment at Government House for
invitees to the Queen's Birthday party.

The hon. junior member for St. Joseph talks about
catching a bus, and you would think that it is a bus which we
are catching. If the hon. member would stop using these
meaningless colloquialisms, he would do better. The hon.
member said that this looks funny and the hon. Leader of
the Opposition is always trying to cover up for him, but
sooner or later the Hon. Leader of the Opposition will find
out that the hon. junior member for St. Joseph is not a per-
son for whom you can cover up.

(A VOICE: You two will find it out.)

Mr. WALCOTT: When it suits the hon. member to
criticise the Government, he does so; but he does not do it
when he should. I was present at the opening of Parliament,
and the hon. member tried in another tune to say the same
thing but he didn't have the ability to express himself. He
expressed himself with all these meaningless colloquial-

Mr. CRAWFORD: Mr. Chairman, the hon. Junior mem-
ber for St. Lucy who is in charge of the Resolution, in reply
to a question asked from this side of the House included
the money spent at Government House on the Queen's
birthday. He said that that is one of the reasons why this
money has been expended. The Queen's birthday party at
Government House has nothing to do with this vote. I am in
agreement with the hon. senior member for St. Peter that
nowadays the number of people invited at Government
House has increased, but we provide forentertaining them
by an entirely new vote which has nothing to do with this.

The Governor's Duty Allowance is about 2,000 a year.

Hon. J. C. TUDOR: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of
order. I realize that the hon. senior member for St. Philip
has to find occasions for attacking this Government; there-
fore, he has to catch as catch can: but I do not think I am
disclosing Cabinet secrets or giving offence when I say
that it is within his knowledge that the expense of the
Queen's Birthday Party at Government House must be
charged to the Government Hospitality vote. If he does not
know that, he has been sleeping all these years.

Mr. CRAWFORD: I was saying, Sir, that the Governor
is given a special Duty Allowance of 2,000 per annum for
entertaining at Government House. As a matter of fact,
the expenditure on the part of the Ministers for hospitality
is what this vote is for. We have taken it for granted that
the Governor is entitled to get certain items free of duty,
but the Governor's Hospitality vote is one thing; that for
the Ministers is another.

You also provide for Culloden Farm separately to some
extent. If you look in the Estimates, you will see under
Head 24, the sum of $11,350 is provided and the information
is that it includes provision for wages of staff, uniforms,
upkeep of gardens and grounds, lighting and fuel, water,
furniture and equipment and contingencies. Apart from this,
extra provision is made for entertainment at Oulloden Farm;
therefore, this vote which we are asking for an increase of
$12,000 is for entertainment on the part of the Ministers.
Mark you, it was increased from $12,000 to $20,000, and
the hon. senior member for St. Peter better than I should
know whether or not the expenditure for the first six
months of this year should warrant such a considerable
increase. I said that I know of no reason for it. His argu-
ment is that my having participated In the expenditure of
the last six months means that I should not say anything
about it. I go further and say that I have not seen this ex-
penditure; but from my own expenditure, it is not more than

what it was last year; therefore, I see no reason why this
year it should be increased from $20,000 to $32,000.

If the hon. introducer of the Resolution had given in d4-
tail any ordinary details of expenditure that the Government
was committed to in the six coming months, it would be al-
right. As a matter of fact, we do not know what it may be
now. What the Resolution says is this: "In the light of the
expenditure during the first half of the financial year it is
considered that the vote should be supplemented by $12,000"
4.55 p.m.

It does not say that the vote has been expended. What I
am saying is that in view of the fact that we have other
things to do besides offering hospitality, some attempt
should be made to curtail the expenditure in this direction
for the remainder of the year. We should make some at-
tempt to curtail the expenditure on anything for the re-
mainder of the year: let nothing be done on the same scale
for the remainder of the year. That is all I am saying.

Mr. WALCOTT and Mr. MOTTLEY rose to speak.

Mr. WALCOTT: The hon. member who has just sat

Mr. CHAIRMAN: The hon. senior member forthe City
caught my eye first.

Mr. WALCOTT: I did not know that the hon. member
was speaking.

Mr. MOTTLEY: Mr. Chairman, the hon. senior mem-
ber for St. Peter came into this Chamber not fully ac-
quainted with what has been said and he has been drawing
a red herring across the trail; and you, Mr. Chairman,
have been allowing quite a lot of extraneous matter in the
debate. However, Sir, the whole argument is that the Gov-
ernment is asking for $12,000 more; and we are arguing
that they used $12,000 last year, they had an increase of
$8,000 and now they are asking for this $12,000 which would
make a total of $32,000. I am suggesting that the only pro-
per thing to do is to ask how you account for this expendi-
ture. The Hon. Minister has explained that they spent
something like $17,000 for the first six months of theyear
and in the coming six months they anticipate greater ex-
penditure. That is what we should go on. The Minister has
replied to the effect that a Cabinet decision was taken in
this matter. He did not say that before; he read out the
various matters of entertainment which included one for the
Queen's Birthday at Government House and other entertain.
ments. I immediately said that, as far as we are concerned,
in the Estimates there is an allowance for the Governor
and from the invitations sent out we understood that the
Queen's entertainment is always given by the Governor and
not the Government. But the Hon. Minister has now said
that a Cabinet decision was taken to the effect that the
Queen's entertainment should be paid for out of the Gov-
ernment's entertainment vote and not the Governor's al-
lowance. It may be that he wanted to correct what he has
said. Now the hon. Minister has gone further and said that it
was a Government decision. It may be that he thought that
he was giving out Cabinet Secrets. However, Sir, we must
not appear to be parsimonious because I said on the floor
of this House that theinvitations given outfor the Queen's
Birthday entertainment were not broad enough. The most
people who were ever invited to Government House were
there in 1963 and 1964, and again in 1965 you had a lot of
people there. You tried to invite people from a wider range
- what the hon. memberwould call those "felt hat" people.
As a matter of fact, we know for the first time now that the
Government had taken this decision that the Queen's Birth-
day party was to be paid for out of the Government's vote.
We never knew that. The Hon. Minister, reading from his
files, said that the money whichwas paid- the $18,000 -
was paid out of the Government's entertainment allowance.
I said that you have $9,600 for duty allowance which I knew
was spent in this direction. That included, not last year,
but all along. We know that we received invitations from a
Minister to attend entertainment of some VJ.P. or from
the Governor for the entertainment of some body of persons


here, but for the Queen's entertainment you would come
to no other conclusion than that the Governor's entertainment
vote was being used. When we received aninvitationforthe
Queen's Birthday party, that is paidforfrom the Governor's
entertainment vote. When it is suggested to us that we are
now annoyed because "felt hat" people are going to Gov-
ernment House and people from all walks of life are going
there, that Is nothing but drawing a red herring across the
trail. When you say that we raise the question that we have
been asked to vote $12,000 the hon. seniormemberfor St.
Peter knows that we have had people who debated, for half
a day in here, the question of the provision of a single
carpet for Government House. That is not to raise the
question of the increase of $8,000 and then $12,000, but I
fe6l that the Government should take greater caution in
these matters. If the Ex-Minister knew that the.Govern-
ment had taken a decision in this matter, according to the
Hon. Leader of the House, not only in this year, but in
previous years, to pay for this entertainment, then that is a
different matter. I believe that the increase of......

Hon. W. A. CRAWFORD: Mr. Chairman, on a point of
order. The hon. member is talking about drawing red her-
rings across the trail The point is that if $12,000 is paid
for entertainment at Government House and all the other
things given out as going on this year, what is the reason
for this amount.

Mr. MOTTLEY: I anticipate that the decision to pay
for the entertainment from this vote was made some time
before the money was paid. The decision must have been
made before then.
5.05 p.m.

I do not want to waste any more time on this, because
I think the Minister has noted what I have said. Up to the
end of the first half of the year the Government has spent
$17,000, and the Minister has told us that there would be
Heads of State coming here. I would prefer to see a Reso-
lution when such Heads of State come to this country as has
been suggested by the hon. senior member for St. Philip,
and I will therefore second the motion by the hon. member
that this be reduced.

Mr. WALCOTT: The hon. senior member for Bridgetown
will not vote against the idea of Royalty coming here, be-
cause he is one of those members who believes in those
things, and feels that if he votes against it that they may
put his name on a blacklist.

Mr. MOTTLEY: On a point of order, I am not prepared
to sit and allow the hon. member to say that I am not going
to vote against something for Royalty because my name
would be put on a blacklist. We have known each other for a
long time, and he knows..........

Mr. WALCOTT. That you are a Royalist.

Mr. MOTTLEY: The hon. member says I am a Royalist.
I love an argument with the hon. member.

Mr. WALCOTT: Mr. Chairman, that is why I say this
Is only a political gimmick. The hon. senior member for
St. Philip was a Minister of the Government. The hon. mem-
ber says that the Minister explained that $17,000 of this
money was spent in the first six months which could include
the end of September when the hon. senior member for
St. Philip was a member of the Government. Henow comes
in here after his former collective responsibility and moves
a motion against something that he spent. Now this is just
like a man who would help somebody to commit a crime and
then be the first person to go and be a starwitness against
the person who committed the crime of which he was a par-
ticipant, The hon. member was a participant In Government
extravagance. The hon. member forgets his own argument.
He wants to know why it is that you spent this money last
year and all these years, and you are spending more this
year when he is one of the members that spent it. He is
asking why he spent more money this year than he spent
last year. Do you realize that if it wer circumstances other
than the Legislature or If it were something criminal the
hon. member would wash his hands like Pilate after he had

helped to commit the act. The hon. member has assisted the
Government in its over-expenditure and now he is the one
moving a Resolution against the over-expenditure which
shows that he is embarrassing the very Government of which
he was a member. That iswhyI say that constitutional and
political propriety must have some meaning in a Colonial
territory. We want all the British parliamentary trappings
when they suit us, but we throw them over-boardwhenthy
don't. Can you see a British Minister in the House of Com-
mons resigning and going in the House of Commons and
voting against a money Resolution ofwhich hewas a parti-
cipant? He would not participate in the debate; but the hon.
member is so anxious to pull down the Government of which
he was a member a couple of weeks ago, that he is joining
In this unholy alliance against something in which he has
participated. The hon. senior member for Bridgetown would
have been silent as he has been in the past on a Resolution
like this, because this is not the first time that he has heard
that the Government hospitality vote has subsidizedparties
at Government House.

Mr. MOTTLEY: Mr. Chairman, I object most strongly
to that remark. The hon. member said this Is not the first
time I have heard that, but that is absolutely untrue. I would
like him to tell me when I heard it and where I heard it.

Mr. WALCOTT:This House has already passed a
Resolution in here, and an explanation was given by no less
a person than the hon. senior member for St. Philip in re-
spect of the Governor's vote for the Queen's Birthday

Mr. MOTTLEY: On a point of order, the hon. member
did not say that atfirst. He saidthe Government's Hospit-
ality vote; he did not say the Government House vote. On
several occasions before we had Cabinet Government I
heard that in here, but we are talking about the Govern-
ment's Hospitality vote.

Mr. WALCOTT: Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. member
should know that the Government's vote can be spent on
anything at all which the Government decides on.
Mr. MOTTLEY: Mr. Chairman, the hon.member says
this is not the first time I have heard an explanation given
about the Government's Hospitality vote. There are two
different votes under two different Heads in the Estimates;
the Government's Hospitality vote and the Governor's Duty
Allowance. I have heard several times in here of the Gov-
ernor's Duty Allowance being overspent, but nobody referred
to the Government's Hospitality vote.

Mr. WALCOTT: Mr. Chairman, what is the hon. mem-
ber saying? If the Government decides that they will spend
some of the Government's Hospitality vote for entertainment
for people at Government House, it is done. I am saying
that it has happened in the past that the Government had a
party at Government House where the Government paid for
the party. They may have a party at the City Council, at
Government Headquarters, at Sam Lords Castle or at Gov-
ernment House; it is the Government's decision to have a
party and pay for it wherever they choose, and there is
nothing improper if the Government decides that the Gov-
ernor's vote cannot take care of the number of people they
want to invite. There was a time when the Governor would
invite people to Government House; there was no Prime
Minister to tell him whom to invite, and it ended at that.
The hon. member is opposed to this Resolution now; but if
this had come up at the beginning of this Session when he
made the remark about the Government being in power for
three hundred years, he would not have opposed It. He
agrees that the Government should spend money on hospit-
ality; he agrees that theGovernor should have a Duty Allow-
ance. and Iwould say directly to the hon. member that in his
own capacity in other functions he would have done a sim-
ilar thing if he felt the party deserved similar treatment,
and the money comes out of the Public Treasury.
5.15 p.m.

If the Governor decides that he is only inviting three
hundred or four hundred people to Government House, but
the Government decides that five hundred should be invited
to Government House, are you saying that this is something

which you are not voting for? That is why I say how can I
be asked to subscribe to this. The hon. senior member for
St. Philip, who was a former Minister, is moving a motion
against the Government's Hospitality vote. He is condemn-
ing the Government and saying that they are spending too
much money on this vote when he was a Minister for more
than six months of this financial year. What he is asking us
to do is to condemn the action which he took when he was
a Minister. The hon. senior member for St. Philip moved
the motion and the hon. senior memberfor the City second-
ed it. That is the sort of alliance that you want to see taking
place in this country.

Mr. CRAWFORD: Mr. Chairman, I want to make it
clear. I cannot tell you when I resigned from the Government
what amount had been spent under this vote. However, you
can ask any Minister this. Any of them knows that I have
always been super- sensitive to criticism on the floor
of this House and, on account of that, I have been extra-
ordinarily careful in bringing down matters to this House
which would give the Opposition grounds for criticism. In
other words, if I had been in the Government when it was
disclosed that they had already spent $17,000 under this
vote I would have thought twice before I came down with
another supplementary vote for $12,000. My advice to the
Cabinet would have been that you had already increased it
by $8,000; therefore, you should not go for $12,000 more;
you had better come with a Resolution for $5,000 or $6,000.
And if later on the circumstances justify this for large
scale spending under this item, you can bring down a supple-
mentary Resolution for that.

The times are legion, without disclosing any Cabinet
secret, that I have given this sort of advice to the Cabinet
but what is happening now is that they are bereft of it.

I am not saying for a moment that the $17,000 might
not have been spent up to September 15th. I am not the Min-
ister of Finance. These things come to the Cabinet piece-
meal Meetings after meetings, whenever amounts are due
for approval, they are approved, but the total assessment
would have come only when consideration for additional
money became imperative. I doubt that there is a single
Cabinet Minister who could have told you before this matter
came before the Cabinet that $17,000 was expended by then.
Nobody keeps a check on it. I am saying that it is misguided
and ill-considered advice on the partofanyGovernmentthat
it should unnecessarily submit itself to criticism on a mat-
ter like this.

It may be unfortunate, but on this matter the greater
part of the expenditure may have taken place earlier in the
year. In other words, from the 1st April to the 30th Septem-
ber you have more entertaining to do. I do know that during
the second half of the year when the vote is getting near to
its end, the Ministers have warnings to be careful, and
expenditure which you would normally undertake you do not.
You do have these warnings from the Minister of Finance
to be careful, that the vote is running out; therefore, in the
latter half of the year, you would not spend as you would
spend in the first half. It is not possible that the money
spent in this direction during the last year could have been
spent in the same proportion.

What I do know is that sensitive as I always have been
to the manner in which hon. members of the House dis-
charge their responsibility, I have never allowed myself to
be subjected to the criticisms which would be introduced
from matters of this sort.

Mr. WALCOTT: Mr. Chairman, let the hon. member use
his logical faculties and brutally examine what he said just
now, He said $12,000. Madness you could not have spent
more than $12,000. I am not saying that you have not spent
$17,000 up to the 15th September. I do not know.

Mr. CRAWFORD: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of
order. In my first speech what I said was that it was mad-
ness to increase the vote from $12,000 to $20,000 in one
swoop. 1

Mr. WALCOTT: The hon. member said in his first
speech that you could not spend this money; what has hap-

opened; what is wrong? He was speaking without knowing the
facts. When the facts are revealed, he finds out that $17,000
has been spent.

It is a question of behaviour. Obviously, no minister
keeps a check; but the ministers have a collective responsi-
bility for what is going on in the Cabinet. They cannot surren-
der their responsibility. During the time the hon. senior
member for St. Philip was a Minister, this expenditure
took place then; therefore, how can he wash his hands out
of it now?

Mr. CRAWFORD: On what occasion have Iwashedmy
hands? I made my position crystal clear for a child to
understand. I said that if I had been a Cabinet Minister when
this matter was being decided, I would not have presented
a Resolution for $12,000 over a six-month period.

Mr. WALCOTT: If I were a bird, I would fly. This is a
supplementary vote. I spoke about the hon. member's pol-
itical behaviour as a former Cabinet Minister; therefore
you can excuse him. If it were something pertaining to the
City Council I could not excuse him, I do know that if this
were the City Council, the hon. member would have justi-
fied it.

The hon. senior member for St. Philip is saying now
"I do not know," but when he spoke at the beginning, he
spoke ex cathedra. He said: "I speak with authority."
5.25 p.m.

Subsequently, "I do not know". How in one breath the
hon. member could speak with authority as knowing these
things and when I challenged him how could he be taking
part in a criticism of the Government for something in
which he participated? The hon. member said "No, Iwas so
scrupulous in my Ministry that you could ask me how much
I spent". That was not the point: The point was that during
the time when the hon. member was a Minister, the sum of
$17,000 was spent and he needed a supplementary provision.
Now the hon. member says: "If Iwere a Minister Iwould not
have spent this amount and therefore I am moving a re-
duction of the amount by $5,000."

Hon. W, A. CRAWFORD: I did not say that; the hon.
member should not misquote me.

Mr. WALCOTT: I am sorry. The last remark was
meant to be a conclusion. (Mr. CRAWFORD: Illogical.)
Well, Sir, if I am illogical, I may be pardonedfor that, but
the hon. member is shifting. The hon. member criticised
the amount of money which was spent; he was criticising
the Government for being extravagant. The point I am
making is that if they were extravagant, they were ex-
travagant during the hon. member's time.

Hon. W. A. CRAWFORD: I never said that. I do not
know if the hon. member was here at first. I was careful in
my choice of words. I said that it either could be demon-
strated that the expenditure was warranted or that they were
extravagant. I did not say that they were extravagant. I do
not know if they were extravagant. I have not been keeping
any check on it. You can get my speech and read it back.
I used about five or six alternatives.

Mr. WALOOTT: Mr. Chairman, it is an inescapable
fact that during the period when the hon. member was a
member of the Government, he was responsible for the ac-
tions of the Government and he participated in them. He
cannot exonerate himself from that now. Therefore, if there
has been any extravagance, the hon. member was a party
to it. They spent $17,000 when he was a member of the
Government, and if that happened to be extravagance then
the hon. member cannot be a person who is not a party in a
vote like this, If this were something which the hon. mem-
ber was receiving, then he could not vote on it because he
would be a party to what he was going to receive. The hon.
member was a trustee who was seeing about our funds. The
hon. member has acted in the typical Barbadian fashion.
The bell started to ring, and he does not know about the
matter. A Minister or the Permanent Secretary would know.
That is the favourite trend. They take the thunder when they
say: "We put these people in work" and when the people


are out of work they do not know anything about it. The hon.
member is now pleading ignorance of expenditure; he was
not aware of what was brought down, $17,000 out of $20,000
for the six months when he was a Minister. If $17,000 has
been spent, however it has been spent, it cannot be a ques-
tion of the hon. member questioning the motives or actions
of the Government or he would be questioning his own ac-
tions as a Minister.
The hon. member was a party to the decision and now
they need more money. The hon. member is saying that if
he had been there he would not have asked for this $12,000.
That is nothing to do with the fact that he is now criticising
the Government in the sense of the proposed expenditure of
$12,000; the Government would not have had any need to
come for this $12,000 if they had not spent $17,000, to which
expenditure the hon. member was a party. If they had spent
the amount which you said they should have spent, then they
would have spent it.

Mr. W. A. CRAWFORD: On a point of order. I never
mentioned any figure which they should have spent; not one
single time did I say that they should have spent any amount.
I said that they have spent $17,000 and they should have
$6,000 now and trim their sails to suit the cost. If youfind
that you still need money you can come to the Assembly and
tell them what the warranty is and you will get yourmoney.
If you give them $12,000, the tendency is for them to spend
it; if you give them $20,000 they will spend it; but if you
reduce the amount you will make them cautious of the ex-

Mr. WALCOTT: The hon. member says that if you
give them this money, they will spend it. A Government
of which the hon. member was a memberforthe last three
years he is saying is so extravagant that if you give them
more money they will spend it. The hon. member is speak-
ing from first-hand knowledge. He says that you have to be
cautious with them. The original argument is that the amount
of money was $20,000, and why are you going to increase it
by $12,0007 I am saying that the hon. member should do his
homework, and do not come out in these Opposition argu-
ments too soon. The hon. member should wait for a better
occasion. If $17,000 was spent during the time when the
hon. member was a Minister, I say that it is scandalous
behaviour for him to come at this stage and begin to disso-
ciate himself from the Government and accuse it of this
expenditure of $17,000 as being reckless.

Mr. CRAWFORD: On a point of order. Mr. Chairman,
where does the hon. member think he is at all? If the hon.
member is at a loss for words, let him control himself and
study what he is saying. At what time today did he hear me
say that this was reckless expenditures

Mr. WALCOTT: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member must
understand the English Language. I can, by implication,
utilise different words from those which he has used. I did
not use the language: he used it. The hon. member said that
the $20,000 which we voted should be given to the Minister
to take charge of, and he took charge of it. Now youwantan
additional amount. The hon. member says: "I am not saying
that you do not need more money," and therefore that nulli-
fies his argument. If the sum of $20,000 is enough and should
have been enough, there would not be any need to reduce
the amount to any figure, The hon. member is admitting
that if they are coming for additional money they should
come for it with a different Resolution.
5.35 p.m.

Let us examine the hon. member's argument. $17,000
were spent when he was in charge of our destiny, and I
would ask him not to wash his hands like Pilate from that
period. He says that money might have been spent, but he
does not know anything about it. Imagine a Cabinet Minister
is hiding from the delegation of authority in Government by
saying that he did not know anything about expenditure as if
a Permanent Secretary, without the authority of a Minister,
can spend money for entertainment. He spoke of how his
Permanent Secretary would inform him how the money is
to be spent. How can he say that in one breath, and come
back now to have the vote reduced? If you spent $17,000 in
six months' time, do you believe you would have to have
-rist Class Honours in Mathematics to do an ordinary unit-

ary method sum, to find out if you spent $17,000 in six
months, how much would you spend in twelve months? This
is the basis on which you compute an estimate. This is an
ordinary thing you do in Third Standard, and therefore you
can do it now. The Government's argument is that if they
spent so much money in the first six months, they are
likely to need some more money, and therefore they have
come for $12,000 which would make the vote for the year
$32,000, because it looks as if they would spend $12,000
more in the remainder of the year.

The hon. member, Mr. Chairman, is asking to reduce
the vote by $6,000. Listen to the logic of the former Minis-
ter. Hp is thinking in terms of a small fish-shop, not of
Government where if you want more to make the weight,
you put in the scoop and add a little more to send down the
scale. He is saying to come now for $6,000. Imagine a for-
mer Minister of Government is going through the unnecess-
ary procedure of coming with a Resolution again unless you
are satisfied that it is to much But the hon. member does
not say so. He has fallen out with the Government; so hear
now what he is saying about his former friends, when only
two months ago, he told the public of Barbados that the Gov-.
ernment spending was so prudent as compared with the
party of the hon. junior member for St. Joseph when they
were attacked about how to spend money. He got up and
lambasted the hon. member on the basis of how the former
Government spent money, and said that the Premier of Bar-
bados was careful in spending money in spite of the pres-
sures, what the Ministers have been doing, salaries not
having been Increased, and the sacrifices the Government
has made. All that was said in justification of the Govern-
ment that was in power for three years. The hon. member
has only been out of Government for a couple of hours, so
to speak, and they have so missed his guidance that he can
say of a vote of which three-quarters were spent when he
was there, that it has been badly spent. During his regime
the vote was spent in this way, but now he is leader of con-
demnation of his own soul. This is like a person carrying
another to commit a felony, and is the first to witness
against him. To put it mildly, this to my mind is the es-
sence of parliamentary ineptitude, and it shows quite pre-
cisely that when it comes to political maturity, some of
are still very far from understanding not only the propri-
eties of Government, and we would start the next day after
we have been in Government like the hon. member to criti-
cise the very things that we participated in.

I could not support the hon. member's Resolution for a
reduction of the vote. If I had to support the hon. member's
reduction of the vote, I would have to move that the hon.
member in other circumstances should pay the amount that
he feels it should be reduced by, because we would not have
had to vote this money if they were as prudent as he said
the Government had been. He is washing his hands from
any blame; he is the blue-eyed boy, the bright boy, and had
it not been for him this money wouldinot have been spent;
he is the person who has saved the Government from these
embarrassing situations, but now he is no longer there,
they need more money to spend. The hon. member's Reso-
lution should have been moved before, but I would say to
the hon. member that if this is going to be his attitude and
conduct in the future, he will cut a very bad image as a pol-
itician with years of experience, one who has been in Gov-
ernment as long as he has been. He should chose his sights
better. To the Hon. Leader of the Opposition I would say
that not only did he participate in Resolutions of this char-
acter in which the Government came down and spent more
money, but he agreed to the expenditure. I understand the
attitude of the Leader of the Opposition now and I under-
stand what is going on. There is an attempt at any moment
to bring down the Government on any issue, no matter what
it is; but I am not going to be any party to any of these un-
worthy alliances which only seek to damage the best nter-
est of the people of this country.

Mr. MOTTLEY: There is one thing that has been wor-
rying me since I last spoke. The Hon. Leader of the House
said that this figure of $1,800 is the biggest expenditure....

Hon. J. C. TUDOR: I did not say it was the biggest ex-
penditure; I said it was one ofthe big ones in the first half
of this financial year.


Mr. MOTTLEY: We asked the hon. member to give us
a break down as far as hepossibly could. I appreciate that
no Minister would actually know what is being spent for the
first half of the year as the former Minister has said, but
if you take out $1,800 forth Queen's Birthday reception, it
works out at $3,000 a month, and we must admit that this is
being spent locally only. I know it is only for local enter-
tainment, and that seems a little on the extravagant side to
me. Besides that, you have in the Estimates a sum of
$11,350 for wages, uniforms, upkeep and so on at Culloden
5.45 p.m.

I understand that there is another $48,000 for enter-
tainment under Item 18, Culloden Farm. If I am correct,
you are actually spending $3,000 a month and another $4,000
a month on Hospitality at Culloden Farm. (A VOICE: That
is for eight Ministers.) It has nothing to do with the Minis-
ters at all. I am reading from the Estimates. Take up your
Estimates and look at them.

Mr. CHAIRMAN: The Chair is still here.

Mr. MOTTLEY: That has nothing to do with Ministers
at all -- absolutely nothing. The Ministers' vote come out
of the Cabinet. Let the hon. member get up and say that that
is incorrect. The hon. senior member for St. Peter does not
follow what I am saying.
Mr. Chairman, I said that $20,000 under the Govern-
ment Hospitality has something to do with the eight Minis-
ters. It has something to do with the Cabinet, but the
$48,000 has to do with Culloden Farm. This is reallyanother
$48,000 put on to the $20,000. Here you have $20,000 to be
increased by $12,000. The amount of $12,000 lastyearwas
increased to $20,000. The hon. senior member for St.
Peter knows that when it comes to money, I am not parsi-
monious in doing things. The amount of $12,000 last year
was increased by $8,000 and now you have come back for
another $12,000. Besides that $12,000 you have here on
page 15 another $4,280.

What the hon. introducer of the Resolution did saywas
that they anticipated that they would have to expend part of
this increase next year on Heads of State and that may be
before the end of the financial year. That is why they have
come for $12,000.
Hon. J. C. TUDOR: I said that before the end of the
financial year we may receive distinguished Heads of State.
In case that they come before, we would have to come with
another vote.

Mr. MOTTLEY: Do you mean to say that this has
nothing to do with that? If that is so, that makes my case
stronger. I am therefore asking fora reduction of this vote'
by $6,000.

Mr. WALCOTT: If I were in the position of the hon.
senior member for the City, I would agree with him. He
is trying to reduce this to the position of the Mayor of the
Bridgetown City Council All of us are not in the hon. mem-
ber's position: therefore those of us who are not in his posi-
tion cannot do it. I am talking about the Mayor of Bridge-
town. We give the Mayor of Bridgetown something like
$200 a month for entertainment (A VOICE: I only get $50
a month.) An emolument of $200 a month is paid to the
Mayor and an allowance of $50 a month. We are not dealing
with entertainment because $50 a month is not entertain-
ment. The hon. member may feel that the salary of the
Mayor should be more because of what is involved, but the
last Government fixed it at that figure. The hon, member
has chosen this occasion to criticise the Government on a
supplementary vote which has come down six months after
it had been raised. I can bring a copy of the Estimates
which can show year after year since this Government has
come into power what the hon. member has been saying.
The hon. member has chosen this occasion to criticise
the Government although he was a big supporter of the
Government because he has got on public platforms and
praised the Government and asked me, why do I oppose the
Government. Therefore, it shows that my position must have
been consistent.

Money does not have the same value as it was, even a
year ago; so it is stupidness to say that you put $12,000 in
the Estimates last year: you came for $20,000 this year and
you have now come back for $12,000. The sum of $10/000 in
1961 does not have the same value in 1965. I know the hon.
senior member for the City well enough. This is not a
question in the same light as that which the hon. member
entertains people at the Bridgetown City Council. He can
entertain whom he likes. The triumphant captain of the
West Indies Cricket Team came here and I never saw that
he was accorded a civic welcome. May be, if somebody
else was in his position, the hon. member would have
wanted to know why they did not accord him a civic wel-
come. I am sure that the West Indies Cricket Captain is as
much entitled to a civic welcome as when Sir Winston
Churchill came here because he means as much to the
Barbadian society as Sir Winston Churchill to the world
society. I see people have come from Virginia and all parts
of the U.S.A. as well as from down South and the hon. mem-
ber has entertained them.
5.55 p.m.

I do not quarrel about these things. If youfeelthat t is
good for the tourist trade, you do it. Where the Government
is spending money on the Tourist Board, there is no limit;
and now today I am surprised, I am very surprised, to find
the Hon. Leader of the Opposition joining in the condem-
nation of the entertainment of the Ministers on the ground
that they are spending too much money and on the basis that
it is the same Government that he said would be in power,
but he is not now in power and the Government should go.
I would not regard this as sour grapes, but in the light of the
decision which has been made the hon. member is bound to
see that the statements which he has made in this House
today have not only given rise to a question of impropriety
from the political point of view, but that they are lacking
in logic from beginning to end.

Hon. C. E. TALMA: Mr. Chairman, I do not care to
prolong this debate inasmuch as the points at issue have
been clarified. Speaking from memory, since the institution
of the Ministerial System in 1954, the Government Hospi-
tality vote has never been properly estimated. I speak
from memory, but I think that what I am saying can be
borne out from the debates. Each year, probably for the
last five or ten years, the Government Hospitality vote
was never represented in any proper amount and we had to
come for more money. Last yearwe came here for $12,000
and the next time we came for $ ",000 in order to entertain
the victorious West Indian Team from Australia. Itwas on
the basis of that $6,000 plus the $12,000 that we made it
$20,000 on this occasion. We have spent $17,000 in the first
six months of the year, and it is estimated that we would
spend $15,000, and that is how the amount has been com-
puted. In every year since the inception of the Ministerial
System we have never had any proper or sound basis for
estimating the hospitality vote. We never said a word on
that occasion but now we are having this unnecessary

Mr. MOTTLEY: Mr. Chairman, I am surprised at the
last hon. member who has spoken. His memory does not
serve him right. The hon. senior member for St. Peter
will remember that he himself was the greatest critic of a
Hospitality Vote in here. In 1960, as a matter of fact, it is
very rare that there has been an increase in the Hospitality
vote or an increase for the Governor that the hon. member
did not offer criticism of it. (ASIDES) Mr. Chairman I ex-
press my view when I feel like expressing it. The hon.
member takes one line at one time, and when he feels like
doing it, he takes another line. The hon. member feels that
other hon. members must take this very line. The hon.
member knows that if he felt like criticising this vote as he
did in 1960 you would have had......

Mr. WALCOTIT: On a point of order. The hon. member
is only searching for an argument. The hon. member can-
not say that I criticized an entertainment vote in 1960. I do
not accept that. You cannot go back five years just like that.
I am not going to say what anybody should vote.


Mr. MOTTLEY: The hon. member cannot accept what
I said, that is, that on several occasions he criticised this
vote. The Hon. Leader of the House can support that. If he
says that I cannot just get up here and say.....
Mr. WALCOTT: On a point of order. On the last oc-
casion I criticised the last Government on many thingsnot
on one thing, and I have also criticised this Government for
many things. You cannot just say that the thing I criticised
was the Hospitality vote.

Mr. MOTTLEY: I remember distinctly that in 1960 the
hon. member criticized the vote. Itwas in 1961 tobe exact...

Mr. WALOOTT: If the hon. member wants to be remin-
ded in connection with the Hospitality vote in respect of the
opening of the Deep Water Harbour, I told the Government
that that was used as an election bribe.

Mr. MOTTLEY: Mr. Chairman, if I wanted to use the
same political gimmicks as the hon. member has used, then
I could say the same thing. I could say that they invited
"Felt-hat men" as an election bribe. Of course, I criticise
when I feel like criticizing. The hon. member knows that
on occasions Head I of the Estimates dealing with the
Governor's entertainment vote has taken a whole day in
this House before it was passed, never mind a supple-
mentary Resolution.

Hon. W. A. CRAWFORD: Mr. Chairman, the hon. jun-
ior member for St. Peter has said that the debate on this
Item has reminded him of the salt fish shop or some-
thing like that. Sir, What I am saying is this: although, in
my opinion, the Treasury of this country cannot be com-
pared with a salt fish shop, on the other hand, the Treasury
of this island is not the vault of the Chase Manhattan Bank
in New York City.
6.05 p.m.

We are told, Mr. Chairman, that this item according
to the present estimate, will go from $12,000 to $32,000,
and then we were further told just now that the visits of
Heads of State expected here in the New Year will be ad-
ditional, so that you can expect that this vote will be well
over $50,000 by the end of the year. Now in the cases of
extraordinary expenditure, and extra-ordinary visits, pro-
vision must be made; but I repeat my conviction, Sir, that
the best way to go about this is to make provision for the
amount which I proposed earlier, and then when these extra
visits occur you can bring down supplementary Resolutions
for the additional money needed. Ihave seen endless debates
in this House on $2,000 or $3,000 for a carpet for Govern-
ment House. I have seen endless debates on small items
like $200, and it would be more than strange if we are go-
ing to vote $20,000 with the possibility of being called upon
to vote God knows how much more without any debate at all.
If anybody thinks otherwise in this Chamber, he is sadly
mistaken; and I am saying, Sir, that the members of the
Opposition who are in here have just as much interest in
safeguarding the public purse as anybody else. They are
Just as obligated to seeing that there is no extravagance
and no wastage in anything as anybody else. The hon. senior
member for Christ Church himself-has conceded that in the
past even when there was a small amount needed additionally
for this vote, it involved additional debate; therefore it
should surprise no one. The amount asked for on this oc-
casion is entirely out of proportion with the amount asked
for on previous occasions.

I have been casting my mind back to find out, if I could
why there was this expenditure of $17,000 in six months,
and I think I have the answer now. Any Minister's Hos-
pitality, any Governor's Duty Allowance, any expenditure
under any Head must be conditioned not in the light of the
whims and caprices of any Minister of this House, not be-
cause of any inflated ideas of anyMinisterof Government,
but must be conditioned by the capacity of the country to
discharge all its commitments, and so long as I am sitting
here, I will take every possible step to see that this is being
Mr. WALCOTT: Mr. Chairman, I presume that the
hon. member was not seeing that it was being done all
along, because he said that as long as he is sitting here he

will see that it is done. What happened when he was sitting
over there? All this went onwhenhe was sitting overthere.

Mr. CRAWFORD: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman,
the hon. member need not play with words. I am just as
good as or better at that than he, but he knows that when I
said "sitting here" I mean sitting in this Chamber.

Mr. WAL0OTT: Precisely. The hon. member was
sitting in this Chamber when the $17,000 were spent; so I
go back and ask him how he is going to get out of it. I am
not a Royalist, but when you talk about Heads of State you
must do something. If Her Majesty the Queen and H.R.H.
Prince Phillip are coming here next year, let us be realis-
tic. Your are not going to get one hotel....

Mr. CRAWFORD: On a point of order, the hon. member
distinctly heard me say and he knows himself that we have
two other Resolutions before us today separate and dis-
tinct for the Royal Visit, and I have made it perfectly clear
that the Royal Visit is not included in this. There are two
other Resolutions before us; one for a dollar vote and the
other for money to be spent at Government House, which
are nothing at all to do with this.

Mr. WALOOTT: I am pointing out to the hon. member
that this same argument was used when Royal people came
here. Some of us feel that you should not raise these things,
because people like that bring something. People like to see
them and people spend money to come here to see them.
What I am surprised at is that the hon. member is im-
pervious to his own argument, because I thought the hon.
member would have said that the $17,000 spent should not
have been spent; but that amount was spent during the time
he was a Minister. What I am worried about is why is the
hon. member questioning the expenditure which has taken
place. That is why I say he does not seem to understand......

Mr. CRAWFORD: On a point of order, this is com-
pletely illogical and untrue and unfair. I am not talking
about the past; I am talking about the present and future.

Mr. WALOOTT: You can only have a future because you
have this money spent already.

Mr. CRAWFORD: I am not questioning it.

Mr. WALCOTT: He is questioning it because it wants
to know why you need $12,000 in addition to the amount you
had originally. If you had not spent $17,000 you would not
need $12,000, because you had a vote for $20,000 and you
spent $17,000 and you now need $12,000 as an additional
amount. If you had spent the money in accordance with
what the hon. member said, you would not need any further
money. I say that $17,000 were spent during the time that
the hon. member was a Minister of Government, and he is
initiating a Resolution to vote against the additional amount
that is required. That is why I say itis strange behaviour.
I could understand anybody else doing it, but not the hon.
member who has been a member of Government for the
first six months when they spent $17,000. The hon. member
should not enter the debate, whether or not he knew about
it. The hon. member does not understand the niceties of
political propriety. He seems to ignore that. The fact is
that he was a Minister then and was a Party to what was
done whether it was good or bad; and if it was bad conduct,
he should keep his mouth shut.

Mr. CRAWFORD: Mr. Chairman, anybody following
my remarks today and making the speech which the hon.
member has just made means that he does not understand
one single word that I have said, because I made it super-
latively clear that what I am worried about is the possibility
of spending $20,000 more than the vote of this year. I have
not directly criticized the expenditure; all I have said is
that instead of voting $12,000 you should vote half of it.
That in itself would be a caution to the Ministers to be
careful with their expenditure for the remainder of the
financial year. If as is said other requirements are necess-
ary for Heads of State and what not, thenyoucomefor the
additional amount. I assumed and all of us here assumed
that the hon. Juniormemberfor St. Lucy had included some


of the additional expenditure in this extra $12,000. He told
us about 15 minutes ago that we can expect an additional
Resolution further and beyond this amount, which is all the
more reason for exercising caution during the remainder of
the financial year. I do not know whether expenditure for
the first six months normally is heavier than expenditure
for the last six months. It may well be that expenditure
may be more from March to August than September to Feb-
ruary, and I will give reasons. It is human nature if you
have money there to play with that you may not be as care-
ful or cautious as if you did not have it, and that is what I
have been trying to explain today. You should therefore re-
duce the amount, and then if circumstances compel you to
ask for more later and you can justify it, you can have it.

Mr. WALCOTT: Let us see if we can find an area of
agreement since the hon. member has said in his closing
speech that he is not fundamentally opposed to the amount.
You cannot be opposed to the amount and say to come for
it in two stages, because you cannot have two stages of
something you fundamentally oppose.

Mr. CRAWFORD: On a point of order, I did not say
that in my closing speech at all. That is about the third
time I said that. I said it in my first speech when I moved
the reduction by $6,000, and that was the reason I gave for
moving the reduction.

Mr. WALCOTT: Look how illogical that is. You cannot
say you can do it and come back later for the amount, be-
cause the hon. member knows that if he is opposed to this
being too much money, the question of coming back does not
arise. Let the hon. member bear in mind that we are not
pitching marbles. The hon. member says that he is not now
criticising the $17,000 spent. He knows that $17,000 have
been spent, but he is washing his hands like Pilate from
that, and I would ask members of the Opposition how they
can vote for a motion by the hon. member who says that
you should not vote for the additional money unless the Gov-
ernment can show how the $17,000 was spent.
6.15 p.m.

The only way that you can vote against a supplementary
provision is on the basis that the original amount was spent
badly, but not on the hypothetical argument that the money
was spent badly. If that is the case, when he was a trustee
he also sided, abetted and helped those who spent it badly.
What the hon. member does not seem to understand Is the
constitutional position in which he was six months ago. He
was a party to his criticism. The fact is that $17,000 was
spent during the time when the hon. memberwas a Minis-
ter; so the criticism is not of the future. I f the hon. mem-
ber was willing to say that during his regime the Govern-
ment spent $17,000, but notwithstanding the fact that he was
a member of the Government, he would caution the Gov-
ernment to exercise more care, that sort of criticism would
be quite in order. What the hon. member is doing now in
retrospect is criticising his own decisions because as a
member of Government he participated in the expenditure
of these funds which we are now talking about and he has
laid a criticism on his past actions. But the hon. member
has an ingenious way of absolving himself from blame by
looking through the window.

Hon. J. C. TUDOR: Mr. Chairman, this debate has gone
on for some time although I made it clear in my opening
remarks what the facts were. I made note of the extraordin-
ary expenditure as a result of the Queen's Birthday Parade
which was a charge to the Government's Hospitality vote.
I pointed out that on the 15th September the total charges
amounted to $17,000, and for the rest of the financial year
It seems that the sum of $12,000 would bea correct figure.

We have heard a lot ofdebate on this matter and it has
surprised me to this extent that it was not more than two
and a half months ago that the hon. senior member for St.
Peter reminded the House that the hon. senior member for
St. Philip ably defended the Government from strictures by
the hon. junior member for St. Joseph that the Government
was extravagant in more ways than one, and the hon. senior
membr for St. Philip was at pains to point out that the re-

cord of this Government could bear scrutiny any time, day
or night, because from the time we came into power we set
ourselves high standards of conduct for the community.

It therefore came strange to us to hear his criticisms
about the public expenditure. On every occasion before, the
hon. senior member for St. Philip ably defended the Govern-
ment on its public expenditure and now he has thought it
wise to criticise the Government on this matter although he
is familiar with the tremendous expenditure n the Govern-
ment's activities.

It is true that we criticised the Barbados Labour Party
for extravagance in this respect. We certainly agree that
since we have come into power the expenditure in this
direction has been increased; but there is the third truth.
It has to be taken into account that for the money which
we have spent, we have been able to provide more benefits
to this country for what we have expended than all the Bar-
bados Labour Party provided for what they had expended.

I do not want to speakofotherMinistries than my own.
I have entertained people on behalf of the Government here
from Harvard University. The total amount which I spent
may be $500, probably on three occasions, but look what it
meant to the Governmentl You were hearing people saying
that the Ministry of Education was having all parties, but
now they would reflect and say that we were doing these
things so that we could getmanythings done for the Island.
I have spent rather less than what I have got. As a result,
we have people here advising on technical education in the
last year or so, and the latest advice we have got it that we
are likely to get $2 million from United Kingdom Govern-
ment Funds for an expansion of technical education. There
are a lot of things which I can think of. Therefore, what
is $25,000 or $35,000 if you have to spend it inthisway for
doing the work of the people of this Island when compared
with the benefits which all the Ministers of the Government
get for the country, even those who have left us. All of us,
so long as we have been together at some time have been
sharing in the particular benefits which have accrued to
the people of this country. Our benefits far outweigh the
people's money which we have to indulge in. There is no
other way of looking at it.

I think I can speak for the Government. I can say this
on behalf of the two Ministers who have left us. Each Min-
ister of the Government would rather avoid having to be
caught in official entertaining. The worry of it and the
physical strain of it sometimes entail a lot, but it has to
be done.
6.25 p.m.

Since this Government has been in power, I do not
know where a hospitality vote has been abused. We have a
custom whereby there is a proper arrangement made as to
the entertainment which is going to take place from week to
week, and we have tried with success not to duplicate any
entertainment but to telescope it and make properarrange-
ments and fix proper dates. By so doing we can have two
or three parties at the same time instead of having three
parties on three different occasions, but it costs more in
money, strain and fatigue. All of this the hon. senior
member for St. Philip knows and therefore I cannot ac-
cept his amendment to reduce this vote by $6,000, by
$5,000, or even by one half penny. From what everybody
knows, I cannot believe that the amendment is sincere.
It is quite possible that the hon. member is searching for
an area of agreement with this Government, but he cannot
find it in this vote because he knows as much of this as all
of the rest of us know. He knows the tremendous activity
of Government. There have been quite a number of oc-
casions on which It has been found necessary to offer
public hospitality on the part of the people of this island,
and there are certain Ministries which, because of the very
nature of their work, have had to offer this hospitality. In
the Ministry of Education or in the Ministry of Health
which are the chief givers of Governmenthospitality, there
is nothing to be alarmed at because they are the Ministries
which have had a tremendous impact on the lives of the
people, and there are matters which bring them into con-


tact with overseas organizations with which the Government
must of necessity, be in daily contact.

You could not have visitors to this Island for more than
a day and did not offer them some hospitality if the visit
is to Government and has been in some important way con-
nected with the furtherance of Government policy in this
Island. Mr. Chairman, cannot accept this motion: I do not
see how it could be sincere. We have hidden nothing from
hon. members; all the information which has been asked for
has been given: and if it is possiblethat the Hon. Leader of
the Opposition wants to have something else, he is officially
Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, and he has
the authority whenever it suits him, to call the Cabinet
Secretary or the proper person or persons who sees or
see after the control of this vote and askwhatever question
he wants to'ask. Nobody is trying to hide anything from any-
body else. We cannot say that precisely $9,687, for instance,
will be the amount that is required to the end of the finan-
cial year. We have not even taken into account the fact that
there are certain assemblies which are going to be here in
January, not connected with the Government, but with the
University, and in which the Government must offer some
sort of hospitality because there are Univeraity people and
others who are coming here. If they are here in connection
with a major education project such as the laying of the
foundation stone of the new College of Arts and Science,
would you expect the Government to ignore the fact that
these people are here? All this forms Government hospit-
ality in some way. I therefore cannot accept the action of
hon. members who feel otherwise because this Government
is expanding, and who forget that for every penny whichwe
spend not only now but from 1962, some $100,000worth of
benefit comes to this island in one way or other.
The question that the amount of this item be reduced
by $6,000 was put and resolved in the negative, the Com,
mittee dividing as follows:-

NOES: Honourables J. C. TUDOR, E. W. BARROW,
COWARD -- 10.

Mr. CHAIRMAN: The question has been resolved in
the negative, 10 hon. members voting "Aye" and six hon.
members voting "No". I declare that the "NOES" have it.
The question that Head 24 stand part of the Schedule
was put and resolved in the affirmative without division.

Head 29 Public Works was called.
Hon. J. C. TUDOR: Mr. Chairman, in connection with
this Head there is Item 48 Government House- forwhich
a supplementary provision of $5,115 is required. The Note
reads as follows:-
In view of the expected visit to Barbados in 1966 of
members of the Royal Family it is necessary to carry out
structural alterations and improvements to Government
House and improvements to furniture and fittings. To carry
out these works supplementary provision will be required
as under:
Head 29 Public Works, Item 48 -
Government House .. .. $5,115.00"

I beg to move that Head 29 stand part of the Schedule.

Hon. C. E. TALMA: I beg to second that.

The question was put and resolved in the affirmative
without division.
6.35 p.m.
Head 35 Ministry of Education (5) Schools was

Hon. J. C. TUDOR: Mr. Chairman, under Head 35 -
Ministry of Education (5) Schools, Item 22A (New), the sum
of $11,400 Is needed.

If hon. members would look at the note, they will see,
that under the arrangements between this Government and
the United States Government of sending Peace Corps
Teachers here, the Peace Corps programmes are generally
financed by the sender, which is the United States Gov-
ernment, and other participating Governments agree ac-
cording to their circumstances to make some contribution
to the cost of the programme, which contributions are
not asked for, but are voluntary according to the financial
situation of the host Government. Our contribution therefore
is in the nature of a personal allowance of $50 per person
for each of the Peace Corps Teachers, and this sum to the
end of the current financial year is equal to $11,400. I may
say that there are twenty-eight teachers currently engaged
in our schools in this Island.

I beg to move that Head 35 Ministry of Education
(5) Schools, stand part.

Hon. C. E. TALMA: I beg to second that.

Mr. YEARWOOD: Mr. Chairman, I am not opposing
this Head, but what I would like to draw to the attention of
the Minister is that some of these Peace Corps teachers
visit more than one school in the parish in which they are
stationed, and what I have discovered in my parish is that
at the St. John's Mixed School there is a lack of some re-
pairs because water comes in when the rain falls. The same
thing applies to Cherry Grove School, and I would like
the Minister to look into the matter and stop the water
coming in. There is also an inadequacy of space at the
St. John's Mixed School, and I hope that the Minister will
find it possible to do something about it.

The question that Head 35 Ministry of Education
(5) Schools, stand part, was put and resolved in the affirmas
tive without division.

Hon. J. C. TUDOR: Mr. Chairman, I beg to move that
the Resolution for the sum of $32,473 do now pass.
Hon. C. E. TALMA: I beg to second that.
The question was put and resolved in the affirmative
without division.


Hon. J. C. TUDOR: Mr. Chairman,this Resolution for
a small sum is to supplement Part I Current, Head 19 -
Fire Service, Item 15 Medical Treatment. The amount
provided in the Current Estimates of $110 Is not sufficient
to meet existing claims due to the recent submission of
accounts for two years in respect of professional services
for dental treatment of members of the Fire Service. Sup-
plementary provision of $241 is therefore now required.
I beg to move that this Resolution do now pass.

Hon. C. E. TALMA: I beg to second that.

The question was put and resolved in the affirmative
without division.


Hon. J. C. TUDOR: Mr. Chairman, this Resolution
seeks the provision of $1.00 as a token vote. The Reso-
lution of course is in connection with the forthcoming
visit to Barbados of Her Majesty The Queen and H.R.H.
Prince Philip in the middle of February. Hon. members will
appreciate that in this kind of exercise it is never possible
at the earliest stages to be able to say with any accuracy
what the preparations will cost, but we do know generally
speaking what we have to do, and hon. members will see
from paragraph 3 of the Addendum that because the pro-


gramme has not been finalised it is difficult at this stage
to present a reasonable estimate of the expenses likely to
be incurred for the occasions of the visit. But these will in-
clude the cost of decorations, illuminations, awnings, trans-
portation and the employment of additional Island Con-
stables; but because it is necessary in some cases, if
not in all, that orders should be placed early, and we could
not do this until the House signifies its willingness to
meet this item of expenditure, and of course as soon as we
know accurately to the last penny what the full cost will be,
the Legislature will be informed and will be invited to
provide the necessary amount. I am afraid I cannot give hon.
members the details of Her Majesty's visit because the
provisional programme is still to be finally approved by
the authorities at the Colonial Office and Buckingham

I beg to move that this Resolution do now pass.

Hon. C. E. TALMA: I beg to second that.

Mr. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, I am giving the green
light to this Resolution, but I am also warning the Minister
to be careful with the expenditure, because I would not be
afraid to criticise if it is in my opinion too high when he
brings it back before us.

The question that the Resolution do now pass, was
put and resolved in the affirmative without division.


Hon. J. C. TUDOR: Mr. Chairman, this Resolution
asks for supplementary provision of $2,231. Hon. mem-
bers will see from the Addendum that due to a decision
that from 1st July, 1964 the Inspectors who use their motor
cars or motor cycles on official duties should be paid
travelling allowance at the rate prescribed in the Public
Officers Loan and Travelling Allowances Act, what was put
in the Estimates will not be sufficient to meet com-
mitments arising out of this new decision, and therefore
supplementary provision of $2,231 is required to meet
the increased charges for the remainder of the current
financial year.

I beg to move that this Resolution do now pass.

Hon. C. E. TALMA: I beg to second that.

Mr. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, now that this Resolution
seeks to put these Inspectors on the same basis as the
Public Officers, I am wondering if the Government con-
siders placing them on the same basis by way of loans to
help them with motor cars.
6.45 p.m.

I do not think giving them a fixed rate of $32 a month
and allowing them to use their own motor cars would put
them in the same position as the other officers. It is of no
use to help them with travelling allowance and then do not
help them with something to travel by. They want some-
thing to help them travel the long distances which they
have to travel. They do not want something which would
stick up all along the road. You would not be helping those
people if you did not help them with means to obtain a
proper car. It appears to me as if you are only helping
them in one way, but not in the other way.

These people must have a proper machine to travel by.
It is of no use putting the cart before the horse. I would
like to find out from the Hon. Minister if the Government'
is not thinking so yet. The Government should try to help
these people with loans so as to get a proper machine be-
cause these people are doing a very good job; but they real-
ly cannot do it as they would like without a proper car. It is
alright to run around St. Michael; but when you have to go
up and down hills in the country it takes a good motor to
do that job.

Sir, I would tell the Hon. Minister that if he brings
down a Resolution for such a purpose he would not have

much trouble in getting it passed this honourable Chamber.
The Hon. Minister should bring down a Resolution with an
amount of money to help these people to buy a car; other-
wise this travelling allowance would be of no use to them.

The question that the sum of $2,231 do now pass was
put and resolved in the affirmative without division.


Hon. C. E. TALMA: Mr. Chairman, this Resolution is
for the sum of $7,150. It Is comprised of two items under
two Heads, the first Head 24, Premier Cabinet and
General Item 15, Relief of Distressed Barbadians
abroad for which the sum of $500 is to be voted.

The Note sets out very clearly that of the sum of $550
provided under this item in the current Estimates, $540 is
committed in respect of contributions towards the relief
of Miss Edith Brathwalte, a destitute Barbadian in Rio de

During the course of the current year, application has
been received for relief payments in respect of four dis-
tressed Barbadians in Cuba, and the sum now requested is
to enable payments to be made towards the relief of these
cases to 31st March, 1966.

This matter has been carefully examined, and it is felt
that assistance should be given to aid those distressed Bar-
badians in Cuba in keeping with Government's policy in the
past. I beg to move that Head 24, stand part.

Hon. G. G. FERGUSSOIN: I beg to second that.

The question was put and resolved in the affirmative
without division.


Head 37 Ministry of Health, Housing and Local
Government was called.

Hon. C. E. TALMA: The next is Head 37 Ministry
of Health, Housing and Local Government Item 87,
Medical Aid Scheme. We are asking for a supplementary
vote of $6,650, and the addendum explains the position very
briefly but accurately.

It states that of the total sum of $8,000 so far pro-
vided, expenditure and commitments incurred amount to
$6,787.90, leaving a balance of $1,212.10. An urgent case
for which treatment in Montreal, Canada has been recom-
mended involves expenditure estimated at $2,207.00.

This is a case in which a special eye operation has to
be performed and it can not be done either in Trinidad or
Jamaica. In other words, the hospitals in these countries
do not have the necessary surgical equipment to perform
the operation, and it has to be performed at the Queen
Elizabeth Hospital in Canada.

The gentleman in question has lost the sight in one
eye already; and if we delay, he would most certainly lose
the other eye. So we have come to get this supplementary to
send him on to Canada for the operation. He is 57 years old.

In order to meet this expenditure and to provide for
cases likely to arise during the remainder of the financial
year, It is proposed that the item be supplemented by

I beg to move that Head 37, stand part.

Hen. G. G. FERGUSSON: I beg to second that.

The question was put and resolved in the affirmative
without division.

HO. C. E. TALMA: I beg to move that this Resolution
for the sum of $7,150 do now pass.


Hon. G. G. FERGUSSON: I beg to second that.

The question was put and resolved in the affirmative
without division.

On motion of Hon. I. C. TUDOR, seconded by Hon.
C. E. TALMA, Mr. CHAIRMAN reported the passing of
five Resolutions in Committee of Supply.

Mr. SPEAKER resumed the Chair and reported ac-

On separate motions of Hon. I. C. TUDOR, seconded
by Hon. C. E. TALMA in each case, the Resolutions
were read a first and second time and agreed to.

6.55 p.m.


Hon. J. C. TUDOR: Mr. Speaker, it is not our inten-
tion to proceed with Order No. 2 which is the Town and
Country Planning Bill. That is a Bill which has just been
printed and circulated and hon. members would not have
had the opportunity of studying it. I therefore beg to move
that Order No. 3 be taken as the next Order of the Day.
Hon. C. E. TALMA: I beg to second that.
The question was put and resolved in the affirmative
without division.


Mr. SPEAKER: The next Order of the Day stands in
the name of the Honourable and Learned Premier:- To
move the passing of the following Resolution:- Resolution
to approve the Regulations entitled "The Warehousing of
Rum in Bond (Amendment) Regulations, 1965."

Hon. J. C. TUDOR: Mr. Speaker, I am asking leave to
take charge of this Order on behalf of the Honourable and
Learned Premier.

Mr. SPEAKER: The Hon. Leader of theHouseis asking
the indulgence of the House to take charge of this Order
which stands in the name of the Honourable and Learned
Premier, and unless there be any objection, leave will be
granted. (Pause) There being no objection, leave is granted.
The Hon. Leader of the House may proceed.

Hon. J. C. TUDOR: Mr. Speaker, this Resolution is a
Resolution to amend the Warehousing of Rum in Bond
(Amendment) Regulations, 1965. The Resolution seeks the
approval of the House of these Regulations which have been
made under Section 59 (1) of the Rum Duty Act, 1906, a
copy of which has been laid in this House. All the Regula-
tions seek to do is to provide that the owners of bonds, the
importers of rum, should pay for the services of Customs
Officers which are required on a part-time basis at the
rate of $2.50 per hour. I beg to move that this Resolution
do now pass.

Hon. C. E. TALMA: I beg to second that.
The question was put and resolved in the affirmative
without division.


Hon. J. C. TUDOR: Mr. Speaker, the consideration
of that Resolution concludes Government Business for to-
day's sitting. In fixing the Order Paper, there will be
Committee of Supply as the first Order of the Day and the
other matters follow seriatim. I beg to move that this
House do now adjourn until this day week, Tuesday, 26th
October, 1965, at 2.30 o'clock p.m.

Hon. C. E. TALMA: I beg to second that.

The question that this House do now adjourn until this
day week, Tuesday, 26th October, 1965, at 2.30 o'clock p.m.,
wuas put and resolved in the affirmative without division,
and Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House accordingly.

7.05 p.m.

Publication Not Available

Supplement to
Barbados Official Gazette
v. 101 no. 61

L.N. 97


University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs