• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Main
 House of assembly debates for 15th...
 Senate debates for 21st December,...
 Statutory Instruments Supplement...
 Statutory Instruments Supplement...
 Statutory Instruments Supplement...














Group Title: Official gazette, Barbados
Title: The official gazette
ALL VOLUMES CITATION THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00076861/00094
 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
 Subjects
Subject: Law -- Periodicals -- Barbados   ( lcsh )
Politics and government -- Periodicals -- Barbados   ( lcsh )
Genre: periodical   ( marcgt )
 Notes
General Note: Caption title.
General Note: Supplements issued for some of the numbers.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00076861
Volume ID: VID00094
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
    Main
        Page 387
        Page 388
        Page 389
        Page 390
        Page 391
        Page 392
        Page 393
        Page 394
    House of assembly debates for 15th April, 1969
        Page A 1
        Page A 2
        Page A 3
        Page A 4
        Page A 5
        Page A 6
        Page A 7
        Page A 8
        Page A 9
        Page A 10
        Page A 11
        Page A 12
        Page A 13
        Page A 14
        Page A 15
        Page A 16
        Page A 17
        Page A 18
        Page A 19
        Page A 20
        Page A 21
        Page A 22
        Page A 23
        Page A 24
        Page A 25
        Page A 26
        Page A 27
        Page A 28
        Page A 29
        Page A 30
        Page A 31
        Page A 32
        Page A 33
        Page A 34
        Page A 35
        Page A 36
        Page A 37
        Page A 38
        Page A 39
        Page A 40
        Page A 41
        Page A 42
        Page A 43
        Page A 44
        Page A 45
        Page A 46
        Page A 47
        Page A 48
        Page A 49
    Senate debates for 21st December, 1967
        Page B 268
        Page B 269
        Page B 270
        Page B 271
        Page B 272
        Page B 273
        Page B 274
        Page B 275
        Page B 276
        Page B 277
        Page B 278
        Page B 279
        Page B 280
        Page B 281
        Page B 282
        Page B 283
        Page B 284
    Statutory Instruments Supplement No. 25; S.I. 68: Declaration of approved export manufacturer (Barbados Fibre Glass Ltd.) (fibre glass boats and other fibre glass water sports equipment) (revocation) order, 1969
        Page C 1
    Statutory Instruments Supplement No. 25; S.I. 69: Declaration of approved enterprise (Barbadoes Fibre Glass Ltd.) order, 1969
        Page C 2
    Statutory Instruments Supplement No. 25; S.I. 70; S.I. 70: Declaration of approved enterprise (Curacao Laboratories (Barbados) Ltd.) (deodorants) order, 1969
        Page C 3
Full Text











VOL. CIV.


(iefida


PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY


BRIDGETOWN, BARBADOS, 28TH APRIL, 1969


TABLE OF CONTENTS
Gazette Notices
Acting Appointments:
Dr. Douglas Carter as Assistant Medical
Superintendent, Mental Hospital.......
Dr. I. J. Davies as Medical Superintendent,
Mental Hospital...........................
W. B. Forde as Assistant Commissioner of
Police......................................
Dr. Jean Lemmer as Assistant Medical
Superintendent, Mental Hospital......
N. St.C. Lovell as Auditor, Auditor General's
Department.................. .........
E. A. Lucas as Examiner, Auditor General's
Department ......................
W. Phillips as Assistant Commissioner of
Police....................... ..............
Keith E. Sealy as Senior Auditor, Auditor
General's Department...................
Applications for Liquor Licences, Dist. "A"....
Appointment:
Elliott FitzR. Belgrave as Magistrate......
Appointment of members to the Sugar Factory
Workers Severance Payments Board.........
Appointment of members to the Sugar Workers'
Provident Fund Board.........................
Income Tax Notice (Arrears of Tax)...............
Income Tax Notice (Year of Income 1968)........
Industrial Incentives re Corrugated Galvanized
Sheets ........... .. ...... .............
Notice of Sitting of Licensing Authority, Dist. 'A'


388

388

388

388

387

387

388
387
389
387
390

390
391, 392
393,394
388
389


House of Assembly Debates for 15th April, 1969.
Senate Debates for 21st December, 1967.


Legal Supplement
S.I 1969 No. 68: Declaration of Approved Export Manu-
facturer (Barbados Fibre Glass Ltd.)
(Fibre glass boats and other fibre glass
water sports equipment) (Revocation)
Order, 1969.
S.I. 1969 No. 69: Declaration of Approved Enterprise
(Barbados Fibre Glass ltd.) Order, 1969.
No.70: Declaration of approvedd EiKterprise (Curacao
Laboratories (Barbados) Ltd.) etc., Order, 1969,


NOTICE NO. 293

GOVERNMENT NOTICES

Appointment

Elliott FitzR. Belgrave, Deputy Regis-
trar, has been appointed as Magistrate with
effect from 1st April, 1968.

(M.P. 1905 Vol. IV)


Acting Appointments

Keith E. Sealy, Auditor has been ap-
pointed to act as Senior Auditor, 'Auditor
General's .Dpartment, with effect from 7th
February, 1969, until further notice.


N. St. C. Lovell, Examiner, has beenap-
pointed to act as Auditor, Auditor General's
Department, with effect from 7th February,
1969 until further notice.


E. A. Lucas, Clerical Officer, has been
appointed to act as Examiner, Auditor Gen-
eral's Department, with effect from 7th
February, 1969, until further


(M.P. 2909/8) /


X it
g,7. *J


NO. 34


a~a~ot~
i


ZSfl








OFIILGZTEIpi 8 16


NOTICE NO. 294

NOTICE

THE INDUSTRIAL INCENTIVES ACT, 1963

(Section 16)

The Prime Minister and Minister of Fi-
nance pursuant to Section 6 of the Industrial
Incentives Act, 1963, hereby gives notice that
he is about to.e asked to consider whether

'r purposes of the abovementioned Act,
the following products should be approved
products and whether the following compan-
ies should be approved enterprises in respect
of the relevant products.

Any person interested in the manufac-
ture or importation of these products who ob-
jects to their being declared approved
products or the companies being declared
approved enterprises for the. purposes of the
Industrial Incentives Act, 1963, should for-
ward to the Director, Economic Planning Unit,
Office of the Prime Minister and a copy to
the Manager, Barbados Development Board,
to reach them on or before Thursday, May
8th, 1969, a statement in writing setting forth
the grounds of his objection.

Company: Relevant Product:
J. N. Harriman Corrugated
(B'dos ) Ltd. Galvanized Sheets.


GOVERNMENT NOTICES

Acting Appointments

W. Phillips, Senior Superintendent of
Police, has been appointed to act as Assist-
ant Commissioner of Police, with effectfrom
16th July to 15th September, 1968.


W. D. Forde, Senior Superintendent, has
been appointed to act as Assistant Commis-
sioner of Police, with effect from 16th Sep-
tember to 15th December, 1968.

(M.P. 3657/24)


Dr. I. J. Davies, Assistant Medical
Superintendent, Mental Hospital has beenap-
pointed to act as Medical Superintendent, with
effect from 6th to 25th April, 1969.




Dr. Douglas Carter, has been appointed
to act as Assistant Medical Superintendent,
Mental Hospital, with effect from 6th to 25th
April, 1969.

Dr. Jean Lemmer, has been appointed to
act as Assistant Medical Superintendent,
Mental Hospital, with effect from 6th to 25th
April, 1969.


(M.P. 529/18)


OFFICIAL GAZETTE


April 28, ,1969








April 28, 1969 OFFICIAL GAZETTE


NOTICE NO. 295

Form R Regulation 9

Notice of Sitting of Licensing Authority

(The Liquor Licence Act, 1957 Section 16)

Notice is hereby given that a special
Sitting of the Licensing Authority for District
"A" will be held at the Magistrates' Courts,
District "A" on Thursday 15th May, 1969 for
the purpose of granting Licences, .transfers
of Licences and Orders for Registration of
Clubs under the above mentioned Act.

Dated at Magistrates' Courts District
"A", 16th April, 1969.

GEORGE COLLYMORE
Clerk to the Licensing Authority.

N.B. All Applications must r ,ach the
Magistrates' Courts District "A" not later
than twenty-one (21) days before date.


NOTICE NO. 296
LIQUOR LICENCE NOTICE

(Act 1957 40)
APPLICANT: ISHI KESSARAM
(India House Ltd.)
OCCUPATION: Manager
PREMISES: Wall building situated at
No. 9 Broad Street.


Dated this 16th day of April 1969.

Signed: ISHI KESSARAM
Applicant.
This Application for a Retail Licence
will be considered at a Licenisng Court to be
held at Magistrates' Courts District "A' on
Thursday the 15th day of May 1969 at
9 o'clock a.m.
GEORGE COLLYMORE
Clerk to Licensing Authority.


NOTICE NO. 297

LIQUOR LICENCE NOTICES

(Act 1957- 40)


APPLICANT: ORBAN BASTON
OCCUPATION: Contractor
ADDRESS: Enterprise, ChristChurch.
PREMISES: Wall building situated at
the Corner of Suttle
Street and Hart Street,
Near St. Mary's
Church.
Dated this 17th day of April 1969.

Signed: ORBAN BASTON
Applicant.

This Application for a Restaurant Li-
cence will be considered at a Licensing Court
to be held at Magistrates' Courts District
"A" on Thursday the 15th day of May 1969 at
9 o'clock a.m.

GEORGL COLLYMORE
Clerk to Licensing Authority.


APPLICANT: H. 0. TOPP1N
ADDRESS: 84 Roebuck Street
PREMISES: Ground floor of wall
building situated at
84 Roebuck Street.
Dated this 24th day of March 1969.

Signed: H. 0. TOPPIN
Applicant.


This Application for a Retail Licence
will be considered at a Licensing Court to be
held at Magistrates' Courts District "A" on
Thursday the 15th day of May 1969 at
9 o'clock a.m.

GEORGE COLLYMORE
Clerk to Licensing Authority.


April 28, 1969


OFFICIAL, GAZETTE


I












GOVERNMENT NOTICES

Sugar Factory Workers Severance Payments Act, 1965


APPOINTMENTS


In accordance with the provisions of Section 4 (2) of the Sugar Factory
Workers Severance Payments Act, 1965, as amended by the Existing Laws
Amendment Order, No. 2 1967, the Minister has appointed the following per-
sons to be members of the Sugar Factory Workers Severance Payments Board
for a period of two years with effect from 21st April, 1969:-


Mr. C. L. L. Sealy
Mr. C. R. Packer
Mr. E. L. G. Hoad


Nominated by the Barbados Sugar
Producers' Federation


Senator F. L. Walcott, O.B.E.
Mr. Aubrev Sobers
Mr. Oscar Atwell


Nominated by the Barbados
Workers' Union.


(M.P. 1035/18/2)


APPOINTMENT OF MEMBERS TO SUGAR WORKERS'
PROVIDENT FUND BOARD

In accordance with Section 3 of the Sugar Workers (Provident Fund) Act,
1968, (1968-54), the Minister of Labour has appointed the following persons to
be members of the Sugar Workers' Provident Fund Board under the Chairman-
ship of the Chief Labour Officer for a period of two years with effect from 1st
May, 1969:-


Mr. E. R. L. Ward
Mr. N. C. Thornton
Mr. C. 0. Williams


Mr. E. Henry
Mr. O. Atwell
Senator F. L. Walcott

O.B.E.


Nominated by the Sugar Producers'
Federation of Barbados.



Nominated by the Barbados
Workers' Union.


April 28, 1960


OFFICIAL GAZETTE










INCOME TAX NOTICE

ARREARS OF TAX

There are many taxpayers on the delinquent list and it is intended to obtain
immediate collection of unpaid taxes by maintaining a firm policy of collection and using
for this purpose the processes provided by the Income Tax Act 1968.

2. Scores of reminders have been issued to defaulters and there is no intention
of issuing further reminders to those who have disregarded them. Collection will now be
made by way of GARNISHMENT. Those persons in arrears with tax payments are re-
quested to call immediately and pay arrears due, thus avoiding collection through their
employers or other persons.

3. For the information of all concerned the Section of the Income Tax Act 1968
providing for unpaid tax certificates and Garnishment are as set forth:-

W. A. GITTENS
Commissioner of Inland Revnue.
2nd April, 1969.

Section 72. (1) "An amount payable by a person under this Act that has remained
unpaid for a period of 30 days may be certified in relation to that
person by the Commissioner in a certificate called an unpaid tax
certificate.

(2) An unpaid tax certificate may be filed by the Commissioner inthe
High Court or in the Magistrate's Court of District "A" and shall be
registered in the Court in which it is filed and after the expiry of
seven days after it is filed and registered has the same force and ef-
fect as a judgement of the Court in which it is registered in favour
of the Crown against the person named in the certificate for the
amount specified in the certificate plus

(a) interest theron as provided in this Act until the date of pay-
ment; and
(b) the reasonable costs and charges attendant upon the registra-
tion of the certificate;
and all proceedings may be taken on the certificate and it may be en-
forced as if it is a judgement of the Court in which it is registered.

3. Where an unpaid tax certificate is filed by the Commissioner in the
High Court or in the Magistrate's Court of District "A" the Com-
missioner shall forthwith deliver a copy of the unpaid tax certificate to
the person to whom the unpaid tax certificate relates and if the


April 28, 1969


OFFICIAL GAZETTE









INCOME TAX NOTICE -Continued

copy of the unpaid tax certificate is not so delivered within 7 days of
the filing then subsection (2) ceases to have effect with respect to
that unpaid tax certificate.

Section 73. (1) Where the Commissioner believes that any person is indebted to or
liable to make a payment to another person and that other persons
indebted to the Crown under this Act, the Commissioner may deliver
to the first mentioned person a demand for payment stating the name
of the person indebted to the Crown and the amount of the debt to the
Crown including the rate of interest thereon, and where that first
mentioned person is the employer of the person indebted to the Crown
the amount demanded for each pay period expressed either as a
dollar amount or a percentage of renumeration.

(2) Every person who receives a demand for payment under subsection
(1) relating to one of his employees shall pay to the Commissioner at
the same time as he would pay that employee the amount demanded by
the Commissioner or the amount of the employee's indebtedness to
the Crown, whichever is lesser, and shall continue to do so on each
occasion that the employee is entitled to be paid until the employee's
indebtedness to the Crown is satisfied.

(3) Every person who receives a demand for payment under subsection
(1) relating to some person other than one of his employees shall, if
he is indebted to or liable to make a payment to that other person,
pay to the Commissioner the amount of his indebtedness or the
amount which he is liable to pay to that person or the amount of that
person's indebtedness to the Crown, whichever, is the lesser.

(4) Every person who has discharged any liability to a person indebted to
the Crown under this Act after receiving a demand for payment un-
der subsection (1) without complying with subsection (2) or (3) is
liable to pay to the Crown an amount equal to the liability discharged
of which he was required under subsections (2) or (3) to pay the
Commissioner, whichever is the lesser.

(5) The payment of any amount to the Commissioner under subsections
(2) or (3) operates as a discharge of any liability of the person mak-
ing the payment to the person to whom the payment, would but for
this section, have been paid, to the extent of the amount paid to the
Commissioner.

(6) This section is effective notwithstanding the Protection of Wages
Act, 1951."


OFFICIAL GAZETTE


April 28, 1969








April 28. 1969 OFFICIAL GAZETTE


INCOME TAX NOTICE

(Year of Income 1968)

Notice is hereby given that Income Tax Returns are required from:-

(1) Every Company, and every person resident or non resident who has
carried on a business, profession, vocation, trade, manufacture or un-
dertaking of any kind, or an adventure or concern in the nature of trade
in Barbados during the income year 1968.

(2) Every person who was in the income year 1968 -
(a) an owner of land;
(b)' as owner of property, other than land, from which as assess-
able income was derived:
(c) a trust or estate;
(d) an individual who
(i) was a married person who wholly supported his spouse,
or
(ii) was a married man whose wife was habitually living with
him,
and whose assessable income, including the assessable income of
his spousewas $1,400 or over in the income year; or

(e) an individual other than an individual described in paragraph
(d) whose assessable income was $800 or over in the income
year.

2. Return Forms

Returns may be obtained from the Inland Revenue Department (2nd
Floor) Treasury Building, Bridge Street, and forms duly filled in must
be delivered to me on or before 30th April, 1969.

3. Every Company and every other person required to file a return of his
assessable income shall in the return
(a) set out the deductions from assessable income that he wishes to
claim,
(b) calculate his taxable income, and
(c) estimate the amount of tax payable by him.


April 28, 1969


OFFICIAL GAZETTE










4. Payment of Tax
The tax as estimated and unpaid must be paid as indicated hereunder:-

(a) By Companies

on or before 30th April, 1969.

(b) By Individuals
One half (1/2) not later than 30th June, 1969.
The other half (1/2) not later than 30th November, 1969.

W. A. GITTENS
Commissioner of Inland Revenue.


FORMS TO BE USED BY INDIVIDUALS

1. Short Form

This return form should be used by persons in receipt of income from
the following sources only:-

(a) employment (salary, wages pension etc.) and
(b) interest arising in Barbados.

a brochure has been prepared to assist persons using the short form in
completing returns and estimating tax payable. A copy will be issued with
each form. Please ensure that you obtain a copy.

2. General Form

This return form should be used by all other persons. For persons filing
the General Form a Guide has been prepared; this should be of assis-
tance in completing returns and estimating tax payable. A copy will be
issued with each return form.

Penalties

(1) Failure to deliver a return of income by 30th April, 1969, to estimate
tax payable, 5% of tax assessed and unpaid.

(2) Failure to pay an account of tax estimated or that is assessed and
unpaid 5% of the tax due and unpaid or $10 which ever is the greater,

And in addition to penalties at (1) and (2) liable on Summary con-
viction toa fine of not less than $10.00 andnot greater than $10,000.

(3) Interest at the rate of 1% per month.


Government Printing Office.


April 28, -1969


OFFICIAL GAZETTE











THE


House of Assembly Debates




(OFFICIAL REPORT)


SECOND SESSION OF 1966 71
t.


: HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY

Tuesday, 15th April, 1969.
Pursuant to the adjournment, the House of
Assembly met at 12.15 p.m. o'clock.

PRESENT
His Honour Sir J. E. T. BRANCKER, Q.C., F.Z.S.,
(Speaker); Mr. L. E. SMITH, J.P.; Hon. K. N. R. HUSBANDS,
J.P., (Minister of Agriculture, Labour and National Insurance);
Mr. E. St.A. HOLDER, J.P.; Mr. J. W. CORBIN, J.P.; Hon.
G. G. FERGUSSON, (Minister of Trade, Touriskn, Co-opera-
tives and Fisheries); Mr. R. St. C. WEEKES, J.P.: Mr.
W. R. LOWE, J.P.; Hon. N. W. BOXILL, (Minister of Com-
munications and Works); Mr. A. DaC. EDWARDS; Mr. C. A. E.
HOPPIN, J.P.; Mr. L. S. CRAIG and Mr. J. M. G. M. ADAMS,
M.A.
Prayers were read.
The Rt. Hon. E. W. BARROW and Sir GRANTLEY ADAMS
entered the Chamber and took their seats.
MINUTES

Mr. SPEAKER: There are, unfortunately, again
no Minutes available for confirmation.

I have the honour to inform the House that I have
received from the Accountant General the Accounts
and Statements for the months of September, October
and December, 1967, as prepared by him.

PAPERS LAID

Rt. Hon. E. W.' BARROW: Mr. Speaker, I am
commanded to lay the following:

The Civil Establishment (General) (Amendment)
(No. 3) Order, 1969.

The Customs Duties (Amendment) Order, 1969.

The Customs Duties (Barbados Arts Council)
Order, 1969.

The Customs Duties (Alliance Francaise) Order,
1969.


The Customs Duties (Duke
Scheme) Order, 1969.

Hon. N. W. BOXILL: Mr.
manded to lay the following:


of Edinburgh Award


Speaker, I am com-


The Barbados Harbours (Amendment) (No. 3)
Regulations, 1969.

GOVERNMENT NOTICES

Rt. Hon. E. W. BARROW: Mr. Speaker, I beg to
give notice of the following:

A Resolution to approve the Civil Establishment
(General) (Amendment) (No. 3) Order, 1969.

A Bill to amend the Racing Service Business
(Registration of Premises) Act, 1964.

A Bill to amend the Legal Aid in Criminal Cases
Act, 1968.

A Bill to amend the provisions of certain Acts
relating to the registration of professional persons
and to the publication of the registers of persons re-
quired to be kept thereunder.

A Bill to amend the Registers of Electors
(Special Provisions) Act, 1969.

I also beg to give notice that Replies are ready
to the following Parliamentary Questions:

Parliamentary Question No. 284 asked by the
hon. senior member for St. Thomas.

Parliamentary Question No. 315 asked by the hon.
senior member for St. James.

Parliamentary Question No. 270 asked by the
hon. junior member for St. Peter.

Parliamentary Question No. 275 asked by the
same hon. member.

Parliamentary Question No. 280 asked by the
hon. senior member for St. Thomas.











Parliamentary Question No. 301 asked by the
same hon. member.

Parliamentary Question No. 318 asked by the hon.
senior member for St. James.

Parliamentary Question No. 317 asked by the
same hon. member.

Parliamentary Question No. 306 asked by the hon.
senior member for St. Joseph.

Parliamentary Question No. 324 asked by the hon.
senior member for St. james.

Parliamentary Question No. 336 asked by the hon.
senior member for St. Thomas.

Parliamentary Question No. 338 asked by the
same hon. member.

Parliamentary Question No. 311 asked by the
hon. senior member for St. Andrew.

Parliamentary Question No. 337 asked by the hon.
senior member for St. Thomas.

Hon. N. W. BOXILL: Mr. Speaker, I beg to give
notice that Oral Reply to Parliamentary Question No.
290 asked by the hon. senior member for St. Joseph
is ready.

Also Oral Reply to Parliamentary Question No.
305 asked by the hon. senior member for St. Thomas
is ready.

Hon. K. N. R. HUSBANDS: Mr. Speaker, Ibeg to
give notice that Oral Reply to Parliamentary Ques-
tion No. 326 asked by the hon. senior member for
St. Joseph is ready.

Hon. G. G. FERGUSSON: Mr. Speaker, I beg to
give notice that Oral Reply to Parliamentary Ques-
tion No. 247 asked by the hon. seniormemberforSt.
James is ready.

QUESTIONS

Mr. J. M. G. M. ADAMS: Mr. Speaker, I beg to
give notice of the following Question:-

To enquire of the Minister of Communications
and Works:-
Will the Minister take urgent action to improve
the condition of the roads at Goodridge Tenantry,
Lightfoot Lane, in the City of Bridgetown where
communications for residents are very adversely
affected by rainfall?

Mr. ST. JOHN entered the Chamber and took his seat.

BILLS READ A FIRST TIME

On motion of Rt. Hon. E. W. BARROW, seconded by Hon.
N. W. BOXILL, a Bill to amend the Racing Service Business
(Registration of Premises) Act, 1964, was read a first time.
12.25 p.m.


On motion of Rt. Hon. E. W. BARROW, seconded by Hon.
N. W. BOXILL, a Bill to amend the Legal Aid in Criminal
Cases Act, 1968, was read a first time.
On motion of Rt. Hon. E. W. BARROW, seconded by Hon.
N. W. BOXILL, a Bill to amend the provisions of certain
Acts relating to the registration of professional persons and to
the publication of the registers of persons required to be kept
thereunder, was read a first time.
On motion of Rt. Hon. E. W. BARROW, seconded by
Hon. N. W. BOXILL, a Bill to amend the Registers of Elec-
tors (Special Provisions) Act, 1969, was read a first time.

Sir GRANTLEY ADAMS: Mr. Speaker, on a
point of order. May I suggest that the same apparatus
that Your Honour has be given to the Clerk? I cannot
hear what is being said.

Mr. SPEAKER: I have noted the point; but may I
suggest, not the same, but a similar apparatus.

SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS

Rt. Hon. E. W. BARROW: Mr. Speaker, I beg to
move that the Standing Orders Nos. 5, 14,16, 18, 19,
40 and 45 be suspendedforthe rest of today's sitting.

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

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

REGISTERS OF ELECTORS (SPECIAL PROVI-
SIONS) (AMENDMENT) ACT, 1969

Rt. Hon. E. W. BARROW: Mr. Speaker, I gave
notice of a Bill to amend the Registers of Electors
(Special Provisions) Act, 1969 (1969-9) in order to
provide for the issue of identification cards to per-
sons registered under that Act. It is a relatively
short amendment, and I will be asking leave to deal
with this Bill in all of its stages today. Copies have
been circulated to hon. members.

Mr. St. JOHN: Mr. Speaker, I just want to make
it clear that we on this side are objecting to any
leave being given.

APPOINTMENT OF ACTING CHAIRMAN
OF COMMITTEES

Rt. Hon. E. W. BARROW: Mr. Speaker, I beg to
move that the hon. junior member for St. George, in
the absence of the Chairman of Committees, be ap-
pointed Acting Chairman of Committees for today's
session.

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

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

Rt. Hon. E. W. BARROW: Mr. Speaker, I beg to
move that Government Business be now taken.

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


I











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

GOVERNMENT BUSINESS

Rt. Hon. E. W. BARROW: Mr. Speaker, I beg to
move that No. 1 be the first Order of the Day.

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

Mr. SPEAKER: In respect of No. 1, I regret to
have to inform the Hon. and Learned Prime Minister
that the Select Committee to which it has been re-
ferred has not yet presented its Report.

Will the Hon. Prime Minister or the Acting
Leader of the House intimate the next matter with
which it is proposed to deal?

Rt. Hon. E. W. BARROW: Mr. Speaker, I ask
permission to continue with Order No. 2.

Mr. SPEAKER: The Hon. and Learned Prime
Minister is seeking leave of the House to take charge
of that matter standing in the name of the Hon. Leader
of the House. Unless there is any objection, leave will
be granted. Hearing no objection, leave is granted
to the Hon. Prime Minister to move the second
reading of a Bill to amend and consolidate the law
relating to the election of members of the House of
Assembly of this Island, to legal proceedings con-
nected therewith, and to the determination of contro-
versies arising upon such elections.

Mr. St. JOHN: With what are we dealing?

Rt. Hon. E. W. BARROW: Mr. Speaker, I said
No. 2.

Mr. SPEAKER: I apologise; it is Order No. 2.
which also stands in the name of the Hon. Leader of
the House, and it is to move the second reading of
a Bill to amend the Representation of the People
Act, 1957.

Sir GRANTLEY ADAMS: Mr. Speaker, we are at
sea, and we do not know what is going to be dealt with.

Mr. SPEAKER: I miscalled No. 3 when I should
have called No. 2. That was due to my mishearing. It
is really the second reading of a Bill to amend the
Representation ofthe People Act, 1957.

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE
(AMENDMENT) BILL, 1969

Rt. Hon. E. W. BARROW: Mr. Speaker, the Bill
forwhichwe are seeking to get the approval of the House
is an amendment to the Representation of the People
Act, 1957, which is the main legislation dealing with
the electoral rights of citizens of this country, under
which we have been managing our elections for the
past ten or twelve years. This Bill makes provision
for single-member constituencies, which was part


and parcel of this Government's policy ever since it
came to office in 1961.

We have passed various bits of legislation, which
are no longer in effect, relating to single-member
constituencies and to a Boundaries Commission.
12.35 p.m.

We have had a Boundaries Commission over
which Your Hon. had the privilege and distinction of
presiding. The 24 Constituencies are specifiedinthe
Fourth Schedule to the Act. The Bill also makes pro-
vision, in Clause 6 of the First Schedule which
replaces Part 2 of the Principal Act, for the pre-
paration, publication and division of the Electoral
Register for the purposes of elections for single-
member Constituencies. The manner in which the
Register will be prepared is set out in the provisions
of the Bill itself. It also makes provision for bringing
the principal Act of 1957 into conformity with the
Constitution of this country, and these amendments
are principally concerned with the qualifications and
tenure of members of the House of Assembly. Another
feature of the amending Bill is the transfer of func-
tions which were formerly discharged by the Cabinet
to the Minister responsible for Home Affairs, and
there are various other consequential amendments
which, I do not think, are of a controversial nature.
In the Committee stage of the Bill, I will be asking
leave to introduce further amendments, and these
amendments are in relation to the establishment of
proof of identity, and the questionswhichthe Presid-
ing Officers at the various Polling Stations may be
permitted to ask of a person whose name is already
on the Register.

I should like to make it clear, Sir, that the amend-
ments which I will be introducing in the Committee
stage do not in any way affect any existing Register
or the Register which becomes effective from today
in a particular Constituency. All that the amendments
which have been circulated to members willbe seek-
ing to do will be to establish a satisfactory means of
identification of those persons who are on the Regis-
ter already, and it is not exclusively by identification
cards which it will be, of course, in future elections,
in conformity with other territories in the area; but
in this particular bye-election which is in the offing,
if I may put it in that way, the result of which we on
this side may consider a foregone conclusion- I say
that parenthetically all we are doing is to widen the
powers of the Presiding Officer and give him a fair-
ly wide ambit to the electors themselves so as to
establish satisfactory proof of theiridentity, andthat
they are the persons whose names appear on the
Register. According to the former rules, the Pre-
siding Officer was entitled to ask and had to ask,
if a candidate or agent insisted person who is ap-
pearing before him to vote in that particular Polling
Station, two questions, and two questions only. "Are
you the person whose name appears on the Register
and are you qualified?" I think ...... (ASIDES). "Are
you the person and have you already voted?" Do not
mind 300 years; sixteen million Frenchmen cannot










be wrong either. (Laughter.) But what we are doing
Sir and no honest person should be afraid of this
amendment we are giving permission to the Pre-
siding Officer to call upon the person to produce (a)
either his identification card or (b) a drivinglicence
or (c) a passport or (d) a Social Security Card which
over 70,000 people in this island will have already
possessed, or this is the general omnibus Clause
now by some other means, some established satis-
factory proof of his orheridentity. That is all it does.
It is not restricting, because of the shortness of time,
the right to vote onthe possession of an identification
card; your right to vote depends on your name being
on the Register for the particular district. The Regis-
tering Officer was always entitled and had a duty,
if called upon to do so to call upon the person to
establish proof of his or her identity, and we have
tried to word it as widely as possible, so that a per-
son who does not have an identification card or a
passport or a driving licence or a Social Security
Card may establish by some other satisfactory means
his identity to the Presiding Officer.

As I said, Sir, no honest voterinthis country is
going to be in opposition to the Presiding Officer so
exercising his duties, and apart from those few
amendments to the Schedule, the amending Bill re-
mains unimpaired. I should like to inform hon. mem-
bers that the Crown Law Officers are now working
on a comprehensive codification, if I may put it in
that way, of the Representation of the People Act,
so that instead of having piece meal amendments, we
will have a comprehensive Bill dealing with the re-
presentation of the people, the preparation of the
Registers and the exercise of the vote by those who
are entitled in this country. I therefore beg to move
that this Bill be now read a second time.

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

Mr. ST. JOHN: Mr. Speaker, this is an important
Bill because it deals with the manner of election for
membership to this House. We find it impossible to
deal with this Bill at this stage, having regard to the
fact that amendments have been circulated less than
five minutes ago, during the course of the introduc-
tion of the Second Reading speech by the Prime
Minister. This is the first occasion onwhich we, on
this side, received the proposed amendments. The
Bill, as Your Honour will recall, is itself a very
large Bill containing a numberof Clauses, andI think
it is impossible to expect an intelligent examination
of the Bill to be dote in the time made available. We
feel that this matter should be postponed at least
until some time later in the day. (ASIDES). I beg
to move that further consideration of this Bill be
postponed.

Sir GRANTLEY ADAMS: I beg to second that. I
have just told the hon. andlearnedmemberwho made
this proposal, notto fixatime. Whenwe have finished
reading this, we may feel that this shouldn't be dealt
with until nextweek. There is no doubtwhatever about
it in our minds as to the hypocrisy if we spoke other-
wise. This is a specific stunt by the Government to
try and get an advantage over the Opposition in this


coming election (ASIDES). Imagine a serious matter
like this, after what appeared inthe Press. They put
up the Chief Registering Officer tosaythatphoto-
graphs do not matter, that you can stillvote; and out
comes a Senator and we all knowthe inside history
of all these quarrels in the Government. We know
that the whole Cabinet does not agree; we know that
some members of the Cabinet are not in their places
today because they are not prepared to support the
Government in this. We know all that. It is sheer
dishonesty......


Rt. Hon. E. W.
objecting......

Sir GRANTLEY
(ASIDES).

Mr. SPEAKER:
a point of order?

Sir GRANTLEY
order, Sir?


BARROW: Mr. Speaker, I am


ADAMS: I am not giving way


Has the hon. member risen on


ADAMS: What is the point of


Mr. SPEAKER: I have to hear it.

Sir GRANTLEY ADAMS: It is for Your Honour
to decide what is the point of order before you rise.

Mr. SPEAKER: I cannot decide without hearing it.
12.45 p.m.


Mr. HINDS: Ona point of order, two hon. mem-
bers are on their feet.

Sir GRANTLEY ADAMS: I will remain standing
until Your Honour......

Mr. SPEAKER: The Hon. and Learned Prime
Minister has said that he has risen on a point of
order, and having so done, the Hon. Leader of the Op-
position should resume his seat until the point of or-
der is made and determined by me.

Sir GRANTLEY ADAMS: I bow to that.

Mr. HINDS: On a point of order, in referring to
the Right Hon. Prime Minister, I would like you to
give him what is his due and to refer to him as the
Rt. Hon. Prime Minister even when he is wrong.

Mr. SPEAKER: That is not apointof order, nor
can a point of orderarise from member stating that
he is rising on a point of order.



Rt. Hon. E. W. BARROW: May I say something
for the edification of the memberwho so rudely inter-
rupted Your Honour? There is no Rt. Hon. Prime
Minister in this House. There is a person by name
who has been appointed to a certain post. I am still
the Prime Minister.

Mr. SPEAKER: Let the Prime Ministerproceed
with the point of order on which he rose.











R:. Hon. E. W. BARROW: The point of order on
which I rose is this. The hon. member used some
very intemperate language and said it was sheer dis-
honesty on the part of the Government. This identi-
fies at least six persons present at this session who
are members of the Government, and although the
hon. member has not referred to any individual
member of the Government by name, he is classi-
fying six members of this Honourable House as being
dishonest persons, just because accordingto him this
particular amendment does not suit his devices or
what he wants to contrive.

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. member has made his
point of order.

Rt. Hon. E. W. BARROW: But this is what he said,
not what I am saying. He said that this is a device for
the Government; therefore it does not suit him. I said
that no honest person ought to be ashamed of having
himself identified at a poll. I am not referring to
members of this House. No honest voter ought to be
ashamed. I do not see howhe can accuse members of
the Government of dishonesty for introducing an
amendment which calls upon electors to identify them-
selves. The hon. member, in otherwords, will have to
withdraw that statement.

Sir GRANTLEY ADAMS: I am not withdrawing
anything. There is a limit to everything. Because the
hon. member is Prime Minister......

Rt. Hon. E. W. BARROW: Mr. Speaker, I am
asking you to call upon the hon. member to withdraw
those remarks.

Mr. SPEAKER: I have sent for the Clerk to ob-
tain from the Official Reporter the exact words to
which exception has been taken in their context.

Sir GRANTLEY ADAMS: Mr. Speaker, mayI re-
mind you, with great respect, that a point of order
means something against the Orders of the House,
that a member is out of orderbecause he is breaking
this Rule or this regulation and so on; but when one
side accuses the other of dishonesty, how in the name
of heaven could that be a point of order? I accused
the Government of dishonesty in bringing in this after
the Government went to the public and said by its
Chief Registering Officer that "there is no necessity
for photographs; you can still vote." Then you have
a Senator saying the reverse. Is that honest?
Mr. SPEAKER: May I point out to the Hon. and
Learned Leader of the Opposition that I am awaiting
certain words as taken down by the Official Reporter,
and whilst I am so waiting, Iwould ask all hon. mem-
bers to desist from speaking, because whilst he is
writing he cannot also be referring, and it is a nor-
mal procedure to wait.
Sir GRANTLEY ADAMS: I will bow to Your
Honour's intimation, but I am merely saving the Re-
porter's time by repeating exactly what I said. I
said it is dishonest, and whatever he passes up to
Your Honour cannot be anything more than that. I
have said that it is dishonest, I repeat it is dishonest


and will continue to repeat that it is dishonest to put
forward two officials, one to say you can still vote
without a photograph, and another a day or two after,
to say that you must have your photograph. Is that
honesty? What definition of the word "honest" does
this come under? The Hon. Prime Minister has a
feeling that all he has to do is to get up in here and
talk to us as he can talk to his colleagues. He can tell
them anything and they will put their tails between
their legs and say "Aye"! "Yes"!

Rt. Hon. E. W. BARROW: Onapointof order, on
what is the hon. member speaking?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. member was asked by
the Chair to allow an opportunity for me to obtain
the services of the Clerk that I may obtain from the
Official Reporter the words in the context. The Offi-
cial Reporter, whilst he is writing, cannot give me
the information.

Sir GRANTLEY ADAMS: With great respect, I
am merely saving time. What the Official Reporter
is going to say I am saying now, and I am putting it
even stronger than I said it before. It is sheer, undi-
luted dishonesty; but if Your Honour insists, I will
sit down until the Official Reporter hands it in. He
is taking down what I am saying now. He is not look-
ing up what I said five minutes ago.
12.55 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, I am not being facetious. The Re-
porter sits here; he takes a statement; Your Honour
needs to have it read back, and 10 minutes have passed
without our being able to see what the Reporter took
down.

Mr. SPEAKER: I am awaiting the return of the
Clerk.

At this stage Mr. CLERK returned to the Chamber.

Mr. SPEAKER: The Official Report discloses
the following:

"We know the inside story and the quarrels; we
know that some members of the Cabinet are not in
their places today, because they are not prepared to
support the Cabinet in this...... I am not giving way."
The Official Report does not contain any of the words
to which objection has been taken; and, consequently,
those words will not appear in Hansard.

Sir GRANTLEY ADAMS: Will Your Honour for-
give me if I say I did not hear anything Your Honour
said after the word "consequently"?

Mr. SPEAKER: I apologise for that, butIhave to
have the Clerk at my side, because this is not type-
written and I can hardly read it.


"We know the inside story and the quarrels;
we know that some members of the Cabinet are not
in their places today, because they are not prepared
to support the Cabinet in this."











Immediately after that.


"I am not giving way."
Nothing will appear in Hansard of the words to which
exception has been taken.

I would ask the Hon. andLearned Leader of the
Opposition to proceed, and I am looking forward to
this debate continuing in temperate and calm language.

Sir GRANTLEY ADAMS: I do not know whether
I missed one of Your Honour's "in"s. I thought Your
Honour said "in intemperate".

Mr. SPEAKER; I said: "....continuing in tem-
perate and calm language."

Sir GRANTLEY ADAMS: I certainlywill, at Your
Honour's request, endeavour, even if I raise myvoice
occasionally, to say whatever I am saying coldly
and calmly in the sense that I want hon. members to
understand, and thegeneral public who may later read
the debate to understand, that I am putting this forward
absolutely seriously, and with a view to maintaining
the dignity and the heights that we used to have in
this Assembly.

In short, we are not on a public platform in some
back alley, in some village, or street, in this Island.
We are addressing hon. members of this House of
Assembly at the highest possible level.

Mr. SPEAKER: Addressing the Chair.

Sir GRANTLEY ADAMS: I beg Your Honour's
pardon. Addressing the Chair. In that spirit I put
it to the House and the hon. members of the Govern-
ment who may be inclined to do whatever the Prime
Minister asks them to do. Are you going forward to
the public of this Island, to the rest of the West Indies
and to the world as saying that after you have made a
pronouncement affecting an election which can be of
supreme importance to the future of this Island- let
us make no mistake: we all know on both sides that
the day the Prime Ministergets atwo-thirds majority
we can be ruled by Castro. If this bye-election
is won by the Democratic Labour Party, good-bye to
democracy in Barbados. Why at my age do you think
I am remaining in politics? Now, that is a point of
order......

Rt. Hon. E. W. BARROW: I beg to draw Your
Honour's attention to the Rules of the House. The
hon. member is supposed to be speaking ona motion
for postponement, I understand, made by the hon.
senior member for Christ Church. I do not think the
hon. member is in his right place for abusing the
members on this side and talking about elections,
Castroism and so on.

Sir GRANTLEY ADAMS: Mr. Speaker, he cannot
tell you what to do.

Rt. Hon. E. W. BARROW: Ithinkyou ought to call
his attention to the Rules of the House regarding the
relevance of the speeches.


Mr. SPEAKER: Willthe Hon. Leaderof theOppo-
sition continue making his speech in which, Igather,
he is seconding the Hon. Deputy Leader of the Oppo-
sition in moving that further consideration be post-
poned?

Sir GRANTLEY ADAMS: Exactly, Sir. I am se-
conding the motion, and I am putting it on this basis.
I have not read more than four or five lines. I believe
that some other hon. members on my left have had
a longer time to read, but I have not read more than
four or five lines. Why, in the name of heavens,
should we, on such an important thing and this is
no trivial thing that it does not matter if we pass it
or not. This is a matter of supreme importance to
the Constitution of Barbados; this is a matter which
affects the lives of a quarter million people for the
future. I repeat, and you will forgive me for being
personal, why do you think that I am still in politics
at my age? Because I see the danger ..... (ASIDES).
I see the danger of stupid people like the hon. member
who is making a noise,who constantly makes a noise,
sitting down, bad manners, bad everything.

Mr. SPEAKER: May I appeal to hon. members not
addressing the Chair, to observe the properStanding
Orders? May I ask the Hon. Leaderofthe Opposition
to continue making his speech?

Sir GRANTLEY ADAMS: If I use the word
"grunt" he would object; (ASIDES). but what else
does he do but grunt, grunt, grunt?

Mr. SPEAKER: Let the Hon. Leaderof the Oppo-
sition continue with his speech.

Sir GRANTLEY ADAMS: I have been in this
House for 30 odd years, and I have never seen any
member of this House more often do what the hon.
member over there cannot help doing apparently,
sitting in his Chair, not addressing the Speaker and
making all sorts of grunting remarks.

Mr. SPEAKER: Will the hon. junior memberfor
St. Thomas observe the relevant Standing Orders?
(ASIDES). (Hon. N. W. BOXILL: Why do younot make
the hon. member sit down? He is only wasting time
filibustering.) I must ask and require the hon. junior
member for St. Thomas to observe the Standing
Order applicable to members not addressing the
Chair. (ASIDES). Will the Hon. Leader of the Oppo-
sition proceed?

Sir GRANTLEY ADAMS: What I am putting to the
House and I say again. If the Government wants to
retain or acquire, I should rather say a reputa-
tion for acting in the interest of the Island as a
whole, whatever their politics may be, they mustnot
give the impression that they are doing something
against their own official declaration in order to
make sure that some voters who might be inclined not
to vote with them, are kept off the roll. It is as sim-
ple as that, Sir. You officially declare by your Chief
Registering Officer that photographs are not neces-
sary, that you can still vote, and then you come in
the House .......











Rt. Hon. E. W. BARROW: On a point of order.
The hon. member is not entitled to misrepresent the
Government's position in this matter. I explained in
my introduction .........

Mr. HINDS: On a point of order.

Rt. Hon. E. W. BARROW: It is a point of order
on a misrepresentation which has been made by the
hon. member.

Mr. SPEAKER: A point of elucidation.

Rt. Hon. E. W. BARROW: If you like to call it
a point of elucidation, but I stick to a point of order,
as I understand it. I am not asking for an elucidation;
the Government has never instructed the Chief
Registering Officer to make any statement to the
effect which the hon. member has made. That is Item
No. 1. Item No. 2 is that the Chief Registering Officer
informed the Minister and myself that he nevermade
any such statement as appeared in the Press. Item
No. 3 is that I explained on the introduction of this
Bill that this does not affect anybody's right to vote;
it is only a question of those persons who are al-
ready on the Register establishing their identity. The
final point which Iwould like to make and which the
hon. member, if he were listening and had read the
amendment would have appreciated, is that it does
not insist that a person can only vote if he has an
identification card; and we never made any such
statement or authorised any such statement to be
made either in vans or by the Chief Registering
Officer or any other person. Can I put it more
clearly than that, Sir?

Mr. SPEAKER: I regard that as a point of ex-
planation of a material part of the speech of the
Rt. Hon. and Learned Prime Minister by virtue of
Standing Order 26 (16).


Sir GRANTLEY ADAMS: "To elucidate some
matter raised by that Member in the course of his
speech, provided that the Member speaking is willing
to give way and resumes his seat and that the Mem-
ber wishing to interrupt is called by the Chair".
Was I willing to give way? This constant bobbing up
with the fictitious statement of "point of order" -
the hon. member must remember that we are not
children. He keeps on doing it because I hate to say
that the Chair has been I am not blaming the
Chair, because, often, the only way to keep peace is
to shut your ears. I have been in the House of Com-
mons in London, and I have seen the Speaker just
staring at the ceiling when members have been
quarrelling between themselves, pretending not to
hear. Obviously, that is human nature. You have got
to try and make peace sometimes, especially with
people who think that they have the right to dictate
to every other human being as if they were village
idiots, and that is the Prime Minister.

Mr. SPEAKER: Let the Hon. Leaderof the Oppo-
sition proceed with his speech and his reason for
opposing.


Sir GRANTLEY ADAMS: If the result of the de-
bate on what has been put here today means that Mr.
Matthews was right, I sit down. Unless I misunder-
stood the Hon. Prime Minister, he has just said that.
I will sit down immediately because all that the
Opposition has been told before coming in here this
morning was that the Government intended on Tues-
day we have been told this two or three days be-
fore to show that Mr. Philip Greaves is right and
Mr. Matthews is wrong, and we came in here pre-
pared to face that. However, as hon. members are
reminding me, we have not yet read the amend-
ments; we do not know yet what these purport to be.
And whatever hon. members may think about indivi-
duals, I do not think, with great respect although
I may be including myself in it that the legal
ability in the Opposition ranks is such as to make a
mistake as regards what a particular law or a par-
ticular Clause of a law means. Therefore, if the Gov-
ernment will agree that we have a right to postpone
this matter until we have a chance of reading these
amendments, then the question of a particular hour
or even a particular date should not arise in this
particular motion. In short, I am seconding the mo-
tion for the postponement for the consideration of
this Bill without fixing a particular time.
1.15 p.m.

In the interval we may sit down here and read
it and say straight away: "Let us debate it in half an
hour's time;" and therefore if I second this, it is
merely that, without fixing a time, we say that the
adjournment of the debate should take place.

Mr. J. M. G. ADAMS: Mr. Speaker, I am rising
to speak in favour of the postponement although, on
first glance at the amendments, it appears that the
point of view of the Chief Registering Officer as it
first appeared has been completely vindicated, and
the statement of the Minister of Home Affairs has
more or less been completely denied. I personally
would like a further opportunity of analysing this
matter carefully. I heard something mentioned in
the Prime Minister's speech, but I was not able
to catch it, and I hope that, if he replies to this
amendment calling for a short adjournment, he will
deal with this.

The law as it at present stands permits the
Presiding Officer only to put two questions to in-
tending electors. This is a matter of Statutory
Instrument. Presumably that particular Statutory
Instrument will have to be amended to permit him
to ask questions, whether in a prescribed form or
not. I do not know if the Prime Minister would like
to interrupt me to assure me of this. But when the
Election Rules are checked, it will show that the
Presiding Officer cannot ask anybody for an iden-
tity card. He is not permitted by law to ask that
question; so there will have to be some alteration
to that particular Rule. The Prime Minister shakes
his head. This only adds strength to the argument
that we must have time to examine these things.

Now we have been confused on this side in
trying to follow over the past week the twists and











turns of the different statements which have appeared.
First of all, we saw that legislation has been on the
Statute Book since 1967 making it necessary to have
an identity card. In effect, that legislation cannot
apply to this election; so the Minister of Home
Affairs was wrong, or otherwise we would not have
had to pass the Special Provisions Act and now be
coming to amend it. We do not know where we are
at all, and this is why I would suggest to the Gov-
ernment that since there are so many questions
for answer on the Order Paper, the Government
take Question Time now and permit some of us to
study the amendment so that at a later stage in the
day we will have had the opportunity of seeing the
Register of Electors (Special Provisions)Act, 1966
and checking it with the Election Register made under
the Representation of the People Act, 1957. We have
not been able to get a copy of those on this side, but
they must be checked. We also have to check
Section 19 of the instant amending Act, because sec-
tion 19 says that no amendment made by the Act
now before the House will apply to the conduct of
any election in a double-member constituency. In
other words, even if we pass this, in all probabil-
ity it will not apply to the current bye-election. All
these are matters which the legal experts over in
Government Headquarters may not have noticed.

If the Prime Minister will turn to Page 10,
Section 19 of the principal Act, he will observe that
subsection 6 says "For the purposes of the conduct
of any such election, the amendments made by this
Act to the principal Act or rules or regulations made
thereunder relating to the constituencies or to the
conduct of elections shall be deemed not to have come
into operation." These are transitional provisions
relating to bye-elections. There is a very good
reason for that. I am advised not to say the reason,
but there is a very good reason why that subsection
cannot be deleted. Let them think about that. Let
them ask their legal experts why it cannot be done.
Let them look at the Constitution and see. I say
no more. All this urgency in bringing down this
amendment may be of no avail, because the Act as
amended is not going to apply to the bye-election in
any way. Therefore let us have a short postponement.

It is known, Mr. Speaker that the object in
some quarters was to prevent a great majority of
the electors in the City from voting. There are
5,200 of them, 1,400 photographed; and when the
Minister of Home Affairs said that you have to
have a photograph, he was trying to disfranchise
3,800 electors of the City. Some members of the
Government have been decent enough and if the
Prime Minister has been so successful with some
of the nitwits with whom he has to deal in convin-
cing them that he is supporting the Minister of
Home Affairs by supporting this when in fact he is
cutting the ground from under his feet, I will
congratulate the Prime Minister very heartily, be-
cause he has obviously given the Cabinet the im-
pression of supporting one of his favourite Ministers
while in fact destroying all the foolishness which
the Minister is trying to get on with.


Mr. Speaker,all these matters are matters for dis -
cussion when the amendments come up. We really liter-
ally cannot discuss them. I believe I have said some-
thing perhaps that has opened the eyes of one or
two members of the Cabinet. I think they are going
to need time to look at section 19 (6)..... Nobody
can open the eyes of the hon. junior member for
St. Thomas, Mr. Speaker; so I would not expect
him to admit to any accession of knowledge. He
knows it is a dangerous thing a little knowledge-
and he is determined to have even less than a
little. These are my reasons for supporting the
amendment.

Rt. Hon. E. W. BARROW: Mr. Speaker, it does
not appear to me that any other members of the
opposite side want to make any further contribution
on the motion for the postponement. I think that the
salient point, the only thing really worth listening
to although the hon. member is not always read-
able was made by the hon. member who has just
sat down, when he said that all these things will be
dealt with when the amendments come up, and I
said in my opening remarks that the amendments
will be put in the Committee stage. I am quite
prepared, after the passage of the second reading
of this Bill, to have a hiatus between that stage of
the Bill and the Committee stage, because the hon.
member who spoke for 45 minutes that is the
Hon. Leader of the Opposition said that even he
only needs 30 minutes to read two pages. At my
reading rate I would take about 231/2 seconds to
read two pages. I read at the rate of 113/4 seconds
a page, but he needs 30 minutes. The late President
Kennedy read at the rate of 9 seconds a page. I
cannot equal that performance. I have been tested at
11 3/4 seconds a page for comprehension. Now the
hon. member needs half an hour, but he spoke for
45 minutes; he could much more usefully have
engaged himself in the 45 minutes that he spoke in
reading at his deliberate and cautious reading rate.
I suppose we slow down with the passage of time,
but I never hope to slow down to 45 minutes for
two pages. As I said before, I am quite prepared at
the appropriate time to discuss these points which
they think are germaine to the issue during the
Committee stage of the Bill.

Mr. SPEAKER: The question isthatfurthercon-
sideration be now postponed. Hon. members who are
of that opinion, please say "Aye"; hon. members of
that opinion, please say "no".

Rt. Hon. E. W. BARROW: Mr. Speaker, I cannot
vote because you said "hon. members who are of
that opinion please say "Aye",", and you also said
"hon. members who are of that opinion say "no"."

Mr. SPEAKER: Of the other opinion. I apolo-
gise. I have never attributed infallility to myself.
I attribute it only to one person.
1.25 p.m.

Mr. SPEAKER: I am sorry I cannot hearmyself
for the hon. senior member for St. Thomas.










The question is, "That further consideration be,
nowpostponed." Hon. members who are of at opinion
will please say "Aye", and hon. members of a con-
trary opinion will please say "No". Methinks the
"Noes" have it.

A division was called for and taken as follows:-

AYES: Mr. MOTTLEY: Mr. HINDS: Mr. CRAIG;
Mr. J. M. G. M. ADAMS: Mr. HOLDER; Mr. SMITH;
Mr. ST. JOHN and Sir GRANTLEY ADAMS 8.
NOES: Mr. HOPPIN; Rt. HON. E. W. BARROW;
Hon. G. G. FERGUSSON; Hon. K. N. R. HUSBANDS;
Hon. N. W. BOXILL; Mr. LOWE; Mr. CORBIN;
Mr. SERGEANT; Mr. WEEKS and Mr. EDWARDS -
10.
Mr. SPEAKER: I am informed that 8 hon. mem-
bers voted for postponement of further consideration,
and 10 hon. members voted against. Iwill now put the
question that this Bill be now......

Mr. J. M. G. M. ADAMS: Mr. Speaker, I have not
spoken on the second readingof the Bill. The only per-
son who has spoken on the second reading is the
Prime Minister.

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. senior member for St.
Thomas spoke on the amendment, and in so speaking
he spoke after the motion "That this Bill be now
read a second time" was made. Therefore, his speech
embraces the postponement and also the motion' 'That
it be now read a second time." There are two
motions: One is, "That it be now read a second time",
and the other is, "That it be postponed for further
consideration."

Any hon. member speaking on the motion "That
further consideration be now postponed", has spoken
after the motion was made "That it be now read a
second time."

Sir GRANTLEY ADAMS: On a point of order. Will
Your Honour rule that it is possible to speak on two
motions at the same time? If a motion is made,
"That the Bill be now read a second time" and a
member speaks on it, he cannot speak again. But if
somebody gets up and says, "That further considera-
tion be postponed", then that is a new motion, and
only one motion is before the House. Therefore, how
can anybody, because he talks on the postponement,
be said to have spoken on the second reading of the
Bill? Your Honour should not make a mistake like
that.


Mr. SPEAKER: Actually, I have not yet given a
Ruling, but I will give my Ruling now, and I am quite
prepared to set it down as Judges do give their rea-
sons fully in writing for perpetuity, to be followed or
ignored. My Ruling is......

Mr. MOTTLEY: Before you give that Ruling,
I want to draw your attention to one of your own
Rulings. The motion was made "That this Billbe now
read a second time." That motion having been second-


ed, a second motion was made over here "That this
Bill be now postponed." The one man who cannot
talk on it again is the man who moved the motion.
This is your own Ruling in this House, Sir. Anybody
who got up and spoke on the postponement can, even-
tually, speak on the original motion, if the postpone-
ment is lost. You have ruled that in here, not once
or twice, Sir.

Mr. J. M. G. M. ADAMS: Mr. Speaker, on a point
of order. I should like to draw Your Honour's attention
to Standing Order 26, which makes it clear that a mem-
ber who has spoken may speak againwhen a new ques-
tion is proposed by the Speaker.

Mr. SPEAKER: This is not a new question, and
may I close this particular aspect of the matter. It
is my Ruling......

Mr. J. M. G. M. ADAMS: Would Your Honour
hear me for a second? Order 26 (17) reads:

"A Member who has spoken may speak again
when a new question has been proposed by the Speaker
such as a proposed amendment, or a motion for the
adjournment of the debate or a dilatory motion."

A dilatory motion has been moved. That question
was put. Now anew question- (ASIDES). Mr. Speaker,
a motion was moved that the Bill be read a second
time. A dilatory motion was put. It is clear from the
terms of that Rule that a member can speak twice,
on the motion and on a motion for postponement. It is
clear that that is what the Rule means.

Your Honour will remember that the Rt. Hon.
member for St. John called on Your Honour to keep
the hon. junior member for St. Joseph within the rules
of relevancy in respect of the terms of the dilatory
motion, and not within the rules of relevancy with
respect to the motion "That the Bill be read the second
time." Your Honour, at that stage, ruledthat all we
were discussing was the postponement. YourHonour
has ruled in a contrary sense indifferent parts of the
debate, if Your Honour is ruling like this.

Mr. SPEAKER: What I ruled was that we were
discussing the postponement and not various
extraneous matters which were creeping in. Now, this
is my Ruling in respect of this matter which, of
course, can be questioned on a substantive motion.

The motion was "That the Bill be :now",, which
I deem to be the operative word, "read a second.
time." There was a motion made "That further
consideration of this Bill be now postponed." Again
the operative word is"now" in relationto postpone-
ment. It is a question, therefore, eitherofthe Chem-
ber deciding to have the second reading now, or of the
Chamber deciding to postpone the second reading.

In my view and this is my Ruling any speech
supporting or in connection with the motion "That
further consideration be postponed", is a speech in
which one automatically was dealing with the question


I










of it not being read "now", but its being postponed.
1.35 p.m.

There could not be any speech in support of the
postponement of the second reading which did not
deal with the subject matter of the motion "that the
Bill be now read a second time." Therefore, in my
view, the members who spoke against that motion,
thereby speaking in favour of the postponement, are
not entitled to speak again on the substantive motion;
and those members are the hon. and learned senior
member for St. John, andthe hon. and learned Leader
of the Opposition and the hon. and learned senior
member for St. Thomas. They are the hon. members
who have spoken after the motion... (ASIDES). When
I said the hon. and learned senior member for St.
John, I mean the hon. and learned senior member
for Christ Church. That is a mistake which I have
made more than once in this Chamber. I meant the
hon. senior member for Christ Church, whose sur-
name we all know so well.

Mr. HINDS: Mr. Speaker, I am just asking your
guidance on this particular little point. If, when the
senior member for Christ Church made the motion
for the postponement of the consideration of this Bill,
I had got up and moved an amendment to his motion,
not that it be postponed, but that it be postponed for a
specific date, and I had spoken then in favour of my
amendment to his motion, would I be considered as
speaking on the principal motion for the second
reading?

Mr. SPEAKER: It may so well be considered,
but I am not going to give a Ruling on a hypothetical
point. Lawyers are well aware of what is meant by
obiter. The hon. junior member for St. Peter, like
many other hon. members is fully entitledto speak
on the substantive motion.

Sir GRANTLEY ADAMS: Mr. Speaker, on a point
of order. I never thought, from the first day that I
came in the House of Assembly, that I would reach
the stage of saying what I am going to say now. Here
we are dealing with a Bill; somebody proposes that
it be adjourned for another time. You speak on that.
If in the course of speaking on that, you mention a
reason appearing on the face of the Bill as to why
it should be postponed, does Your Honour rule that,
having referred to the original motion for dealing
with it, therefore you cannot speak again? Let me say
in the most emphatic language: Never again as long
as I am a member of this House, will I have the
slightest respect for Your Honour ... (ASIDES)(A Mem -
BER: FormakingaRuling?) (ASIDES).Whatisthe hon.
member interrupting me on? It is for Your Honour
to defend yourself. (ASIDES). Your Honour candefend
yourself; Your Honour can tell me if I am wrong.



Rt. Hon. E. W. BARROW: On a point of order.


Sir GRANTLEY ADAMS: What is he to do with
it? Let Your Honour tell me that I have insulted you,
but not him, a paid bouncer.


Mr. SPEAKER: Let us get this perfectly straight.
The Hon. Leader of the Opposition should be the last
person to suggest that I should have to tell him when
he is wrong, because he invariably knows whenhe is
right. The hon. member knows fullwell that he is not
entitled to use certain language about the Chair. He
knows quite well that he is perfectlyentitled to move
a substantive motion.

Sir GRANTLEY ADAMS: I do not want to reach
that stage. I have sat in the House of Commons and
seen what I am now doing done. A member who in-
tended to bring a substantive motion against a Ruling
of the Speaker, withdrew it at the last moment. I was
sitting in the House of Commons that night and saw it
done. Here is Your Honour making a Ruling which
was obviously wrong......

Mr. SPEAKER: I have given my Ruling on this
matter, and let the Hon. Leader of the Opposition
sit. I have given my Ruling. (ASIDES).

Sir GRANTLEY ADAMS: You stand upto silence
me. What is that but an arbitrary use of power? I have
to sit down when you standup (ASIDES). (A MEMBER:
Name him). He stands up because he knows that I
have to sit down, and therefore I have to stop talking.
I know about all this well, he is up again and there-
fore I sit down; therefore I will have to be silent;
therefore this is democracy. There is a limit to every-
thing. Your Honour is no longer a member. of the
Democratic Labour Party; Your Honour is Speaker
of the House of Assembly (Hon. N. W. BOXILL: It is
time for naming him) (ASIDES). The hon. senior mem-
ber for St. Peter is averygoodadvertisementfor-is
it Goddards or Macaw? (Laughter).

Rt. Hon. E. W. BARROW: On a point of order.
(ASIDES). I was on a point of order about the con-
duct of the Hon. Leader of the Opposition who made
a statement to that effect... (ASIDES.) I am on a point
of order, and I will ask you to ask the Hon. Leader
of the Opposition to sit down. I am on a point of order
in respect of the Standing Orders and Rules of this
House, and I am going to quote the Standing Orders
and Rules. (Hon K. N. R. HUSBANDS: Two hon. mem-
bers are on their feet and one has no manners, and
an old man at that). Rule 35 of the Standing Orders
of this House states as follows:

"The Speaker in the House or the Chairman in
Committee shall be responsible for the observance
of the rules of order in the House and Committee
respectively, and his decision upon any point of
order" as that which arose concerning the right of
members to speak on various motions, "shall not be
open to appeal and shall not be reviewed by the House
except upon a substantive motion."

Shortly after Your Honour made a Ruling, the
Hon. Leader of the Oppositiom rose to his feet and
said that never as long as he remains a member of
this House and I do not need the Reporter; my
memory is not that short will he have any respect
for the Chair ( A MEMBER: You are wrong). That he
did not have the slightest respect forYourHonour as










Speaker. (A MEMBER: Those are the words.) Those
words are grossly insulting and contemptuous to the
Chair and of proper order in this House, and should
not emanate from any member of this House, far less
the Hon. Leader of the Opposition. I think that the
conduct of the hon. member is so very reprehensible
that it calls for very strong action onYour Honour's
part. I think that, in consequence of his subsequent
conduct, Order 36 (2) should be invoked. And apart
from that, I think that he should be asked to withdraw
immediately from today's sitting, and furthermore
tender a letter of apology to the Chair in writing.
1. 45 p.m.

It is co-apetent for anymemberofthe i.use to
make any such substantive Resolution, if the hon.
member does not comply with Your Honour's ruling.
I do not think it is right for any hon. member
whether he agrees or disagrees with the Chair to
be guilty of the conduct which was exhibited here
today.

Mr. HINDS: On a point of order, the Leader
of the House .......

Mr. SPEAKER: There are two hon. members
on their feet.

Mr. HINDS: When the Prime Minister saidthat
I was a paid punk, I did not take objection to that.

Mr. SPEAKER: That is not a point of order.

Rt. Hon. E. W. BARROW: Mr. Speaker, I beg
formally to move that the hon. member ........

Mr. HINDS: Why don't you move that "the
whole Opposition"?

Rt. Hon. E. W. BARROW: We will not have to
move that. The people will look after that. The mo-
tion, Sir, is that Order No. 36 (2) be invoked. The
hon. member has offended against Rule 36.

Mr. MOTTLEY Mr. Speaker, on a point of
order .......

Mr. SPEAKER: There are two hon. members
on their feet.

Mr. MOTTLEY: I said: "On a pointof order".
Rt. Hon. E. W. BARROW: Iwillgiveway to the
ihon. member.

Mr. MOTTLEY: I heardthe hon. membermak-
ing a motion about remarks made by the Hon.
Leader of the Opposition, and about immediately
withdrawing and writing a letter of apology and so
on. I am of the opinion that this cannot be done. None
of us can deny that the Hon. Leader of the Opposition
used the words that he did. He said"I do not have
the least respect forYour Honour". Ido not know if
he meant forYour Honour's Rulingor for Your Hon-
our personally. None of us could be so dishonest
as to say those remarks were not made, and I
therefore would suggest that the Hon. Leader of


the Opposition be given an opportunity first to with-
draw the remarks which he used to Your Honour
and apologise for them. (Laughter). Laugh at that.
I have heard you curse Husbands worse than that
in the Chair!

Rt. Hon. E. W. BARROW: On a point of explana-
tion, I was not laughing at the hon. member. Some-
body made an aside that the hon. member should dote
outside and not in here. Somebody wants to forgive
him on the grounds that he is doting, and that is why
I had to laugh.

Mr. MOTTLEY: That is no respectforaperson
who is reaching a certain age. I say that in the
thrust and drive of the debate, the Hon. Leader of
the Opposition made those remarks. We do not take
these remarks seriously, but because. you are
Speaker of the House, those remarks should not be
used to you while you are in the Chair. They could
be made to you outside. (A VOICE: Not even then.)
I suggest that, instead of the Prime Minister making
the motion which he is about to make, the Hon.
Leader of the- Opposition be given an opportunity
to withdraw the remarks and apologise. (A VOICE:
He might not be sorry for anything.) Shut your
mouth. I defend you all the time, too. Mr. Speaker,
I hope you see the point I am making.

Mr. CORBIN rose.

Mr. SPEAKER: Has the hon. memberrisenon
a point of order?

Mr. CORBIN: When justice reaches its end,
it can be secured and society can be protected. I
appeal to Your Honour to show mercy. I feel that the
hon. member should be given an opportunity to
withdraw. It is a privilege, when a man commits an
offence, he is to be given an opportunity to withdraw.
It is always in the hearts of the sons of men con-
tinually to be wicked; but if a manwould withdraw,
I would forgive him, and I believe Your Honour is
willing to do that too.


Mr. ST. JOHN: On point of order, as I under-
stand it, a motion is being moved by the Prime Min-
ister to the effect that the Hon. Leaderof the Oppo-
sition be suspended from the House. My submission
is that, whatever motion is moved by the hon. mem-
ber, the motion is out of order. No member can
move such a motion. There are only two procedures
that can take place under Standing Order No. 36.
"The Speaker or the Chairman shall order mem-
bers whose conduct is grossly disorderly to with-
draw immediately from the House during the
remainder of that day's sitting, and the Marshal
shall act on such orders as he may receive from
the Chair in pursuance of this Order. But if, on any
occasion, the Speaker or the Chairman deems that
his powers under the previous provisions of this
Order are inadequate, he may name such member
or members, in which event the same procedure
shall be followed as prescribed in paragraphs 3,4,
5 and 6 of this Order."










According to paragraph 3, "whenever a mem-
ber shall have been named by the Speaker or by the
Chairman, immediately after the commission of the
offence of disregarding the authority of the Chair,
or of persistently and wilfully obstructing the
business of the House by abusing the Rules of the
House or otherwise, then, if the offence has been
committed by such member in the House, the
Speaker shall forthwith put the question on a motion
being made, no amendment, adjournment or debate
being allowed that the member be suspended from
the service of the House."

No immediate action was taken. All the time in
the House people make remarks, and whoeveris in
the Chair, before he exercises ........

Rt. Hon. E. W. BARROW: On a point of order,

Mr. St. JOHN: He is going to interrupt me now
and say it is a point oforderwhen he all day in the
House was talking a lot of foolishness on points of
order. Mr. Speaker, everybody knows that in the
exercise of the powers under the Rules,opportunity
is always given in the event of a breach. The Speak-
er takes it up if it is something offensive to the
Speaker. No other side-person comes and takes it
up like some sadist. Your Honour yourself is the
person who is competent to deal with the matter, and
I agree with the hon. senior member for Bridgetown
that if Your Honour feels that it is offensive to Your
Honour, Your Honour is entitled to speak to the
relevant member and ask him to withdraw, but no
third party is entitled to intervene. It is great now
that certain people can really provide themselves
with the wherewithal to indulge in the manner in
which the hon. member is known for indulging. It is
great to see the change in countenance. You ought
to be the last. Mr. Speaker, the provisions of the
Rules are there, and in my submission it is for
Your Honour to take the initiative.
1.55 p.m.

Hon. K. N. R. HUSBANDS: Mr. Speaker, the last
hon. memberwho has just sat down, the senior mem-
ber for Christ Church, is a lawyer. I have to call
him so, because he appears before the Courts. He
thinks he knows everything, but there is a lot he
does not know about the privileges and powers of
this House. (ASIDES). The hon. member imagines
that this House cannot on its own free will -
(ASIDES). The hon. member knows afewof the Rules,
but he does not know all of them. Hc does not even
know that certain Rules exist.

This House still retains certain powers that
makes it all-powerful in respect of dealing with its
members. I am going to ask the hon. member to
be so kind to himself as to read Order 36(9).
(ASIDES.) Since he cannot read it, I will read it. It
reads:

"Nothing in this Order shall be taken to deprive
the House of the power of proceeding against any
Member according to any Resolution of the House."


I am going to read it again; he is ashamed now.

Mr. ST. JOHN: Ashamed of what?

Hon. K. N. R. HUSBANDS: I will read it again
for his benefit. He is like aboyin the yard now; he
is like a school boy now. It reads:

"Nothing in this Order shallbe takento deprive
the House of the power of proceeding against....."

Mr. J. M. G. M. ADAMS: On a point of order,
Mr. Speaker.

Mr. SPEAKER rose.

Mr. HINDS: Mr. Speaker, four hon. members
are on their feet.

Mr. SPEAKER left the Chair and Mr.DEPUTY SPEAKER
took the Chair.

Mr. J. M. G. M. ADAMS: Mr. Deputy Speaker,
on a point of order. On what is the hon. senior
member for St. Peter talking? There is, Sir, I un-
derstand the beginning of a motion before the House
calling, not on Your Honour, but calling on His Hon-
our the Speaker to exercise his powers under Order
36(2). This motion has not been seconded.

Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER: I very much agree
with you.

Mr. J. M. G. M. ADAMS: I have heard several
points of orders, notably from the hon. senior
member for Christ Church and the hon. senior
member for the City saying that the motion is out
of order. It would appear obvious, Sir, that the
functions of the Speaker are to administer the Rules
of order. Normally, if any hon. member attempts
to offer advice to the Presiding Officer, the Pre-
siding Officer rightly chides the hon. member and
says: "I do not need advice from you."

Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The hon. member has
made his point of order.

Mr. J. M. G. M. ADAMS: That was a point of
order relating to the senior member for St. Peter
-who was speaking on nothing. But I have a further
point of order, which is this. It is really out of
order for any Resolution to be passed drawing the
Speaker's attention to his powers. The Speaker is
presumed to know all of his powers. If he chooses
to exercise them, he exercises them, and if he
chooses not to exercise them, he does notexercise
them. It cannot be in order for a specific Resolu-
tion of the House to tell the Speaker what to do.

Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Your point has been
made.

Hon. K. N. R. HUSBANDS: Mr. Deputy Speaker,
I am going to re-read that Rule again. This House
retains its powers to proceed against its own










members when the occasion arises. I will read it
distinctly, slowly, and at dictation speed. Order
36 (9), page 34:

"Nothing in this Order shall be taken to deprive
the House of the power of proceeding against any
Member according to any Resolution of the House."

This proves that we have power in here power
vested in ourselves to deal with any member
who acted in the way the hon. junior member for St.
Joseph acted some time ago.

Mr. J. M. G. M. ADAMS: On a point of order,
Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I ask on what the hon.
member is speaking? He is not going to suggest that
the majority can pass a Resolution that the seats
of the Opposition be vacated. He is not going to sug-
gest that the Rule he is reading out gives the House
power to pass any Resolution. He is not going to
suggest that the House can pass a Resolution that
the Leader of the Opposition be executed. On what
is he speaking? There is no Resolution in the terms
to which he has reverted.

On my point of order, Sir, I am calling for
your Ruling that the senior member for St. Peter
is talking about nothing. On an earlier occasion
when he talked nonsense the Prime Minister cuffed
him in his face. Let him deny that.

Rt. Hon. E. W. BARROW: Mr. Deputy Speaker,
we are accustomed to the usual slimy remarks
made by certain members. I would like the hon.
member to come outside in public, outside of the
privilege of this House, and make any such state-
ment. I have never been convicted of an assault yet
in my life, and I have never had to appeal against
any case for assault, or convicted of anything, or
appeared in any Magistrate's Court on any occasion
for any offence against the person or against proper -
ty.

Mr. J. M. G. M. ADAMS: On a point of order.
I want to withdraw any remark he has not really
objected, Mr. Deputy Speaker; he has merely taken
the opportunity to be I cannot use the word
"nasty", "slimy", "vile' "disgusting" or "de-
grading" because it would be unparliamentary.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, he has said that he has
never been convicted and so on. Presumably, he
wants us to believe that he never struck the hon.
senior member for St. Peterinhisface. Therefore,
I withdraw the remark; I was not there, but I only
know of it because the hon. senior member for St.
Peter told me two weeks ago about it in the Dining
Room, and showed me how the Prime Ministergave
him the cuff.

Hon. K. N. R. HUSBANDS: Mr. Deputy Speaker,
he is capable of twisting anything. He has a way of
approaching people, asking them certainthings, and
putting his own interpretations on them. He tried
that up to this morning, but I am going to fix him
one of these days. I am going to fix him well, as


the Magistrate at District "E" fixedhim last month.
He is a criminal and was convicted in Court a
vagabond, C.R.D. Convicted, reprimanded and
discharged.

Mr. J. M. G. M. ADAMS: Mr. Deputy Speaker,
first of all, you cannot refer in this House to any
current judicial proceedings. The Prime Minister
has done it, and the senior member for St. Peter
has done it. I am sure he cannot call any hon. mem-
ber a vagabond. If he says so, then let him deny
that he showed me how the Prime Minister stuck
him on his nose while sitting in the Dining Room.
He showed me how the Prime Minister hit him.
(ASIDES.)

Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER: I would like to draw
to the attention of the senior memberfor St. Peter
that he cannot make comments on current judicial
proceedings.

Hon. K. N. R. HUSBANDS: Mr. Deputy Speaker,
any man who is convicted before the Court is, in my
considered opinion, a convict.

Sir GRANTLEY ADAMS: On a point of order.
Will the hon. member elucidate what he means? Is
it worse to be a convict for an assault than to be a
Judas, a Barabbas?

Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Is that a point of
order?

Hon. K. N. R. HUSBANDS: The hon. member
who has just sat down has been aJudas and a Barab-
bas before I was a politician.
2.05 p.m.

Sir GRANTLEY ADAMS: I did not hear what the
hon. member said, but I am told that the hon. mem-
ber accused me of being a Judas and a Barabbas.
Mr. Deputy Speaker, if he has done that, I call upon
him to withdraw.

Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Chair did not hear.

Mr. J. M. G. M. ADAMS: On a point of order. I
heard the hon. member saythat the hon. member who
just sat down "was a Judas and a Barabbas even
before I was in politics." i heard it and you can
call for the words. He said and I repeat the words
"that the hon. member who just sat down has been
a Judas and a Barabbas even before I was in
politics." (ASIDES.) (Hon. K. N. R. HUSBANDS: Just
as true). (ASIDES.)


SUSPENSION OF SITTING

Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER: This sittingnow stands
suspended for three quarters of an hour.

On re-assembling:

Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER: When the sitting was
suspended, there was a Question standing in the
name of the hon. senior member for St. Andrew.










NOTICE OF QUESTION'


Mr. EDWARDS: Mr. Speaker,

To enquire of the appropriate Minister:-

Is Government aware that over 170 acres of
land at Heywoods in the parish of St. Peter have
been out of cultivation for a period of over eight
years and that many agricultural workers in the
parish of St. Peter have been thrown out of work
as a result?

Will Government take steps to acquire and
develop the said land in the interest of the economy
of the Island?

QUESTION TIME

Rt. Hon. E. W. BARROW: Mr. Deputy Speaker,
I was going to propose that Question Time be now
taken for the next 45 minutes, but there was a
procedural matter before the House at the point of
the adjournment. Without prejudice to our continua-
tion of the procedure I beg to move that Question
Time be now taken until 3.45 p.m. of the clock, or
until earlier concluded. I am sorry, until 3.30 p.m.
of the clock.

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

Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is that
Question Time be now taken until 3.30 p.m. of the
clock.

Mr. J. M. G. ADAMS: Mr. Deputy Speaker, there
are really a lot of Questions in addition to those of
which notice has been given today. I would have
thought.that 3.45 p.m. would accommodate all mem-
bers better, if the Prime Minister does not mind.

Rt. Hon. E. W. BARROW: But I would like to
make it clear that that is without prejudice to any-
one deeming that there has been an interruption
of the proceedings or anything like that. I would like
to make this abundantly clear.


The question that Question Time be now taken until
3.45 p.m. of the clock was put and resolved in the affirmative
without division.


APOLOGY TO MR. SPEAKER

Sir GRANTLEY ADAMS: On a point of order. I
regret that His Honour the Speaker is not himself
in the Chair. I should like to say to him in the Chair
that I withdraw any remarks which I made as re-
gards my respect for him in the Chair. Whatever
might have been my feeling as regards the rightness
or wrongness of a Ruling made by him, 1 should not
on the floor of the House have usedthe language that
I did use to him sitting in the Chair. As I mentioned
earlier, the reputation of the House of Assembly of
Barbados is high, extremely high not only in the
West Indies, but people whom I meet abroad who


have only even heard of Barbados, have often spoken
to me about what sort of Assembly we have and our
traditions and so on. I should be the last member of
the House to do anything which would cause people
either in Barbados or outside of Barbados to feel
that the high traditions of the House are not ob-
served. I have spoken to Mr. Speaker andI have told
him that I was going to do this. He explained to me
why he could not be in the Chair, because he had
an appointment which he could not possibly fail to
keep; otherwise he would be in the Chair to receive
this in person. (Cheers)

Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Chair, and, I am
sure, that all hon. members of this Chamber, appre-
ciate the stand which you have taken.

INVITATION TO ATTEND GENERAL
POST OFFICE

Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER: There is anOral Reply
to Question 284 standing in the name of the hon.
senior member for St. Thomas.

Mr. J. M. G. ADAMS: Mr. Speaker, to enquire
of the Prime Minister:-

1. Is it a fact that earlier this year
the Postmaster General wrote to two mem-
bers of a family resident at Bennetts Tenantry in
the parish of St. Thomas, inviting them to attend
at the General Post Office in connection with com-
plaints against a then postman, Mr. Milton Wiles?

2. Did either of the two persons referred to
attend at the G. P. O.?

3. If the answer to 1 is "Yes" and the an-
swer to 2 is "No", will the Prime Minister say
which of the statements contained in Question
Number 242 answered in this Honourable House on
the 5th November, 1968, were, as described in that
answer, "Unfounded"?

4. If none of the statements in the said
question No. 242 can be shown to be unfounded, will
the Prime Minister withdraw that part of his answer
as being an unwarranted slur on a member of this
Honourable House?

Rt. Hon. E. W. BARROW: Mr. Deputy Speaker,
the Reply to the hon. member's Question is as
follows:-

"The attention of the Honourable Member is
drawn to Standing Order No. 12(2) (d) of this House."
3.00 p.m.

Mr. J. M. G. M. ADAMS: Does the Prire Min-
ister really think it is fair to any member of the
House to give that answer?

Rt. Hon. E. W. BARROW: The answeris"Yes",
because Rule 12 (2) (d) reads as follows:-

"A question shall not refer to debates oranswers
to questions in the current session."











This question does specifically refer to answers.
to questions; so I think that the reply is fair.

Mr. J. M. G. M. ADAMS: Mr. Deputy Speaker,
would the Prime Minister agree then that in fact
none of the statements which I made in Question
242 were in fact unfounded?

Rt. Hon. E. W. BARROW: The attention of the
hon. member is drawn to Standing Order No. 12 (2)
(d) of this House.

Mr. J. M. G. M. ADAMS: Will the Prime Min-
ister agree that of the instant Question the first two
paragraphs are not against the Rules?

Rt. Hon. E. W. BARROW: The answer is "No,
Sir".

Mr. J. M. G. M. ADAMS: Will the Prime Min-
ister say which part of the first two paragraphs of
the instant Question is in breach of the Rules and of
what Rule? In other words, the two paragraphs which
I have mentioned are these: "Is it afact that earlier
this year the Postmaster General wrote and so on;
and "Did either of the two persons attend the G.P.P.?"'
Which part of these two paragraphs is against the
Rules?

Rt. Hon. E. W. BARROW: The attention of the
hon. member is drawn to Standing Order No. 12 (2)
(a), (b), (c) and (d) of this House.

Mr. J. M. G. M. ADAMS: Will the .Prime Min-
ister say whether paragraphs 1 and 2 of the instant
Question transgress any of the provisions of the
Standing Order No.12 (2)(a), (b), (c) or (d)? The Prime
Minister is looking at the Rules; he is not looking
at the Questions.

Rt. Hon. E. W. BARROW: The attention of the hon.
member is drawn to Standing Order No. 12 (2) (j) of
this House.

Mr. J. M. G. M. ADAMS: Is the Prime Minister
saying that it is outside the competence of the Post-
master General to write to members of the public
to ask them if they have complaints against a post-
man?

Rt. Hon. E. W. BARROW: I will require notice
of this Question.

Mr. J. M. G. M. ADAMS: Mr. Deputy Speaker,
will the Prime Minister accept my congratulations
on getting the Hon. Minister of Communications and
Works out of a very difficult hole?

Rt. Hon. E. W. BARROW: Congratulations are
always in order on appropriate occasions.
QUESTION re SALARY SCALES OF JUNIOR CIVIL
SERVANTS AND CASUAL EMPLOYEES
Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Question No. 315 stands
in the name of the hon. senior member for St. James
whom I do not see in his place.


Rt. Hon. E. W. BARROW: Mr. Deputy Speaker,
I will lay the reply to Question No. 315 in accordance
with Standing Orders, unless I get some intimation
from Your Honour that the hon. member has asked
for that to be deferred.

Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER: In accordance withthe
Rules of this House, the Reply to Question No. 315
will be laid.

QUESTION re POLICE RECRUITS

Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Question No. 270 stands
in the name of the hon. junior memberfor St. Peter.

Mr. HINDS: Mr. Deputy Speaker, the Question
reads as follows:

To enquire of the appropriate Minister:-

Is it a fact that on 23rd August, 1968, the ser-
vices were dispensed with, of five Barbadian recruits
in training at the Police Training School at Paragon,
Christ Church?

2. Were these five recruits part of a batch of
seventeen recruited on the same date?

3. If the answer to No. 2 isinthe affirmative,
will Government take into consideration the fact that
these men were dismissed after completing 18 weeks
of a twenty six week training course?

4. Is it a fact that these men were dismissed
because it was found that theywouldnot become effi-
cient policemen?

5. What is the name of the Recruiting Officer
or Officers who recruited these five recruits out of
a selection of seventeen?

6. Why did it take 18 weeks to determine the
potentialities of these five men?

7. Did the Commandant receive any adverse
reports on these men with respect to their aptitudes,
abilities and general conduct? Did their Class In-
structor make the report?

8. How long had the Officer making the report
been attached to the Police Training School before
he wrote the report: and what opportunities did he
have of observing these men on and off the Parade
Square and in and out of barracks?

9. Is it a fact that Recruit No. 230 Miller of
Batch No. 42 was dismissed as not being likely to
become an efficient policeman after he had completed
24 weeks of a 26-week training period?

10. What did reports on these men disclose at
mid-term (i.e. the end of the 13th week)?

11. What does it cost to train a recruit for 18
weeks?










Rt. Hon. E. W. BARROW: Mr. Deputy Speaker,
the Replies are as follows:

1. The services of 5 of the 17 persons re-
cruited by 2 Assistant Commissioners of Police and
a Police Inspector for training at the Regional Police
Training School were dispensed with following ad-
verse reported by the Class Instructor, the Chief
Instructor and the Commandant of the Regional
Training School. They had been in training for 18
weeks and their mid-term reports were unsatis-
factory.
2. The services of Leroy Miller who had been
in training for 24 weeks were terminated after re-
ports had indicated that he was unlikely to become
a useful member of the Force.

3. The cost of training a recruit for 18 weeks
is $958 plus the proportionate part of Barbados' con-
tribution to the administrative cost of the school.

Mr. HINDS: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I would like
to draw to your attention that the Replies as given
have not been given in strict accordance with the
Rules of this House. For instance, in giving the Re-
plies, one would have expected of the......

Rt. Hon. E. W. BARROW: On a point of order, I
have answered all the Questions the hon. member
has raised. I have not answered them in the order
in which he asked them because I did not find his
drafting particularly elegant, but I tried to make some
kind of sense out of the way in which the Questions
have been framed, so that they read as a com-
prehensive whole. There is no rule, as far as I know,
Mr. Deputy Speaker, which impels me to reply to
questions seriatim in the way in which they have
been asked. If the hon. member would refer to the
Hansard debates of the House of Commons, hewould
see that only one Reply is given, and it is never
paragraphed, unless there are separate Questions
not related to the same subject matter.

Mr. HINDS: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I would like
to ask the Prime Minister what is the Reply to Ques-
tion No. 8.

Rt. Hon. E. W. BARROW: In view of the fact
that it was not a single Officer making the report,
I did not find it possible to answer this Question
directly, because I have pointed out that there were
several persons concerned with the unfavourable
reports.
3.10 p.m.

Mr. HINDS: Would the Prime Minister let us
know if, when at mid-term these unsatisfactory re-
ports were made on these men, the contents of the
reports were communicated to the men?

Rt. Hon. E. W. BARROW: From the information
which I have, Sir, they were not onlywarned at mid-
term, but throughout the whole course. They were
reminded that their standards had to improve. That
is the only information which I have. I cannot reply
whether specifically at mid-term they were called


up and informed that their progress was unsatisfac-
tory, but they were informed on several occasions
that they progress needed improving.

Mr. HINDA: Does the Prime Minister have any
information that these men were dismissed for fail-
ing to co-operate?

Rt. Hon. E. W. BARROW: I have no such informa-
tion, and it would be contrary to the Replies which I
have already given.

RESIGNATIONS FROM THE ROYAL BARBADOS
POLICE FORCE

Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Question No. 275 stand-
ing in the name of the same hon. member.

Mr. HINDS: Mr. Deputy Speaker, to enquire of the
appropriate Minister:-

How many policemen were allowed to withdraw
from the service of the Royal Barbados Police
Force during the year ending December, 1967? How
many during period ending 31st October, 19687

2. What are the grounds upon which these
policemen were allowed to withdraw?

3. How many of these allowed towithdrawhad
completed 10 or more years service? How many
with five years or less than five years service?

4. How many of these policemen sought per-
mission in writing to withdraw before they quit the
Service?

5. How many sought leave and did not return
to the job?

6. How many withdrew from the Service with-
out being allowed to do so?

Rt. Hon. E. W. BARROW: Mr. Deputy Speaker,
the Replies are as follows:

1. 29 and 34 respectively, Sir.

2. Of their own free will most of them to go
overseas.

3. 11 and 26 respectively.

4. All, Sir.


5. 2, Sir.


6. 1, Sir.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Question No. 280,
standing in the name of the Hon. and Learned senior
member for St. Thomas whom I do not see in his
place. Is the Hon. Leader of the House desirous of
applying Standing Order No. 14 (4)?










Rt. Hon. E. W. BARROW: Mr. Deputy Speaker,
I will lay this Reply, since the hon. member is not
in his place.

Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Question No. 301,
standing in the name of the same Hon. and Learned
senior member for St. Thomas.

Mr. J. M. G. M. ADAMS: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy
Speaker. Have you passed No. 280?

Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Reply has been
laid.

REPORT ON GENERAL ELECTIONS OF 1966

Mr. J. M. G. M. ADAMS: Mr. Deputy Speaker,
to enquire of the appropriate Minister:-

Does the Government intend to publish the cus-
tomary Report by the Supervisor of Elections on the
General Election of 1966?

Rt. Hon. E. W. BARROW: Mr. Deputy Speaker,

"Statutory provision requiring the Supervisor of
Elections to prepare a report on General Elections
was repealed by the Representation of the People Act
1957. Accordingly there is no report available."

Mr. J. M. G. M. ADAMS: Mr. Deputy Speaker, is
the Minister aware that, in the cases of the Election
in 1961 and, indeed, of the Election in 1966, a docu-
ment not in the full report form current previous to
1957, but nevertheless a document showing the vot-
ing figures has, in fact, been put into circulation by
the Supervisor of Elections, and will he make this
document available?

Rt. Hon. E. W. BARROW: This will be another
question altogether. As far as I can remember, the
hon. member asked whether the Government intended
to publish the customary Report. If the Supervisor
of Elections has published voting statistics, Ihave no
objection to his making them available to any hon.
member, because I do not see that there is any secret
about the voting statistics. You could have gone to
the newspaper and got it.

There is no Report. Sir, if there was a Report,
even though there is no statutory provision for the
publication of the Report, I would have made it avail-
able to hon. members of the House. I myself have
seen neither. If there is one, this is one occasion in
which I have no objection to a member of the House
going direct to the Officer, or writing a letter to the
Ministry asking for the statistics.

Mr. J. M. G. M. ADAMS: Mr. Deputy Speaker,
would the Prime Minister say whether he knows if
a copy of the Report of the 1951 Election is avail-
able for inspection at the Ministry or otherwise?
This supplementary is asked for a particular reason.
I would like to see such a copy.
Rt. Hon. E. W. BARROW: I am not in a position
to answer that question, but if the hon. member will


consult the Permanent Secretary in the Ministry of
Home Affairs, he will no doubt see if it is available.

Mr. J. M. G. M. ADAMS: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I
see that Question No. 300 still appears on the Order
Paper although the Reply has been laid. As far as I
am concerned, it can be removed. That relates to
legislation which is already before the House. It re-
lates to the Representation of the People Act, and it
can be removed from the Order Paper.

Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Question No. 318,
standing in the name of the hon. senior member
for St. James, whom I do not see in his place.

Rt. Hon. E. W. BARROW: Mr. Deputy Speaker,I
intend to lay the Replies to Questions Nos. 318 and
317 in accordance with the Standing Orders.

Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:Question No.306, stand-
ing in the name of the hon. senior member for St.
Joseph, whom I do not see in his place.

Rt. Hon. E. W. BARROW: Unless there is some
request from the hon. member, I intend to do the
same thing with this, Sir.

Sir GRANTLEY ADAMS: Mr. Deputy Speaker,
I have been asked by the senior member for St.
Joseph to stand in his place, and I beg to ask the
Question. Purely incidentally, Sir, is it absolutely
necessary to read the Question?

To enquire of the appropriate Minister:-

Can the Minister say if some of the money voted
by the House will be at the disposal of the Housing
Authority to repair the homes of the poorwho do not
qualify under the Labour Welfare Fund, or the Gen-
eral Workers' Fund?

2. If the answer is in the affirmative, willthe
Minister say when such repairs will be started?

We never used to read out Questions in the old time
days.

Rt. Hon. E. W. BARROW: Mr. Deputy Speaker,
I understand that the hon. member is asking leave
to ask the Questions for the hon. senior member for
St. Joseph. The Replies are as follows:-

1. "None of the money voted by Parliament
will be at the disposal of the Housing Authority to
repair the houses of the poorwho do not qualify under
the Labour Welfare Fund or the General Workers'
Fund.

2. Such repairs are met from Public Assis-
tance."

That is now administered by Central Government.

Mr. J. M. G. M. ADAMS: Mr. Deputy Speaker,
can the Minister say at what level is the current
Public Assistance programme for repairing the











houses of poor people, particularly in urban areas?
Those are the people who do not principally benefit
under the Labour Welfare Fund.

Rt. Hon. E. W. BARROW: Mr. Deputy Speaker,
as far as I know it is discretionary. I do not think
that there is any maximum amount of assistance fixed
by law. If we follow the well-known Socialist philos-
ophy it will be "to each according to his needs", and
"from each according to his ability".

Mr. J. M. G. M. ADAMS: Does the Minister know
the level at which it is running? Does he know how
much money is being spent and howmanyhouses are
being repaired of poor people, as defined in the
Question, especially in urban districts?

Rt. Hon. E. W. BARROW: I do not know. If the
hon. member gives notice of that Question, he will
get a Reply.

Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Question No. 324
standing in the name of the senior member for St.
James.

AMBULANCE AND WAGON SERVICE AT
QUEEN ELIZABETH HOSPITAL

Mr. CRAIG: Mr. Deputy Speaker, to enquire of
the Ministry of Health:-

Is the Minister aware that one ambulance and
one wagon service at the Queen Elizabeth Hospital
is adequate?

2. If the answer is in the affirmative, will the
Minister see to it that an additional ambulance and
two wagons are provided to keep pace with the
growing need of hospital cases that require such
ambulance and wagon services?

Rt. Hon. E. W. BARROW: Mr. Deputy Speaker,

"There are three ambulance service units at
the Queen Elizabeth Hospital.

Consideration is being given to increasing the
number of units and to improving the service."

Mr. CRAIG: Mr. Deputy Speaker, would the
Minister be able to tell us how soon they expect to
increase this service? We know that it is a very
important service. The Prime Minister agrees that
it is inadequate, and that is why they are increasing
it. How soon do they expect to increase it?

Rt. Hon. E. W. BARROW: As soon as the need
is established. I did not say that we are convinced that
they need more ambulances. I said that consideration
is being given to increasing the number of units.
That is a totally different thing. As soon as the need
is established and subject to the availability of funds -
there should not be a great difficulty in this case
the House would be asked to pass the necessary
funds.


In addition to this, I must say that we received
from the Federal Republic of Germany, I think, four
ambulance units.
3.20 p.m.


Although these are not all attached to the Gen-
eral Hospital, they were attached somewhere. One
was attached there; I believe, one was attached to
the Police, and another to the St. John's Ambulance.
All of these work in very close collaboration with
the Hospital Authorities.

LAYING OFF OF WORKERS AT THE
HOUSING AUTHORITY

Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Question No. 336, also
standing in the name of the Hon. and Learned senior
member for St. Thomas.

Mr. J. M. G. M. ADAMS: Mr. Deputy Speaker,

To enquire of the Minister responsible for
Housing:

Will the Minister state whether the policy of
"last in" "first out" is used bythe Housing Author-
ity in determining what casual workers shall be
laid off when this becomes necessary?

Will the Minister give the assurance that
"laying off" is never used as a punishment directed
against those workers who assert their rights?

Rt. Hon. E. W. BARROW: Mr. Deputy Speaker,
the Reply to the hon. member's Question is as
follows:-

"1. Yes, Sir.

2. "Laying off" is never used as a punish-
ment directed against workers who assert their
rights. The practice of laying off of workmen is
applied only in cases of shortage of work. In such
cases the Housing Authority usually adheres to
the principle of "last in first out" but there have
been instances when, as a result of repeated in-
efficiency or misconduct, workers have been laid
.off in favour of more capable and responsible
workers with less service."

Mr. J. M. G. M. ADAMS: Will the Prime Min-
ister say whether the laying off of Mr. Howard
Roberts from a post specially created for him is in
any way related to the time of this answer?

Rt. Hon. E. W. BARROW: The hon. memberwill
have to give me notice of that Question.

Mr. J. M. G. M. ADAMS: Will the Hon. Prime
Minister investigate whether there have been any
complaints that workers at the Farm Site (Rt. Hon.
E. W. BARROW: Is this a Supplementary?) This
is a Supplementary. Will the Prime Minister in-
vestigate again whether there have been any com-











plaints that workers at the Farm Site in Deacons
Road have complained that laying off has been used
as an instrument of punishment against certain
workers who have made complaints about conditions
and terms of service?

Rt. Hon. E. W. BARROW: I have received no
such information. The Hon. Minister is not in his
place, and therefore I suggest that that be given as
a substantive Question to the Hon. Minister.

COST OF HOUSES CONSTRUCTED BY
HOUSING AUTHORITY

Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Question No. 338, also
standing in the name of the Hon. and Learned senior
member for St. Thomas.

Mr. J. M. G. M. ADAMS: Mr. Deputy Speaker,

To enquire of the Minister responsible for
Housing: -

Will the Minister give the figures forthe average
cost per square foot of houses constructed by the
Barbadc- Housing Authority year by year from 1956
to 1968?

Mr. Deputy Speaker, this is the Question; but if
the answer exists in tabulated form, I will not press
the Prime Minister to read it out.

Rt. Hon. E. W. BARROW: Mr. Deputy Speaker,
since I do not have copies, and I do not think that
there is anything to be ashamed of, I do not mind
reading them out at all. The Reply to the hon. mem-
ber's Question is as follows:

"The average cost per square foot is as follows:-


Financial Year


1956-57
1957-58
1958-59
1959-60
1960-61
1961-62
1962-63
1963-64
1964-65
1965-66
1966-67
1967-68


Average Cost per sq. ft.
of houses built

$ 6.79
$ 6.11
$ 5.97
$ 6.66
$ 7.18
$ 8.46
$ 8.00
$ 9.11
$10.45
$ 9.21
$10.93
$ 8.25"


Mr. J. M. G. M. ADAMS: Can the Prime Minister
give any reason for these very substantial fluctua-
tions, for example, of $2 per square foot in the cost
of constructing houses between 1967 and 1968?

Rt. Hon. E. W. BARROW: Mr. Deputy Speaker,
some of the fluctuations upwards are due to increases
in wages, if you look at the years from 1962-67
particularly, but then a more efficient means of


production-such as a critical path analysis and that
kind of thing-has been introduced into the construc-
tion programme of the Housing Authority which will
account for the reduction in cost, despite the fact that
between 1966-67, the average cost went up by $1.70
per square foot; but with the introduction of more
modern methods, they have now come down to $8.25.

Mr. J. M. G. M. ADAMS: Will the Prime Minister
agree that fluctuations ranging from $7.18 to $10.45
in four years and then falling again to $8.25 cannot
be explained merely by saying that you have got
a critical path analysis? Would he agree that a criti-
cal path analysis has been available since around
1964-65, and it has been applied to house building
since around then? All over the world, the system
has been developed. What is the reason for the
$10.45 in 1965 and it has now fallen to $2 less than
in the year 1968? Has any analysis been made at
the Housing Authority as to what was going wrong
in 1965 for houses to cost so much?

Rt. Hon. E. W. BARROW: Mr. Deputy Speaker,
there is another factor which one has to take into
consideration. I have discussed all of this with the
Housing Authority at various meetings, and it is the
particular sites on which you happen to be working,
because you will remember that around about 1965,
extensive work was being done in Parkinson Field.
3.30 p.m.

Up there they had very little foundation. When
we came to work at Deacons Road, now that is the
$8.25; and up at St. Matthias Gap you hardly had
to scratch the surface in order to build houses. This
really accounts for it, because a substantial number
of houses in the last year were built in places where
we had very little foundation problems.

Mr. J. M. G. M. ADAMS: Mr. Deputy Speaker,
is there any reason why there is so little fluctuations
between 1956 and 1961? Costs remained approximate-
ly the same, no matter what the foundations were,
whether itwas rocky Grazettes or the not-so-rocky-
Pine. There was a slight rise every year, and very
little fluctuation in those five years; but spectacu-
lar fluctuation since.

Rt. Hon. E. W. BARROW: I think I have already
explained that it had a lot to do with the sites on
which they were building. The steady increases, of
course, are due to the factthatwe had three salaries
revisions between 1956 and 1966.

Sir. GRANTLEY ADAMS: Mr. Deputy Speaker,
all that is very good for the early part, but what
has not yet been explained is why fluctuation of this
sort from 1965. You got $10.45 in 1965, dropped to
$9.21 in 1966; then you go back up in 1967 to $10.93,
dropping again in 1968 to $8.25. If you said that it
went up because of increased cost and higherwages,
all well and good; but in 1964 you go from $9.11
to $10.45 in 1965; then you drop to $9.21, then you
go back up to $10.93 and dropped again last year to
$8.25. Why the $10, then $8?











Rt. Hon. E. W. BARROW: As I explained to a
previous supplementary question, it is largely a ques-
tion of the sites where we are building. It is very
unrealistic to get the average cost of a house from
ground level up. You have to take the overall cost -
the development cost of the site, roads and everything,
and you put this into the average cost of building the
house. Here we have to leave out roads, because I do
not think the roads were in this figure. The average
cost of building a house includes the foundation, and
we have great fluctuations in Barbados in the depth
of soil-which we are not responsible for. If you
build 300 houses in Deacons Roadwhere you have very
little foundation problems, it is bound to be cheap-
er than up in Parkinson Field where in some cases
they had to stop building because they went down
to 30 feet and tried driving piles, and found it was
impracticable. There is no other reason that I know.

Mr. HINDS: Just one supplementary. Is it a fact
that the reduction that has been observed in 1964
has come about as a result of the Prime Minister
calling on the Housing Authority to take action to
stamp out the amount of thieving that has been going
on?

Rt. Hon. E. W. BARROW: Was that a question,
whether it was due to this? I cannot assess. I can
only judge physical factors; I cannot deal with
intangibles. According to this theory, then we should
save about $5 million in the Public Works this year.
QUESTION re INCIDENCE OF JUVENILE
DELINQUENCY

Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Question No. 311 stands
in the name of the hon. senior member for St.
Andrew.

Mr. EDWARDS: Mr. Deputy Speaker, the Question
reads as follows:-

To enquire of the appropriate Minister: -

1. (a) Is the Minister aware that the inci-
dence of juvenile delinquency is more than is desir-
able in the district of Hillaby, St. Andrew and St.
Thomas?

(b) Is the Minister aware that the pro-
vision of social and recreational amenities inalarge
district such as Hillaby can assist in reducing a high
incidence of delinquency?

(c) Is the Minister aware that there are
several young people in this district whose only
means of recreation is to gather in the streets and
play cricket, cards, dominoes and other games?

(d) Does the Minister consider it desira-
ble for such a large district as Hillaby with several
young people to be without recreational facilities?

(e) Is the Minister aware that Mr. Julian
Mahon has agreed to releasing a field at Farmers
Plantation to Government for providing a Community
Centre and Playing Field in this area since last year?


(f) Will the Minister take immediate
steps to have this field acquired and the Community
Centre and Playing Field established?

Rt. Hon. E. W. BARROW: Mr. Deputy Speaker,
the Replies are as follows:-


"(a)
Hillaby
area.


The incidence of juvenile delinquency in
is no higher than in other districts in the


(b) Yes, Sir.

(c) No, Sir.

(d) No, Sir.

(e) Yes, Sir.

(f) Negotiations for the acquisition of the land
will be proceeded with shortly."

Mr. J. M. G. M. ADAMS: Mr. Deputy Speaker,
can the Prime Minister say whether the hon. mem-
ber who asked that Question was a member of the
Government at the time when the negotiations started?

Rt. Hon. E. W. BARROW: I am not in a position
to answer that Question. That is aquestionof record.

Mr. EDWARDS: Mr. Deputy Speaker, with respect
to Question 1 (a), is the Ministeraware that the inci-
dence of juvenile delinquency is more than is desira-
able in the district of Hillaby, St. Andrew and St.
Thomas?

Rt. Hon. E. W. BARROW: Mr. Deputy Speaker,
I think I see the hon. member's point. He asked
whether it is more than desirable, and the Reply was
that it is not higher than the other districts. I would
like to say that all juvenile delinquency is undesir-
able; so that if there was only a modicum of delin-
quency, it would be more than is desirable.

QUESTION re WORKERS AT HOUSING
AUTHORITY

Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Question NO. 337 stands
in the name of the hon. senior member for St.
Thomas.

Mr. J. M. G. M. ADAMS: Mr. Deputy Speaker,
the Question reads as follows:-

To enquire of the Minister responsible for
Housing: -

1. What disputes, if any, are now outstanding
relating to holiday pay or other emoluments claimed
by workers at the Barbados Housing Authority?

2. Will the Minister make a statement about
the Authority's attitude to these disputes?

Rt. Hon. E. W. BARROW: Mr. Speaker, the Re-
plies are as follows:-











"1. None.


2. Does not arise."

Mr. J. M. G. M. ADAMS: Mr. Deputy Speaker,
will the Minister say if any such disputes were out-
standing on llth February when notice of this Ques-
tion was given?

Rt. Hon. E. W. BARROW: As far as I can see,
there was some dispute about Holiday Pay in 1967,
but there has been none for the past year.

Mr. J. M. G. M. ADAMS: Was there not a dispute
relating to Holiday Pay connected with Christmas of
1968?

Rt. Hon. E. W. BARROW: That was not really a
dispute. That was a question of their entitlement to
the Christmas bonus, and the problem was that the
Housing Authority had run out of money, I know
about this personally and the leaders of the work-
men came to me and expressed their plight, and I
authorised the release of funds from this year's pro-
gramme which were available in the Labour Welfare
Fund,.so that the programme could continue until
31st March, thereby making them entitled to get the
Christmas bonus. I got the subsequent approval of
Cabinet.

Mr. J. M. G. M. ADAMS: Will the Prime Min-
ister not agree that, in fact, the leaders of the work-
men were coming to him to set out their side of
a dispute, and secondly there was a further dispute,
because after the Prime Minister had authorisedthe
release of the funds, they complainedfurtherthatthe
Housing Authority would not give them?



Rt. Hon. E. W. BARROW: There was no dispute.
They understood, and they had been told about two
months before, that the programme was coming to
an end, and they merely came to make representa-
tions to me that they would be in a very critical
position unless some kind of programme could be
carried on. It was settled in about three quarters of
an hour, and I discovered that there was some money
- a sort of windfall in the Welfare Fund which
came there from somewhere or the other I would
not like anybody to think that this is something that
somebody else was entitled to and I ordered this
money to be released, I think, two or three weeks
before Christmas.
3.40 p.m.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Question No. 290,
standing in the name of the hon. senior member for
St. Joseph, whom I do not see in his place.


Sir GRANTLEY ADAMS: I am deputising for him,
Sir. I beg to put the question. The Standing Order
says that it is only necessaryto referto the number.
I will not read out the Question.


WORKING CONDITIONS AT PARCEL POST
BRANCH GENERAL POST OFFICE


The Question read as follows:-

Is the Minister aware that the conditions under
which the officers and staff of the Parcel Post De-
partment of the General Post Office at the Wharf
perform their duties are intolerable and do not en-
courage them to give of their best by reason of the
discomfort caused by the heat of the building in which
they work, especially when there are large numbers
of people waiting to be served?

Will the Minister recommend to the Government
the installation of air cooling equipment, such as fans
or other air conditioning equipment, which would re-
lieve such discomfort as a matter of extreme urgency?

Will the Minister also recommend the installa-
tion of a water cooler inthe said building for the use
of the workers therein and such members of the pub-
lic who have to use the building on business?

Hon. N. W. BOXILL: Mr. Deputy Speaker, his
reading is not too good. The Replies are as follows:

No, Sir.

It is proposed to investigate the conditions under
which the employees at the Parcel Post Branchwork
and to make such recommendations as would ensure
a reasonable level of working conditions.

Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Question No. 305,
standing in the name of the Hon. and Learned senior
member for St. Thomas.

CLEANING AND REPAIRING OF GUTTERS IN
CARRINGTON'S VILLAGE

Mr. J. M. G. M. ADAMS: Mr. Deputy Speaker,

To enquire of the Minister of Communications
and Works:-

Will the Minister forthwith take action to clean,
put in order, and pave the gutters and drains in Alkins
Road and other roads in Carrington's Village in the
parish of St. Michael?

Hon. N. W. BOXILL: Mr. Deputy Speaker, the
Replies are as follows:

"The gutters and drains in Alkins Road and other
roads in Carrington's Village are cleaned regularly
by the Ministry.
"Consideration will be given to the paving of the
gutters and drains in the Carrington's Village area
when the drainage programme for the 1969-70 Finan-
cial Year is being prepared."
Mr. J. M. G. M. ADAMS: Mr. Deputy Speaker,
has the Minister made a personal investigation of












Alkins Road and Cole's Road, in particular, where
he will see large puddles in front of people's houses,
because there are disputes among the people them-
selves and joint disputes 'with the Department of
Highways? They say that the gutter is not levelled
properly, and the water cannot flow. The people are
quarrelling with each other, because they do not want
the water from 'higher up' to come in front of their
houses. There is a serious blockage of the gutter
all along Alkins Road.

Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Question No. 326.

Hon. K. N. R. HUSBANDS: Mr. Deputy Speaker,
the hon. member who put this Question, I observe,
is not in his place; so I may ask leave to lay the
Reply.

Sir GRANTLEY ADAMS: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I
again refer to the fact that according to the Standing
Orders it is enough to call the number of the Question.
I am not reading it, even though some members may
feel that I cannot read. Question No. 326. I beg to put
it.

NATIONAL INSURANCE SCHEME

Hon. K. N. R. HUSBANDS: Mr. Deputy Speaker,
the hon. member who asked the Question, I observe,
is not in his place now. I crave your leave to lay the
Question. (ASIDES).

Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The hon. junior mem-
ber for St. Joseph is deputising for him.

Hon. K. N. R. HUSBANDS: Mr. Deputy Speaker,
the Replies are as follows:

1. No, Sir.

2. Claims for sickness benefits are mainly
for short periods of sickness andit is therefore pos-
sible that some persons may return to work before
payment is made.

4. Sickness benefit is recognized as a measure
of relief for earnings lost as a result of illness and
therefore delays in payment of benefits, are, as far as
possible, kept to the minimum.

Sir GRANTLEY ADAMS: Mr. Deputy Speaker,
although I did not ask this Question, I, personally,
have come across at least two cases of this sort,
and I think it is reasonable to ask the Ministry to
see that questions of benefit are dealtwith promptly.
There may be some persons who will continue to pay
their employees when they are sick, whether they get
benefits or not; but there may be some others who
cannot afford it, or, may be, even wilfully do not af-
ford it. Those who are ill, unless they get their
national benefits, are without any money during their
period of sickness.
3.50 p.m.
Having had personal experience of this sort of thing
happening, I do put my voice in to say that there are


those cases in which people may be sick and have to
rely on neighbours or friends to help them because
their employers do not pay them during the sick
period, and they do not get their benefits for some
time after. Therefore, I do implore the Government
to see that benefits, provided that the forms are filled
in and sent in urgently, are paid immediately.

Hon. K. N. R. HUSBANDS: Mr. Deputy Speaker,
there is no question asked of me; there is just a
statement made.

SUBSISTENCE ALLOWANCE TO CHAIRMAN
OF TOURIST BOARD

Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Question No. 247 stand-
ing in the name of the hon. senior member for St.
James.

Mr. CRAIG: Mr. Deputy Speaker, this is only for
a Supplementary, and therefore I do not care to
continue the Supplementary.

Mr. J. M. G. M. ADAMS: Mr. Deputy Speaker, is
there a final answer to this Question? Is there a final
figure which the Minister is able to give us which
he was not able to give us on a earlier occasion?
Any of us can ask Supplementaries, and I am asking
if there is a final figure which the Minister can now
give us.

Hon. G. G. FERGUSSON: Mr. Deputy Speaker, as
stated today, the Reply to Question No. 247 has been
reported to be ready and I am prepared to give the
answer to the Question or to lay it, if the hon. mem-
ber is not in his place (ASIDES). This is the first
time that this Reply has been laid to this Question
which was asked by the hon. senior member for St.
James. The hon. member is not nowinhis place and
I will lay the Reply.

Mr. J. M. G. M. ADAMS: Mr. Deputy Speaker,
we have had a long time with this Question already,
and Question Time expired when we were dealing
with Supplementaries. That was last year in Novem-
ber. There were still questions which were being
put to the Minister about the exact amount which
Mr. Morgan had received.


Rt. Hon. E. W. BARROW: The Reply has been
laid already.


Mr. J. M. G. M. ADAMS: It has been answered,
not laid.


Hon. G. G. FERGUSSON: I am asking thatQues-
tion No. 247 be taken off the Order Paper because the
Question has already been asnwered.

Sir GRANTLEY ADAMS: His Honour the Speak-
er asked that it remain on the Order Paper and the
questioner himself does not want it taken off. How
can you do it? Is that in order?











Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The hon. senior mem-
ber for St. James has asked that that Question be
taken off the Order Paper.

Sir GRANTLEY ADAMS: Well, I did not know
that. (Laughter). That was not said for the House to
hear.

RESUMPTION OF GOVERNMENT BUSINESS

Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER: That brings us to the
end of Question Time. We will now revert to Gov-
ernment business.

Rt. Hon. E. W. BARROW: Mr. Deputy Speaker,
in Government Business we were dealingwithOrder
No. 2:- The second reading of the Bill to amend the
Representation of the People Act and I think that
we had reached the stage where the motion was put
for the passing of the second reading. I think that
there were one or two hon. members who had not
spoken either on the amendment or on the substantive
motion, but who had indicated their intention to speak.

Mr. MOTTLEY: Mr. Deputy Speaker, this Bill
for the amendment to the Representation of the
People Act while it is not very voluminous, it does
make a certain number of changes. Partly, what the
Prime Minister has said, if you can get an honest
newspaper reporting what he has said, would ease
and clarify the confusionwhich has been caused in the
minds of people; that is, if you can get an honest
report. I am not thinking of what was said privately
or outside; I am thinking of what was said on the
floor of this House quite recently. I think most hon.
members know that Mr. Crichlow Matthews, the
Chief Registering Officer I supposeafterhaving
been pressed for something which people could be
guided by said and had published that the question
of not having your photograph will not prevent you
frm exercising your vote at the forthcoming elec-
tion. This was published in the Press and it came
out on the air. Well, as to the five thousand-odd
people who must exercise their right to vote in the
City of Bridgetown, that was indeed gratifying for
them to learn that it was not brought in immediately
on them. As to the merits and demerits, as to what
use it will serve in the future, I am not prepared to
go into now; but a few days after, the whole consti-
tuency was confused by the Minister of Home Affairs
and I want to let what I say to be made so clearly
that it will be taken down. The Minister of Home
Affairs said on the air that he denied what the Chief
Registering Officer had said and he went on further;
he not only denied it to say that his Government -
and I think he would be in a position to say had
made a decision and it would be used for the bye-
election in the City of Bridgetown, and there was
legislation when a Minister makes that statement
you will expect people to accept it as the Gospel.
Having made that statement, the next thing he went
on to say as usual, the poor old reporter was
blamed that he took down the reportwrongly and that
Mr. Crichlow Matthews did not say so. However, that
did not prevent those of us who were interested in
fighting the bye-election from getting out and seeing


that the rule of law be observed by helping people to
get, by encouraging people to go and have their pic-
tures taken. Even to this day, you have not reached
the halfway mark yet.

In other words, of the five thousand-odd people,
one half of them have not taken pictures and a dead-
line has been given for today, which is an administra-
tive deadline. I want to say here and now quite em-
phatically, that I am prepared to challenge anything
in this matter which is not legal before the Chief
Justice, and I believe that I can find the wherewithal
to challenge it. As far as I am concerned, my son
is running in this bye-election. Lord Baldwin was
Prime Minister of England in the Conservative Party,
and his son was a member of the Labour Party; but
as far as I am concerned, he is still my son and I
suppose it is my name. I want to make this clear. The
Minister denied this; he came out to the public and
had the entire Constituency of Bridgetown confused.
Today the Prime Minister and Ihope that it is re-
ported; if this is not reported, I shall buy somewhere
in the Advocate and put it in besides telling me
inside the Speaker's Chamber I am sorry that he
has gone out (A MEMBER: He is coming backin)but
he told me in front of you, Sir; you were present,
and he said it on the floor of the House that this
amendment to the Representation of the People Act,
as far as pictures are concerned, will not be used
in this bye-election. That is what the Prime Minister
has said. If the reporters are dishonest, and do not
like to publish that, that will be their business. He not
only said that here, but he made it quite clear inside
there, and he made it clearonthe floor of the House.

Rt. Hon. E. W. BARROW: Mr. Deputy Speaker,I
should like to make a certain point of elucidation. I
should just like to make this clear. We have pre-
viously passed a measure in here making identifi-
cation cards part and parcel of the registration
process. (ASIDES). Just give me a chance; I do not
like to start in the middle.
4.00 p.m.

What I pointed out here todaywas that the Regis-
ter closes today. (ASIDES). The registration may have
closed. I think I know what I am talking, but you had
a certain period which ends today or midnight last
nigh .......If the hon. memberwould just let me finish.
I would explain it. (ASIDES). I am nothing to do with
what he told the hon. member or the newspaper or
anything else. I am telling youwhat I happen to know.
Registration is a process whereby you take people's
names who live in a district, and, provided they have
the qualifications and are not disqualified and are
over the age of eighteen, they are entitled to have
their names enrolled on the Register. Apreliminary
Register is prepared. What has happened is that there
is normally a preliminary Register, a revised Regis-
ter and a final Register. One of these processes has
not taken place now because of the state of the legis-
lation, and you do not have a revised Register and a
final Register.

What I am pointing out is that is the period that
you have to object, although registration is closed,










the Register is revised and then that becomes the
final Register. (Mr. MOTTLEY: You have the re-
vised Register already.) This is what you think,
but I am telling youwhat I know. That is the difference
between you and me. You do not want me to explain
in my way. Youwant me to saywhat you want to hear.

Mr. MOTTLEY: I must tell you what the public
has been told.

Rt. Hon. E. W. BARROW: I am nothing to do with
that. I am telling you now what the position is.

Mr. MOTTLEY: I say that the revised Register...

Rt. Hon. E. W. BARROW: Two hon. members
are on their feet. Can I go on with my explanation?
Whether I am right or wrong, the hon. member
should try to listen, and then hewillnot be confused.

Mr. MOTTLEY: I want you to say if pictures are
necessary for voting.

Rt. Hon. E. W. BARROW: A long time ago we
passed legislation about taking pictures, and issuing
identification cards as part of the process of regis-
tration. All the hon. member has to do is to go back
and read the Laws of Barbados. Provision was made
for all of that; but those provisions have never come
into effect. That is what I am trying to explain. You
pass legislation, and then another Act has to take
place that is, by proclamation or otherwise -
for those provisions to apply to a particularelection.
The hon. member is trying to go too far ahead of me.
Now what has happened is this: those things have
now lapsed. The present Register of Electors thatwe
have for the City Constituency does not demand
photographs and identification as part of the process
of registration, because the Register was already in
existence without those provisions. But as part of
the question of identification now for voting, this is
the purpose of the Bill which is here. In other words,
in the next General Election, whenever it will be,you
will have to have an identity card as part of the
process before you can get on the Register; but the
Register is already there. There were rules which
made it permissible for the Presiding Officer at a
Polling Station to ask two specific questions; "if
you voted before" and "are you the person whose
name is on this Register", as means of identifying
a person to make sure he has not voted twice. The
rules in the Schedule here now make it possible for
various means which have been set out indetail, and
which I have enumerated, in the introduction of this
Bill, to assist the Presiding Officer to identify a
person.


Now, a person is entitled to vote. You cannot
now, after 2359 hours tonight, say he is not entitled
to vote, because his name is on the Register; but
when he presents himself at the polling booth, he has
to identify himself. It is as simple as that. He has
to identify himself if the Presiding Officer does not
already know his identity. There always is some kind
of identification, and it is not restricted to produc-


tion of anI.D. card taken by the Registration Officer's
photographer or by any other person. It is not re-
stricted; it has been enlarged, because of the time
factor which we had to deal with, to make it as easy
as possible for persons who are already on the
Register to identify themselves. No one who is on
the Register can be denied the right to vote. (Mr.
MOTTLEY: If he has not got photographh) You can-
not speak for me, because you would be a lawyer and
I would be a backbencher. If a person's name was on
the Register, you could not prevent him from voting
providing he could identify himself or he is know....
(ASIDES). You cannot tell me what I said. I read out the
ways in which identification is possible but he does
not have to have an identification card. I do not care
what the D.L.P., B.L.P., B.N.P., P.A.M. or any of
them said on a platform. I am telling you what the
Government has introduced on the floorofthe Legis-
lature, that it is not necessary for a person to have
an identification card. I said it is desirable. If the
Registration Officer said it is not necessary he is
correct. I am saying it is desirable because it is the
easiest way, because not everybody who votes can
drive a motor car, or has been abroad to have a
passport, and as you come down the line, it becomes
increasingly more difficult to identify yourself, be-
cause a passport has your picture, with a driver's
licence everybody knows whether you can drive or
not an I.D. card speaks for itself and then it
gets progressively more difficult for a person who
is not perhaps articulate to identify himself, and he
would have to get another voter to come and say that
he is the fellow that lives in th3 house. But the
Presiding Officer has the power to ask him, if he
does not have (a), (b), (c), (d) or (e) to provide some
other satisfactory means of proof, and each candi-
date would normally have an agent sitting in the
particular Polling Station in the Polling District, and
therefore he is there to see that abuse is not made
of this discretion which the Presiding Officer has.
I do not see any problem at all, and I hope I have
made myself abundantly clear. (ASIDES). I cannot
answer your question. The hon. member was on his
feet, and therefore it would not be proper for the
hon. junior member for St. Peter to rise at this
juncture, because I only came in to check on some-
thing, and I will be back in a moment. I just want to
clear up that point. I am not concerned with what
anybody said outside; I am concerned with the legis-
lation here.

Mr. MOTTLEY: The hon. member said and I
wrote it down that if the Registering Officer said
that it is not necessary to have your photograph, he
would be correct.

Rt. Hon. E. W. BARROW: If the Chief Registering
Officer said it is not necessary to have your photo-
graph, he is correct.

Mr. MOTTLEY But the Government says it is
desirable for you to have it.

Rt. Hon. E. W. BARROW: Because it is the
easiest means of identification.











Mr. MOTTLEY: We are not denying all this. We
are trying to get out of the confusion that the elec-
torate of the City has been put in. The Prime Min-
ister says that if the Registering Officer says it is
not necessary to have your photograph, he is correct.
But the Minister of Home Affairs said .......

Rt. Hon. E. W. BARROW: lamnothingto do with
that, man.

Mr. MOTTLEY: You are nothing to do withwhat
the Minister of Home Affairs said?

Rt. Hon. E. W. BARROW: I did not know that the
Minister of Home Affairs made a Statement.

Mr. MOTTLEY: Have you notheardthathe made
a Statement?

Rt. Hon. E. W. BARROW: No. I was in Grenada.

Mr. MOTTLEY: If you were away, other Ministers
were here. When the Chief Registering Officer put
this in the Press, the idea was to get people to come
in, and all the candidates and those who were sup-
posed to be candidates were encouraging the people
to come in. Then the Chief Registering Officer came
out and said it was not necessary to have your photo-
graph; in other words, this will not prevent you from
exercising your right to vote. He went on like you and
said that it is desirable to have it.
4.10 p.m.

Now, the Minister makes his Statement. Every-
body must hear the Minister's Statement. He made
a Statement -not only could be be picked up in Barba-
dos, but in all parts of the West Indies to the
effect that unless you have it you will not be able to
vote. This is a contradiction of the Minister's
Statement. Whose version must we take? Some peo-
ple are not going to take what is said by the Chief
Registration Officer, they will take what the Min-
ister has said. I happen to know that when the Min-
istermade his Statement.....(Sir GRANTLEY ADAMS:
All members of the Cabinet did not agree with this.
The Attorney General and the Legal Adviser did not
agree with it.) (A SIDE S'.

Now, the Prime Minister has come here today
and he is not agreeing with what the Minister of
Home Affairs has said.

Rt. Hon. E. W. BARROW: I wouldlike to get this
straight. It is not a question of not agreeing or dis-
agreeing with the Minister of Home Affairs, because
I was not even aware that he had made a Statement
on the matter. He has not asserted his opinion, or
what he thinks ought to be for this particular bye-
election. This is a unanimous decision of the Min-
isters that this is the way the Schedule should read,
and I have heard no controversial voice on it, whether
in here or in the Cabinet.

I was not even aware that the Ministerof Home
Affairs had made a Statement. It is immaterialwheth-
er he made a Statement or not. What is important is


what is here and what I have explained. If you agree
that what I have explained conforms with the Bill that
we ask you to pass, then that is all you have to do.

Mr. MOTTLEY: I do not agree with that. What
is important is that it be made simple to the general
public and to the electors in the Constituency of
Bridgetown for this particular election. You have
said on the floor of this House that if the Chief Regis-
tration Officer said it is not necessary, then you
agree with the Chief Registration Officer. You can-
not agree with the Chief Registration Officer and
agree with the Minister of Home Affairs atthe same
time. (Rt. Hon. E. W. BARROW: That does not worry
me.) I know it does not worry you.

Now, if the Chief Registration Officer says it is
not necessary and it is not going to prevent you from
voting; the Prime Minister says he agrees with the
Chief Registration Officer, and we tell you that the
general public listened to C.B.C. to the Statement by
the Minister of Home Affairs to the effect that what
the Chief Registration Officer said it is not true, what
is the position? Whom must we believe? (Rt. Hon.
E. W. BARROW: I did nothearit; I was out of the Is-
land.) I know that you did not hear it, because you
were out of the Island.

Rt. Hon. E. W. BARROW: Mr. Deputy Speaker,
is the hon. member suggesting that I make the Chief
Registration Officer the Minister of Home Affairs?
You know that I voted four times here with the Oppo-
sition last month, but it does not mean that I am go-
ing to make them Ministers. On the Pensions Bill I
voted four times with the Opposition.

Mr. MOTTLEY: Mr. Deputy Speaker, what I am
trying to get clear is that the Prime Minister said
today, and he has made it abundantly clear, he agrees
with the Chief Registration Officer that it is not
necessary and it will not prevent people from exer-
cising their votes. He went on to state the other
means of identification. I do not know what are the
reasons for these questions of identification. What
I would like to find out from the Prime Minister is
this. Are you going to have 8 Presiding Officers and
8 Agents? Of course, I never had an agent yet.

Rt. Hon. E. W. BARROW: I think there are two
stations to a polling district. As far as I remember,
there are 12 Presiding Officers, because some
polling districts have two sections and others have
three.

Mr. MOTTLEY: I am sure the Prime Minister
will agree with me that this is being held under the
old double-member constituency. Not only is this be-
ing changed, but it is made worse. (Rt. Hon. E. W.
BARROW: How?) You agree that it is not necessary
to have the photograph, but it says here that you can-
not get a ballot paperto vote unless you produce some
sort of identification.

Rt. Hon. E. W. BARROW: That is where the
newspaper mixed up people, because there is a dif-
ference between an identification card and identifi-











cation satisfactory to the Presiding Officer. We do
not leave it entirely to his discretion; we say the
means by which you can establish your identity. The
production of an identification card is only one means-
and it might be the easiest bywhich you can estab-
lish your identity. You can use yourpassportor your
driver's licence.

Sir GRANTLEY ADAMS: On a point of order.
How many speeches is the Prime Minister making?
Cannot the Hon. Prime Minister wait untilthe senior
member for the City completes his speech and re-
ply? (ASIDES). Your crude, stupid remarks make no
impression on me. Your style cannot even impress
a child. You get up and make some stupid, blustering
remark, and therefore everybody must sit quiet and
listen to it!

Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Is the Hon. Leader of
the Opposition on a point of order?

Sir GRANTLEY ADAMS: I am askingwhether the
Prime Minister is in order by constantly referring
to the remarks made by the speaker on his feet, in-
stead of waiting unitl the speech is completed.

Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Hon. Prime Min-
ister rose on a point of elucidation.

Sir GRANTLEY ADAMS: It could only be the
elucidation of something that he has said. Elucida-
tion means that he is elucidating some point he has
made.

Mr. MOTTLEY: This election is not being held
under the single-member constituency Regulations.
This is being held under the old double-member con-
stituency legislation. As has been pointed out by the
Prime Minister himself, the Presiding Officer can
ask two questions:

(1) Are you the person whose name is on this
list?

(2) Have you voted before?

Those are the questions he could ask.

But this election being heldunder the old double-
member constituency, it has changed this to three
Questions, the Questions being:

(1) are you the person registered inthe regis-
ter of electors for this election as follows (read the
whole entry from the register)?

(2) have you already voted, here or else-
where, at this bye-election (general election)?

(3) shall request that person to produce his
identification card.
This is something new. If he does not produce his
identification card he cannot vote; he cannot get a
ballot paper.


Rt. Hon. E. W. BARROW: Mr. Deputy Speaker,
on a point of elucidation. I speak in respect of Sec-
tion 3 of the same section which goes on to say: --

Mr. MOTTLEY: "A ballot paper shall be issued
to any person who is unable for any reason to pro-
duce an identification card, if -

(a) he produced to the presiding officer -
(1) his passport ......"

You have 250,000 people to vote,but how many of them
have passports? Do you have 150,000 people with
passports? Rt. Hon. E. W. BARROW: They canuse a
driver's licence.) How many people in the City of
Bridgetown will have drivers' licences? How many
will have National Security Cards? People over the
age of 65 cannot get National Security.
4.20 p.m.

Rt. Hon. E. W. BARROW: Mr. Deputy Speaker,
on a point of elucidation. I should just like to ex-
plain to the hon. member that all of the people
whose names appear on the Register have already
answered questions for the purpose of registration -
everybody old and young, and they were given slips
for reporting at the photographic centres. It may be
two years ago; it may be 18 months ago; it may be
six months ago. They have already answered ques-
tions as to where they were born and the names of
their fathers and mothers, and that kind of thing.
The questions are going to be restricted to those
questions which already appear; and I think that the
polling agents are in a position, if they think that a
person does not have Social Security, driver's li-
cence, Passport, I. D. card or any of these other
established means of identification if they think
that a Presiding Officer is asking embarrassing or
difficult questions, they have the right to make a
note of it and to protest. I do not think that you are
going to get two or three instances in the whole
election because the people who cannot establish
their identity are not going to vote. You know,
they are going to be too frightened.

Mr. MOTTLEY: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I do not
understand this thing about the people who cannot
establish their identity. This is what I would like to
say to you; this is putting a bee in your bonnet about
these photographs. You are taking photographs of
people now at 18, I think (Rt. Hon. E. W. BARROW:
15). You are taking pictures of people now at 15
years. Tell me something: do you remember seeing
your own picture when you were 15? (Rt. Hon. E. W.
BARROW: The face was the same). Don't be absurd;
do you still have the same face? (Rt. Hon. E. W.
BARROW: I said that the face was the same.) You
cannot make any mistake. (ASIDES) You are sitting
there and making a lot of sport. How often are you
going to take pictures after that? Why is it, Mr.
Deputy Speaker, that this is being introduced new
for this bye-election when those at 15, a person at
30 10 years from then a person at 25 remains
with the same face? This bye-election is being held











under the old double member constituencies, and
I cannot see why this is being done other than for
reasons to be able to prevent a fair and honest
straightforward fight in the election campaign.

Rt. Hon. E. W. BARROW: Mr. Deputy Speaker,
on a point of order. How can the hon. member make
a statement like that? I do not think that the hon.
member has any right to say that, because he knows
that it is to ensure a fair, straightforward and hon-
est fight, and not to prevent it; because only dishon-
est people would not want to turn up to vote. All the
people who are genuinely registered and who live in
the City of Bridgetown will be there, especially if
they are supporting the Government (Laughter.)
All the dishonest people... (ASIDES.)

Mr. MOTILEY: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I amgoing
to make a strong statement here andnow. This would
be so if a Registering Officer were allowed to pick
Presiding Officers; but if the Cabinet is going to
pick Presiding Officers, they will pick whom they
want. Right now people are asking the people: "Whom
are you going to vote for?" whentheygo to take pic-
tures (ASIDES.)

Rt. Hon. E. W. BARROW: On a point of order.
There is no point in the hon. member getting hot
and coming in here and making wild accusations.
(Mr. MOTTLEY: I do not make wild accusations.)
We are prepared to investigate any case of improper
conduct against any person in any election campaign,
and particularly of Presiding Officers or enumera-
tors or anyone concerned with the electionwho takes
any unfair advantage of an elector by asking ques-
tions which they are not entitled to ask. There are
only eight Polling Stations, and there are eight mem-
bers of the Opposition, and each one of them can be
stationed as an agent in one to get first hand informa-
tion (Laughter.)

Mr. MOTTLEY: That is all well and good. When
you put this before the average person which the
Cabinet, not the Chief Registering Officer I will
gamble now that some names which will be sent up,
the Cabinet must pick whom they want as Presiding
Officers. I just warn that this has got to be an elec-
tion in which you will have to watch every inch of
ground that you are travelling on. Don't forget that.
Mr. Deputy Speaker, do you tell me that when you
put this in the hands of a Presiding Officer and he
begins to read and he sees "The Presiding Officer
at the time or any person applying for a Ballot
Paper may, and if required by a candidate for elec-
tion, polling" and so on, he asks: "Are you the
person registered?" The person will answer"Yes".
All right, "Have you already voted?" "No". All
right. But then you go on to tell him about identifi-
cation. The Prime Minister comes in here today
and solemnly tells us that it is not necessary to
have pictures...(ASIDES). You said that you agree with
the Registering Officer that it is not necessary to
have photographs taken in this particular election.
I am not saying for other elections,because for other
elections you will have time and you will be able to
lecture to people over the radio and tell them all


this. You solemnly said in here today that you agree
with the Registering Officer. My God have mercy
If you agree with the Registering Officer andyour
Minister of Home Affairs comes over the radio
and tells people something different, what are you
expecting now? What are you to expect? (ASIDES.)
What he does say is that Mr. Matthews is right
when he said that it is not necessary to have the
photograph and it will not prevent you from voting.
But whom :lo you think the people will believe? Mr.
Matthews or Senator Greaves?

Rt. Hon. E.W. BARROW: On a point of order.
The people have to obey the law. I do not want to go
through this all the time. It does not matter what
anybody says outside here. Parliament is supreme,
and what will be the supreme law of Barbados is
what we pass in here relating to the conduct of the
elections. It is very simple. I am not really con-
cerned, bothered or worried about what anybody
says outside. What we pass in here is the law, and
I have explained to you what we are asking you to
pass, and you must be satisfied that it is just and it
is fair. I cannot go over that again. (ASIDES.)


Mr. MOTTLEY: What I can say is that I believe
the general public knows that up to the time when
the Cabinet Minister saidthat, it was not before the
Cabinet yet because the Prime Ministerwas out of the
Island and no decision was made by the Ministers in
his Cabinet at the time I think that everybody in
Barbados knows that; but the Minister is saying that
"Matthews is right, but I am not sayingthat Greaves
was wrong." (Rt. Hon. E. W. BARROW: I did not
hear what he said) WellI am tellingyou what he said.
Did you hear what Matthews said? (Rt. Hon. E. W.
BARROW: I read what he is allegedto have said) Mr.
Deputy Speaker, is the Prime Minister asking me to
believe that he was not told that Greaves made a
Statement? (Asides.) (Rt. Hon. E. W. BARROW: I
heard from you and five minutes later from Captain
G. Fergusson). Did you come in this morning form
Grenada, and nobody told youwhat Greaves has said?
Do you tell me that you did not hear that Greaves
made a Statement? Mr. Prime Minister, Greaves, the
Minister of Communications and Works, Maxwell,
Phillips, all of them were up in Matthews' office,
and they had no right up there to interfere with the
process of this election. (Rt Hon. E. W. BARROW: I
don't even know about it). Some of you are going to
get locked up, you know. Matthews has his office up
there and the Ministers go up there to interfere with
it?



Rt. Hon. E. W. BARROW: On a point of order. I
do not know what the hon. member is talking about.
I have got a lot of work to do in my office. Mr.
Matthews has two Ministers Registering.
4.30 p.m.


In charge of Local Government he has to deal
with the Minister of Health, and as far as elections
are concerned, he is under the full control and












jurisdiction of the Ministry of Home Affairs, andthe
Minister is the Head of the Ministry, andhe can call
him up or go to his office at any time. I want to as-
sure the hon. member for the last time, before I ask
for an excuse for a few minutes, that today is the
first time that I heard the Minister had made a
Statement. What is wrong with that? I have so much
work to do andhe has alotof work to do. That shows
I do not dictate to my Ministers, because if I used to
dictate to my Ministers, I would tell them what to
say and when to say it. Are you satisfied now?

Mr. MOTTLEY: But you agree that Matthews is
right, and he is wrong.

Rt. Hon. E. W. BARROW: I am not trying any
case, because I have not heard both sides or any
side.


Mr. MOTTLEY: You have not heard any side. You
only read what Mathews said.

As far as I am concerned, those 63, 64, 68 year-
old people could not have a National Security Card,
and you could prevent possibly more than half, if
you had the type of Presiding Officer who would
want to ask people to present these things. You have
said something which possibly you should have in
here, and that is, the Old Age Pension card; but I
notice you have not put that in.

Rt. Hon. E. W. BARROW: That comes inthe omni-
bus things.

Mr. MOTTLEY: That comes in what?

Rt. Hon. E. W. BARROW: He could ask for any
satisfactory means of establishing his identity.

Mr. MOTTLEY: I am going to warn you about
something; this method of trying to win this election
by underhand means is not going to work so good.
(Rt. Hon. E. W. BARROW: I know. That is why you
are going to lose.) You are playing for trouble. You
are letting people lead you up the wrong street this
time, and this bye-election is being run under the
old system.

Rt. Hon. E. W. BARROW: You have not lost yet,
and you are crying "Foul".


Mr. ST. JOHN: Mr. Deputy Speaker,........

Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Is the hon. seniormem-
ber for Christ Church on a point of order?


Mr. MOTTLEY: I am only giving you warning.
You can bring out your whole Police Force. I have
been up against great odds,you know. Once,when this
Party was in power I was up against odds, and you
know my guts. I have a lot of guts, and I am only
warning you that you might be bringing outthe whole
Police Force in this matter.


Mr. HINDS: Mr. Deputy Speaker, this Bill is no
doubt specifically designed to deny the electorate of
the City of Bridgetown 5,000 odd that are regis-
tered an opportunity to exercise their civic right
on Polling Day. I do not want to fall into the trap of
another hon. member by accusing the Government of
outright or rank dishonesty, but it savours of all
that is dishonest. Mr. Deputy Speaker, ifonewe=a to
look at the amendments that the Prime Minister
cleverly stated would be offered in Committee, one
has got to see the reason why this side had every
cause to move or attempt to move that postponement
of consideration should obtain. We have heard from
the Prime Minister that the election in the City will
be fought under the old system; but Mr. Deputy Speak-
er, it would be a good thing, when the day really
comes, that hon. members and the general public of
Barbados can take the Prime Minister at his word.
I have said from the floor of this House that I am
not prepared to accept it, if he bring it in writing
with a million witnesses.
Now the Prime Minister says that the bye-elec-
tion in the City will be fought under the old system;
but under the old system it has been pointed out
here already that there were only two questions that
the Presiding Officer could have asked any person
who turned up to vote, and these two questions are
in section 27(1) of the Representation of the People
Act, 1957. l(a) states that the Presiding Officer
should ask "Are you the person registered in the
Register of Electors for this election as follows"
and he reads out the whole entry; secondly, "Have
you already voted here or elsewhere at this bye-
election or general election as the case may be";
and his authority ended there. The Prime Minister
has been at pains to jump to his feet every now and
again and tell us of all the provisions that have been
made for registration, even registering those that
are 15 years of age. We are not concerned with
registration. We are specifically concerned at this
time with the question of exercising your civic
right in other words, casting a vote in the City's
bye-election. But what we will find is this: you will
see, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the provisions in sec-
tion 27 have been enlarged upon andextendedto such
an extent that any person whom the Presiding Officer
has reason to believe is not going to vote for the
Party that employs him on that day ........ I am not
suggesting that all of them are going to be dishonest;
but in view of the fact that the Cabinet has taken
such a stand, and having something to do with the
appointment of these Presiding Officers at these
Polling Stations, one has got to be very careful in-
deed.
The Prime Minister was bold enough to saythat
there are eight inOpposition; so Oppositionmembers
can station themselves at the Polling Stations to see
that there are no irregularities. I know the Prime
Minister would like to have the eight Opposition
members at the Polling Stations, because if the type
of campaign that was indulged in in the parish of St.
Philip in the last election is carried on, where the
taxi drivers were given 100 single dollar bills each
and told to be honest, do their jobs and they would
be looked after afterwards, they will be honest.


__










They were honest then and made full use of the
money; they kept none of it for themselves. I am not
saying to whom they gave it. In St. Michael, too,
there were voters who were afraid to get into the cars
that had the money; but I must tell you that, fortu-
nately for you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you belonged at
the time, and still belong, to the Party that had the
cars with the money.

What we have got to be very careful about is
this:this is a wicked, vicious Bill. Do you know what
it does for you? In addition to asking you these ques-
tio-s, you can now bx; asked to produce an identifica-
tion ca::d.
4,40 p.m.


We hear the Prime Minister say "Yes, but it
does not stop there." It is true that you can be asked
for a passport, a motor vehicle driver's licence,
or a National Security card. As the hon. senior mem-
ber for the City has pointed out, after 65 years of
age you still have the vote, but you do not have a
National Security card. You ca-lrt get one. (ASIDES.)

The Prime Minister also says that youhave your
Old Age Pensions card. When a person becomes 68
years of age, there are certain conditions that are
applicable which can prohibit that person from be-
coming an Old Age Pensioner. If the EnquiryOfficer
is satisfied that you have as much as $5, whether by
way of income, whether it comes from house rents,
or if the person's husband is retired and he get $10
a week pension, it means that the Enquiry Officeror
the Committee can apportion $5 for the wife and $5
for the husband, and there will be no Old Age Pen-
sion for that person. Here is a case where two peo-
ple are over the age of 68, but because $10 a week
is coming into their house perhaps from their
children thay cannot get their Old Age Pensions
cards. They might be entitled to vote in the City
of Bridgetown as the case may be, but they do not
have a driver's licence; they do not have a National
Insurance card, they cannot get an Old Age Pension
card under these conditions. But the sting of the whole
thing is in the tail.

I refer to sub-clause (b). The voter must satis-
factorily answer such further questions :elating to
his identity as the Presiding Officer may put to him,
in addition to all those other things. 1Th Presiding
Officer can find such further questions. He ca1 ask
you other questions as a voter, and if you cannot
give him satisfactory answer to these further
questions relating to your identity, then you cannot
be given a ballot paper to vote, -0i1ough your namie.
is on the Register..

Now, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I feel that if you were
going to be a candidate in the City's bye-election
having this thrust upon you to be honest with you,
and kaowving your tempesramen;:, and hearing the
highest regard for your considered exercise of pa-
tience and so on through the y. )rs I believe you
would be tempted to resort to violence on seeing
this. This is a wicked, spiteful bit of legislation. It
cannot be considered fair.


Mr. Deputy Speaker, when we take into consid-
eration the fact that Mr. Louis Lynch, who held the
seat for the City of Bridgetown as a junior member,
was elected under a system that did not have any of
these dirty, wicked catches in it here is a case
where Mr. Lynch has died; a bye-election is to be
held to fill the vacancy that has been created by his
death. It does not come at atimewhen we are forced
by dint of any circumstances to create new boundaries
or in any way interfere with our electoral system,

We have a right; it is a duty and I am calling
on all hon. members of this House to demand that
the bye-election is held to fill the seat vacated by
Mr. Louis Lynch under the same conditions that
prevailed at the time when he was elected. If during
the life of Mr. Lynch any of these changes had been
brought into effect; if during the time when he held
this office any of these changes had been brought into
effect, we would have no complaint whatsoever today-
But to wait until Mr. Lynch has died, after having
been elected under certain conditions, and now to
fill his vacancy you are employing these tactics, we
must say that these things are dishonest. This is not
fair or right. It savours of dishonesty.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, it is not good; it is not
decent, and it is not right. There is one very impo.-
tant point that the people of the City must know. This
Bill, if passed in this House, will be deemed to have
come into effect on the 22nd March, 1969. We are
legislating retroactively for a matter such as this.
It is not decent. We are calling on the Government
and the Ministers on that side of the House as well
as back-benchers to discharge their consciences.
Let them understand that the time will come, if they
become parties to this type of business, when some
of them will be called upon to legislate against
others in like manner. What kind of policy is this?

Mr. Deputy Speaker, honestly, all of us have
regard for money: but, believe me, I am seeing too
often in this House what money candowhen it comes
to certain hon. members on that side of the House.
This is a case which requires every hon. member
to take regard of his own position in his Consti-
tuency. We have seen that some were on this side
of the House today, and found themself over on that
side the next morning. Mr. Deputy Speaker, the
reverse can happen. We have seen one hon. member
about seven-eighth's from over the other side; he
is just holding on and praying that he does not get
knocked out of the ring. We have to be very careful
on this side of the fence. We can be here today and
somewhere else tomorrow. We have to protect our
own position in the circumstances.

Now, Sir, how would any hon. member like, if he
found himself tomorrow not being in a position to
find the favour of the Prim; Minister something
ensues, and as a result he has to fight a bye-elec-
tion to regain his seat in this House? Would he like
to find that, having been elected under the old sys-
tem nothing has happened, as I have said, to bring
about any change in our electoral process, but in
order to get back his seat the voters must be sub-


I










jected to this type of examination, and especially
this wicked, dangerous Clause about answering
satisfactorily any further question.
4.50 p.m.

Now Sir, after he has been interrogated about
his identification card, he has been examined about
his passport and the particulars therein, he has been
questioned about his driver's licence, and he has
been further called upon to explain the absence of a
National Insurance Card or particulars therein -
under what colour of right does any Presiding Office r
have to subject a voter to any further questions,
about asking further questions relating to his iden-
tity? Let us be honest. Barbados is a very small
place and I would like to bet, Mr. Deputy Speaker,
that there has been no case of one person voting
twice or voting at this Polling Station and then
going to vote at another Polling Station in Barba-
dos during the past 5, 10 or 15 years. Everybody
knows who is who in Barbados. (Asides). I understand the
hon. member to say that he knows that it has happen-
ed or something like that I(Asides). Mr. Deputy
Speaker, we know that a lot of things went wrong at
the last election. Some of them are being spoken
about on the political platform, but some we are not
prepared to talk about at all. On Polling Day we will
take the necessary steps to see that you will have a
good election, or no election at all (Asides). That
is what you must understand; we are talking soundly,
and you cannot stop it. You are makingfun. The thing
about it is that some of us got into the House of
Assembly through such a cheap I mean cheap to
themselves method, that, although being here, they
do not even seem to appreciate what the 'civic rights
of an elector' really means. That is the trouble with
some of the members of this House, and that is one
of the troubles with this particular Bill. This Bill-
and more -is to come. We have got to be very care-
ful.

I sat and listened to the Prime Minister and he
was very careful to let you know what he was going
to do in Committee; but let me tell you, Sir, that it
is known that on that side of the House there is no
debating strength to match the debating strength from
this side. Do you know what Burnham has been able
to do in Guyana? Have his majority to support a Reso-
lution to the effect that he has been able to have six
members on the floor of the House who never ever
ask a soul for a vote -he calls them "technocrat"
Ministers? Six of them! They can get up there and
fight, over-talk to the Opposition and whatever they
like, but they cannot exercise the vote. In other words,
they are the type of thing that we like to call hire-
lings. That is what the Prime Minister wants now,
to have some hirelings that they can sit down over
there and hurdle whatever they like, say what they
like about hon. members on this side who have been
elected. When that type of person who does not have
to ask for votes is elected, when that type of person
is brought in here to say whatever he likes to say to
an hon. member on this side, what can the hon. mem-
ber do? The "technocrat" Minister- reallyandtruly
we do have some "technocrat" Ministers already,
anyhow. This Bill is no joke; this is no easy matter.


I. may tell you, Sir, that this is a wicked, dangerous,
scandalous piece of legislation which is being brought
before this House. It is corrupt in its every form. It
seeks to deny the electorate of the City of Bridgetown
their right to exercise their vote at the coming bye-
election, and the Prime Minister-of all persons-tells
us at one corner of his mouth that we are going to
fight the bye-election under the old system, but in
the other corner of his mouth, he is telling us now
that it is going to be fought under the new system; be-
cause why? You are now going to have to produce
your identification card, your passport, your Old
Age Pension card, which you might never possess, and
all sorts of things.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, I definitely feel that if you
had an opportunity to speak on a Billof this sort, you
would express quite similar views to those which have
been expressed by hon. members on this side of the
House. I feel confident that you would do that. Why is
it that in the 1966 General Election the Presiding
Officer was limited to asking two questions and no
more? And if you look at it, they were not questions
which were in themselves embarrassing; but now
you have extended this question-asking to go so far
that a person must answer or give a satisfactory
answer now! When is a question not a satisfactory
question, and when is an answer not a satisfactory
answer? That is the question. No matter howunsat-
isfactory a question might be to the voter and not
only that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as you would know,
because you have to be aquestion-master in your pro-
fession, it is the way that questions are puttopeo-
ple at times that might elicit an unsatisfactory an-
swer. And an elector, after attaining the age of 18
satisfying every requirement under the law- why
should he today be subjected to all of these things
merely because a bye-election is coming about in
the City of Bridgetown, and the Government Party
would like to win the seat to add to its numbers?
5.00 p.m.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am sure that you regard
your high office as Deputy Speaker of this House, but
I am confident that your conscience would not per-
mit you to be a party to this. I feel just as you feel
in the Chair this evening. I believe you are unhappy
over this situation, but it might: be a case where you
cannot express yourself or do anything openly. Per-
haps there are supporters of the Government, as
there are supporters of the Opposition, who will feel
at times whether rightly or wrongly that if his Party
legislates for this, it is right; but that is not always
the democratic process in operation. One mightvery
well be inclined to move with this particular stream,
but somewhere on the run we might have to hold on
to some tree stump to block us from going down the
drain, and it is in those few moments when our feet
or hands might have caught into these tree roots or
something along the river bank that these reflections
of ours tell us of something that is not right.

This Bill which we are asked to pass in all its
stages today should, I maintain, have absolutely
nothing to do with the bye-election that is to be
held in the City of Bridgetown in the not too distant











future. If the seat vacated by Mr. Lynch was held'
under certain conditions, a candidate who is now to
offer himself should not be asked to do so under any
other condition than those which obtained at the time
when Mr. Lynch held the seat. I well remember the
day when a Bill was brought into this House to li-
quidate the three Local Government Councils. I
stood on this side of the House and had to refer to
hon. members on that side of the House as being
remembrances of logs of wood. I say now that it is not
each and every member on that side whose conscience
is dead. This is not a matter inwhich somebody was
called upon to support the Prime Minister. It is a
case of doing what is just and right, and I am to say
that the electors of the City of Bridgetown ought to
be told that this is aimed at them. (Asides.) Mr.
Deputy Speaker, I am willing to have my picture
taken alongside a bunch of green bananas. Denying
people their civic rights is inviting them to resort to
violence, and if violence breaks out in the City
between now and Election Day, this type of legislation
is what is going to cause it, and nobody on this side
of the House is going to be a party to it. This Bill
is asking people to resort to violence to protect them-
selves. The members on the other side voted to
liquidate the Local Government Councils. There is
absolutely nothing secret about the hon. junior mem-
ber for St. Thomas. Everything that is known about
him is public property, but there are those on that
side who have got secrets that canbe revealed every
now and again, and as we get them we are going to
give you one by one. Come and let the row start. We
are quite prepared, as any hon. member and any
candidate is prepared, to fight in the election, but
every candidate fighting in the election would like to
know that his electors have an opportunity to exercise
their rights without fear. I have heard the Prime
Minister say that this Bill is calculated to instil fear
in some of the people who are entitled to vote. He
said they are going to be afraid to have their photo-
graphs taken.

Hin. N. W. BOXILL: Mr. Deputy Speaker, on a
point of order, the hon. member is deliberately mis-
quoting what the Prime Minister said.

Mr. HINDS: Mr. Deputy Speaker, the Prime
Minister said on the floor of this House.......

Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The hon. juniormem-
ber for St. Thomas has risen on a point of order.

Mr. HINDS: What point of order?

Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER: I cannot decide it until
I have heard it.

Mr. HINDS: Do you mean you have not heard
enough from him?

Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER: He is still on his feet.

Mr. HINDS: What does that mean? Two hon.
members are on their feet.

Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Will the hon. member
please take his seat?


Mr. HINDS: I will obey your orders, but the hon.
junior member for St. Thomas said I am not an hon.
member, and I am calling on him to withdraw it.

Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Will the hon. junior
member for St. Peter please sit?

Mr. HINDS: I am complaining to you, Mr. Deputy
Speaker, that the hon. member, standingonhis feet
and addressing the Chair.......

Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER: I have heardyour com-
plaint, but will you sit?

Hon. N. W. BOXILL: Mr. Deputy Speaker, my
point about .........

Mr. HINDS: A complaint having been drawn to
your attention, it must be acted on promptly. There
must be no debate.

Hon. N. W. BOXILL: I was on a point of order.

Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Will both hon. members
please take their seats?

Mr. HINDS: Mr. Deputy Speaker, my complaint
comes first before anything else.

Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Will both hon. members
please take their seats?

Mr. HINDS: The Prime Minister saidthat some
people are going to be afraid to have their photo-
graphs taken.
5.10 p.m.

Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am not going to have
that kind of behaviour while I am in the Chair from
no one at all. I would like to draw the attention of
all hon. members of this Chamber to Rule 29(6).

I am informed by the Clerk at the Table that
the Reporters does not have the words complained of
by the hon. junior member for St. Peter. He said he
took the words of the speaker,who was on his feet,
but he did not take the words of the speaker who was
sitting.

Mr. HINDS: It would appear that when the junior
member for St. Peter is standing he is on his feet,
but when the junior memberforSt. Thomas is stand-
ing he is on his head.

Hon. N. W. BOXILL: On a point of order.

Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Will both hon. members
take their seats. The hon. junior member for St.
Thomas has risen on a point of order. If the hon.
junior member for St. Thomas is addressing the
Chair, please let him do so.
Hon. N. W. BOXILL: Yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker,
but please do not raise your voice at me. The hon.
junior member for St. Peter said that the Prime
Minister said that this legislation is to scare away
people. The Prime Minister never said any such thing.


F










Mr. HINDS: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I never made
use of the words "scare away".

Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Will the hon. junior
member for St. Peter please take your seat.

Mr. HINDS: I must take my seat; I must obey
your Ruling, but I must -

Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Please takeyourseat.

Mr. HINDS: I am going to take my seat, but I
will get up again.

Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am not standing for
this foolishness.

Mr. HINDS: You are sitting down. (Asides). Mr.
Deputy Speaker, the hon. junior member for St.
Thomas is attacking hon. members on this side of
the House (Asides.)

SUSPENSION OF SITTING

Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER: This sitting stands
suspended for five minutes.

On resumption:

Hon. G. G. FERGUSSON: Mr. Deputy Speaker,
will you please ask that the bell be rung.

The Deputy Clerk rang the bell and a quorum was obtained.

Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER: When the sitting was
suspended, the hon. junior member for St. Thomas
was addressing the Chair on a point of order.

Hon. N. W. BOXILL: Mr. Deputy Speaker, the
point of order I got up to make was that the junior
member for St. Peter said that the Prime Minister
said that this sort of legislation was to scare away
people from voting. What the Prime Ministerdid say
was that the only thing in this legislation that would
scare anybody was if dishonest people wanted to vote.

Mr. HINDS: Mr. Deputy Speaker, it is about time
that we begin to become serious about this Bill. One
has to realise this above all things: a bye-election
is going to be held not very far away from now, but we
are legislating today to tell the people who have not
had their photographs taken by today, that if by today
they do not have their photographs taken they can be
subjected to all sorts of questions, and they would not
be able to vote. It is not thatyou are legislating today
to give them another seven days to get the photo-
graphs taken and put themselves in order.

We are being asked to legislate and let people
know that if they do not get their photographs taken
by today, they cannot vote, although at the same time
their names would have been on the Electoral Regis-
ter since 1966. They voted at the GeneralElection in
1966 when they wanted to get Mr. Lynch in the House,
but under the new system which the Prime Minister
says is the old system the old system with a


difference; the old system with a dagger in it. That
is what this legislation is. It is adagger punched into
the hearts of the people of Bridgetown. They must go
to the polls,,be subjected to all sorts of unnecessary
questioning, and, because they cannot produce an
identification card, that will be the end of them.

I heard the senior member for the Citywarn the
Prime Minister about using his Police Force. I feel
he will have to get two Police Forces when Polling
Day comes for the number of prople that will be
going to the Polling Stations and be turned back. It has
been said by the Prime Minister that with this Bill
some people are going to be afraid to have their
photographs taken and those are the ones that would
not be able to vote. That is what this Bill offers the
people. The thing about it is that today is the last day
for the photograph-taking, and we are passing a
Bill to say that if you did not have your photograph
taken today, you cannot cast a vote.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, nobody could suggest for a
single moment that this is right in any part of the
world except Russia, Cuba or Guyana. It could not
be thought of anywhere else. I am saying that the
electorate of Barbados realise that their right to
vote for Local Government Councillors has been
taken away from them. Their right to elect members
to the House of Assembly is now, even in the re-
motest manner, being taken away from them, and
they cannot be expected to be satisfied with this
type of thing going on from time to time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am asking hon. members
on that side not to lend their support to any Bill
of this sort that tends to make one a dictator. We
have to steer clear of dictatorship. This is what
Castro would do in Cuba. I am saying that it is not
fair, it is not just, it is not right to not only the
people in the City. The people have feelings; and the
more we debate our politics, the more we speak on
the political platform and elsewhere, the higher
sence of the value of the vote the people are obtaining.
5.35 p.m.

It is getting into people's feelings. They are
learning more how to appreciate the right to cast
a vote, and when that right is taken away from them,
they do not expect, each and everyone of them, to
turn away just sulking in their hearts, and crying
and telling somebody else that they are going to
avenge their rights. Mr. Deputy Speaker, you and I
might feel ourselves not immediately concernedwith
the situation which this Bill tends to create at this
time; but whether we are in St. Peteror in St. Philip
or in whatever part of the Island we might be, we will
come head-on with this at some future date. And we
have got to warn at this stage that the civic rights
of the people of the City of Bridgetown be not tres-
passed upon, be not encroached upon, but that they
be given an opportunity to exercise them atthe com-
ing bye-election in the same manner that they were
privileged to do in the 1966 General Election. There
should not be any change whatsoever.
As to this question of identification cards, of
passports, identity this and that and the like, and











for whatever we are not being told, why is it on the
eve of the City bye-election? As the hon. senior
member for Bridgetown has made mention at some
length, the Chief Registering Officer has confused
or is confused over the situation. The Minister of
Home Affairs has shown himself to be blatantly
ignorant of the situation. If between these two persons
confusion has to run around, what can we expect of
the poor City voters, the electorate, some of whom
have read what Mr. Matthews is reported to have
said, and some who read on the next day what he is
reported not to have said, and to have heard even
today from the Prime Minister as to who is right
from who is wrong; and whom he will agree with and
whom he cannot agree with and all sorts of things.
Mr. Deputy Speaker, I do not believe that the Prime
Minister is even right in the full knowledge of what
really should be done. He would appear to me to be
under some cloud himself. That is a fact, because
when he got up to reply time and again and it is
our fault, perhaps, that we do not have the notes of
what he said before us now -butwhen he got up time
and again to explain points raised by hon. members
he did not reply to points which had been raised in
truth and in fact. I am not saying so to cast any
reflection on Your Honour's Ruling from the Chair;
that is not intended at all; but intruth and in fact, as
I said earlier, the Prime Minister got up replying
about registration procedures when in truth and in
fact the City voters are concerned with voting pro-
cedures. That is what we are insisting upon. I feel
that legislation of this sort should be read, ap-
proached, explained and expounded to the voters in
the City -- in the Island for that matter before it is
brought into use.

Let us look back at this photograph-taking
business. Photograph-taking is to be done duringthe
crop season when most of the people get up early on
mornings; they have to catch motor lorry transpo rta-
tion to go to the country districts andgo to the crops.
At the time when they are going on their jobs working
in the cane fields Sir, all of us have some sort of
pride somehow, somewhere. These people are
dressed in old or half-old clothes, with their trou-
sers-legs and with their long sleeves tied so as to
get away from the cane blades. They are dressed
in old rags, so to speak clothes which are just
suited for the harvesting of the crop; and are we to
ask these people to dress themselves like that on
their way to work, and to go and appear before a
camera to be photographed looking like that? Can
you ask them to appear before a camera that they
will see their picture looking rusty like that for the
rest of their lives? If these people knew that they had
Sto get their photographs taken, they would like to put
on their Sunday-evening-go-to-meeting best just for
the occasion. I know that the women, for instance,
would like to have a hair-do, so that when they look
at their photographs, they will even smile with them-
selves sometimes. I know what it means; how can
you in the midst of a crop-reaping season look,
Sir, the records show that less than one-half of the
people who were entitled to vote in 1966 and I
think that about 360 other names have been added to


the roll and now Mr. Deputy Speaker, is it fair to
hold an election to attempt in any way is it a case
where we must understand that the Government side
is trying to pin down the electoral roll to the size
that it can be bought by them? Is that what we are to
understand? That they are trying to get it so whittled
down that they will be able to buy as many votes as
will buy them the seat? Is that whatwe are doing? Is
that what we are hearing and seeing by this registra-
tion? There are over 5,200 oddpeoplewhowould like
to be able to exercise theirvote. The majority of our
people have been exercising their vote on every
occasion, and why is it that under suchtrying condi-
tions, photographing is finished today and we are to
legislate today to let people know that if you do not
have your photograph taken by today, out goes you?
Sir, in fairness to the electorate of the City of
Bridgetown, in fairness to the electorate of the
parish of St. Peter, and in fairness to the electorate
of the island of Barbados as whole, I now move that
the motion for the second reading of this Bill be
postponed for six months from today's date.

Mr. HOLDER: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I rise to
second the motion for the postponement, and in doing
so, I am going to speak on this Bill. This Bill which
I have got in my hands, I have read and I have studied
it most carefully. Reading what I have seen in the
newspaper by the Commissioner, and what I have
heard that has come over the air by the Minister of
Internal Affairs I did not hear him I am wonder-
ing if either one of the two of them knew that
Government was bringing down this Bill. When we
read that the Commissioner, Mr. Matthews, said
that it was not necessary to have your photograph
and you could still cast your vote, I suppose that in
all of his right he said it; but he did not know that
the Government was bringing down this Bill. Up to
now, Sir, if you listen to all the debates which have
been going on this afternoon, we have notgot it from
the Prime Minister whether you must have had your
photograph to be able to vote or not. There are many
other Clauses which I am going to take pains to
read out. For the first time in the history of my life
in voting have I ever seen them,and therefore I am
wondering why these things are injected at this late
moment.
5.45 p.m.

If this Bill passes, the voters of the Island, not
only in St. Michael or the City, willhave their rights
taken from them. This Bill requires certain things
that I have never heard of. I have read election laws
and I have faced elections, and you only had to
answer two questions. At the last election where
they did not have the machinery to bring down this
sort of thing, they used a very dirty trick, because
it could not be a mistake. If it were a mistake, they
should never have paid these people who did it.
Constituencies are divided into Polling Stations and
people are slated in areas to go to these Polling
Stations, and a little before the last election, the
boundaries for the constituencies were issued from
Headquarters, and you had to follow them. When
these people went to the stations to which they were
accustomed, they were told that their names were not











there, and there was only one Register at the same
Polling Stations; so nobody could help them, and some
people would have had to travel two or three miles
away to vote. Well, only those who had cars might
have been able to go. I am saying that this was a
device to hinder people from casting their votes in
the right way. Those who were paid to make up the
Register only took the Government's money for
nothing.

When you take this Bill and see where this
would come in only for this bye-election, why all
these changes? You may have a bye-election in St.
Michael right now due to the passing of the hon.
junior member for Bridgetown, the late Mr. Louis
Lynch. If this Bill passes, the community will be
placed in a most awkward position, because half
will not be able to vote. The amendment reads:-

"The Presiding Officer may, and if required by
a candidate or his election or polling agent shall,
put to any person applying for a ballot paper but not
afterwards, the following questions or either of
them -

(a) are you the person registered in the regis-
ter of electors for this election.......... "
and then he reads the whole entry from the Register.
Never before has this been found in the Laws of
Barbados covering elections. All this will take time.
He puts that question and you have to answer him,
and God knows, when that voter answers, how the
officer will take it, because man is just man. No one
can tell who will be in charge of that booth and who
will be the judge. The next question is:

"Have you already voted, here or elsewhere, at
this bye-election?' So this Bill will go on to the Gen-
eral Elections. The Presiding Officer shall also re-
quest that person to produce his identification card.
Mr. Matthews made a statement which I read in the
Advocate -News and then the Minister of Internal
Affairs made another statement, and I suppose being
nearer to the Cabinet, he knew what he was saying.
Mr. Matthews said that there are other things which
you can do if you do not have your photograph. When
you go there now, the registering officer will ask
you some other questions. Listen to this. "Subject
to paragraph (3) a ballot paper shall not be issued to
any person who does not satisfactorily answer the
questions asked him under paragraph 1 (a) or any of
them or does not produce his identification card
when required so to do under paragraph l(a)."
Secondly, "a ballot paper shall be issued to any
person who is unable for any reason to produce an
identification card if he produces to the Presiding
Officer first his passport as defined by section 2 (1) of
the Emigration Act." I personally would not know
how many people in Barbados have.passports, but I
can say that if this law had come up a few years ago,
I do not knowwhere I would have got a passport from.
The first time I owned a passport was last year,
1968; so those voters with a passport will have to
take them along. I am wondering, of the hundred and
thousands of people who will vote, how many will
have passports. Next there is a driver's licence


issued to him under Part IV of the Motor Vehicles
and Road Traffic Act, his National Insurance and
Social Security Registration Card issued under the
National Insurance and Social Security Act, 1966 or
any regulations made thereunder; or "satisfactorily
answers such further questions relating to his identi-
ty as the PresidingOfficermayputto him." All these
restrictions for a bye-election or General Election
will cover the whole community.

As some hon. members said, people like tolook
decent when they go to have their photograph taken.
Very often you see tourists driving about, and they
try to take pictures to take away with them, but the
people dodge because they do not feel they are attired
well enough. It would probably be all right if those
people who are in charge of the booth in the area
know you, probably because you grew up as boys
and girls together; but if you do not have those things,
they will not let you vote. Do you mean that you have
to identify yourself to your schoolmaster or school
teacher or in his discretion he can turn you back?
I am talking on this matter chiefly because I have
stood in Vestry elections and House of Assembly
elections, and we have never had any of these things,
and I cannot see why the Government is bringing
down these restrictions on the people of Barbados.
5.55 p.m.


I am not concerned directly with the City. It is
the City at stake now, but if the law is passed today
it will cover the whole Island. I think it is hard to
sit down and draft legislation that will cause incon-
venience to the electorate throughout the Islandwhen
they have to go and cast their votes. It is their God-
given privilege.

You will meet a lot of old people, Sir, who are
conscious of their civic rights, and they will have to
look for a passport. Some of them have never tra-
velled; they have never driven a motor car; they
do not get any social security, so what identification
will they have? Are you going to take away their
God-given right? That was given to them by God, and
no man can take it from them.

I have heard hon. members talk about Guyana
and so on. I have read about those things, but I am
talking about the people in Barbados. We do not need
any of those laws. I am talking about the people in
the different districts. It looks to me as though the
people will not know what to do next time. They may
ask you where your mother and father were born.
Of course, I may be able to go back and take up
Daddy's biography and get those things, but how many
others will be able to do that? Why are we bringing
this sort of thing on our people? Those are the things,
Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I am thinking of, having
passed through elections. Hon. members on my right,
on my left, and facing me also have gone through
elections and they know what it means. We in Barba-
dos, in this age and at this time, should not bring
things to hamper the people of Barbados.

I support all of what the hon. members have said.
The bye-election is in Bridgetown now, but one never









Knows what will happen within a few weeks. Only the
Omnipotent knows that. instead of St. Michael, it may
be another parish later on. Mr. Deputy Speaker, I
rise to second the motion moved by the hon. junior
member for St. Peter.

Mr. ST. JOHN: Mr. Deputy Speaker, on the last
occasion I spoke on the motion. On this occasion I
am speaking on the amendment as moved bythe hon.
junior member for St. Peter.

Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER: You are quite inorder.

Mr. ST. JOHN: I know I am in order. The more
I look at this Bill, especially now that we have had
the opportunity to study it, especially now we have
had the opportunity of hearing out of the mouthofthe
Prime Minister the real intent of this Bill, especially
now since we know that these amendments were only
formulated this morning, andespeciallynowwe know
that further amendments are being formulated right
now, the more we are convinced thatthis is a vicious
attempt by the Government to alter proceedings in
the bye-election to make them completely different
from that which obtained in the last Election.

Dur'nj the course of the last Election, so incom-
petent did the Cabinet run the machinery for the Elec-
tion that they allowed the -Rgister under the Repre-
sentation of the People Act, 1957, to geoi out of date
and they had to pass a special Electoral Registration
Act in 1966.

The Prime Minister has a bee in his bonnet. He
came down here before the last General Election and
voted some $300,000 to provide for the issuance of
identity cards throughout Barbados. During the pre-
paration of the Electoral Register in 1966, the Chief
Registration Officer was supposed to issue everybody
in Barbados, who was on the Register,with a card.
It is well known that so incompetent was the last At-
torney General, so indecisive was the Cabinet of Bar-
bados, that the contract time for Identograph (Barba-
dos) Limited, who had the contract to provide the
photographs and so forth, ran out. Therefore, although
the public of Barbados paid for the cost of national
identification, we did not get the end-product. That is
why in the last Election large numbers of people
received slips, but there were no photography centres
to which one could go.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, subsequent to the Election,
Identograph Limited brought a court suit against the
Government of Barbados and won $13,600 damages
for breach of contract, andup to now we have not
received the identification photographs.They cruised
along and this is the nastiness, the viciousness and
incompetence of the Government, because all of this
took place in 1966. If the Minister of Home Affairs
was honest, he would tell the public or give some
explanation.

How is it that since 1966, according to him, there
was law in Barbados for the taking of photographs?
Why did the Government drag its feet between 1966
and 19697 What happenedto the cameras in the mean-


time? The Government abandoned the. idea. It did not
expect any bye-election. The members of the Govern-
ment have a division among themselves as to whether
they were in favour of it or not. To this day the divi-
sion still persists; hence we get this controversy.


The Prime Minister still having a bee in his
bonnet, notwithstanding the fact that on more than
one occasion whenever we on this side question
the other side as to the manner in which the bye-
election will take place, the reply until today has
always been that the Election would take place on the
same terms and conditions of the last General Elec-
tion. Why? Because anybody with common sense
will know that if you are having a bye-election, you
are having an election to replace somebody elected
on a particular basis.

But today we knowthat the Prime Minister intends
to alter the manner of the conduct of elections in
this bye-election. Well, it is not going through so
easily. Although they thought that they would have got
away with this today, thank God we spotted it and we
saw.


Rt. Hon. E. W. IARROW: Mr. Deputy Speaker,
on a point of order.

Mr. ST. JOHN: 1 am not givin,,i way.

Rt. Hon. E. \\. BARROW: Mr. )Deputy Speaker,
I would like to move a point of order.

Mr. ST. JOHN: Ilow can yoiu mI]o\- a point of
order?

Rt. Hon. E. \. BARROW: I \ouJd like to make a
point of order on the Standing Orders of this House,

Mr. ST. JOHlN: What is the Standing Order"

Rt. Hon. E. W. BARROW: I a.m addressing you,
Sir.

Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Hon. Prime Minis-
ter is on a point of order.

Rt. Hon. E. W, BARROW: His Honourthe Speaker
has already made a Ruling that a member in the
course of the debate......


Mr. ST. JOHN: On a point of order. Tour Honour
has already ruled that I am entitled to speak, and I
am perfectly in order. I cannot give way. Your Hon-
our has already ruled that I am perfectly in order.
The only thing that can arise now is whether some-
thing contrary to the Standing Orders has been said
in the context of my speech. The Prime Minister was
notlpresent to hear what I had said.
6.05'p.m.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Acting Leader of
the House has risen on a point of order.


~ ~~











Mr. ST. JOHN: But, Your Honour, Iwantto point
out to you that you have already ruled that I am en-
titled to speak.

Rt. Hon. E. W. BARROW: There are two things
which I would like to draw to Your Honour's atten-
tion and wish your indulgence to hear me on a point
of Order. I have not risen before because I was out-
side the Chamber as I had asked for an excuse a
little while ago, but Sir, there are these two things
which I would like to draw to Your Honour's atten-
tion, and having drawn thmin to Your Honour's atten-
tion, it is then for Your Honour to take such further
consultation as Your Honour might think necessary.
The first thing which I am saying on a point of order
is that I do not have to behave like an alley cat in
order to establish ......

Mr. ST. JOHN: Mr. Deputy Speaker, the hon.
member is not stating his point of order, and I am
continuing my speech.As I was saying, Mr. Deputy
Speaker... (ASIDES).

Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Will the hon. senior
member for Christ Church please take his seat?

Mr. ST. JOHN: Unless the Prime Minister makes
his point ....... (Mr. HINDS rose).

Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Will the hon. junior
member for St. Peter please take his seat?

Rt. Hon. E. W. BARROW: May I continue Sir?

Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes, Mr. Acting Leader
of the House .... (ASIDES).

Rt. Hon. E. W. BARROW: Mr. Deputy Speaker,
earlier in the course of this debate, His Honour the
Speaker ruled that a member who had moved a mo-
tion for the adjournment.......

Mr. ST. JOHN: Is that a point of order? I drew
Your Honour's attention, on a point of order, that
Your Honour has already ruled that I am entitled to
speak.

Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER: I cannot determine
what is the point of order until I have heard it.

Sir GRANTLEY ADAMS: He is objecting to the
speaking ... (ASIDES).

Rt. Hon. E. W. BARROW: Will you allow me to
get on the record of this House, Sir, on a point of
order? Why don't they want to hear the truth and
what the Rules of the House are? His Honour the
Speaker ruled earlier today in the course of the de-
bate on this motion ... I am merely reciting it for the
record ... (ASIDES) Will you allow me to make my
point of order, Sir? Will I be allowed to make my
point of order?

Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The hon. Acting Lead-
er is making his point of order. (ASIDES).


Rt. Hon. E. W. BARROW: I appreciate allof that,
and that is why I want to say it in the way in which I
want to say it, not in the way somebody else wants
me to say it. You have already ruled that a member
who had moved a motion for the adjournment of the
debate .......

Sir GRANTLEY ADAMS: On a point of order.

Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER: There cannot be point
of order on a point of order.

Sir GRANTLEY ADAMS: Your Honour has allow-
ed this debate, and how can the hon. member now
come in and question it? What the hon. member is
saying is that this debate is wrong.

Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER: It is for me to deter-
mine whether it is a point of order. I am still listen-
ing to the Hon. Acting Leader of the House.

Sir GRANTLEY ADAMS: But he told you what it is.

Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am still listening to
him.

Sir GRANTLEY ADAMS: But you should not
listen any more.

Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER: I have got"Mays"be-
fore me. (ASIDES).

Rt. Hon. E. W. BARROW: I know exactly what
I am saying and why I am saying it, and they know
it too. Just let me continue. A member who had
moved or spoken on a motion forthe adjournment of
the debate shall not be entitled to speak again on the
substantive motion when the motion for the adjourn-
ment of the debate had been disposed of." In this
case, the motion for the adjournment of the debate
had been disposed of in negative way. It was defeat-
ed. During my absence from the House, I understand
that another motion for the adjournment has been
moved (Mr. MOTTLEY: No.) (Mr. DEPUTY SPEAK-
ER: Postponement). A motion asking for the post-
ponement of the motion is a motion for the adjourn-
ment of the debate. I am not questioning the right of
an hon. member to speak on a proper motion, but
you cannot, in the course of one debate, have a
motion, which has already been defeated, put again
because every five minutes they will be getting up
under the subterfuge and speaking on the motion for
the adjourment of the debate, saying that they have
the right to speak, thereby defeating all the Stand-
ing Orders of the House. I am therefore saying on
a point of the strict Standing Orders and all of the
rules of Parliamentary procedure that a motion, hav-
ing been defeated, cannot be put again in the course
of the same debate. No matter how it is worded, it
is a motion for the adjournment of the debate in accor-
dance with the Standing Orders of this House. I want
that down in the records of this House that I have so
stated.
Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Before I gave my Rul-
ing, I checked with "May's" and I am satisfied that














this is a new question before the House. I am using
the words of "May's".

Mr. ST. JOHN: As I was saying before I was
fraudulently interrupted by a fraudulent point of order,
this ir;competence on the part of Government, and
the Prime Minister in particular, has caused the tax
payers of Barbados $13,000 dollars already. Lethim
get up and deny that Identograph Limited has got a
judgment against the Attorney General of Barbados
for $13,000 already. Get up and deny that now.

Rt. Hon. E. W. BARROW: I do not want to get
up and deny that. As a matter of fact, we have a
judgment ...... (Mr. ST. JOHN: That is not a point of
order). The hon. member invited me and I am getting
up on a point of elucidation. Mr. Wilson, purporting
to represent Identograph ......

Sir GRANTLEY ADAMS: On a point of order.

Rt. Hon. E. W. BARROW: On a point of elucida-
tion. Do you not want to hear it now? Are you the
Speaker? Why don't you sit down?

Sir GRANTLEY ADAMS: The elucidation of a
part ......

Rt. Hon. E. W. BARROW: I am on a point of
order. The hon. member made some statements and
asked me to get up and deny them, and I am entitled
to get up on a point of explanation.

Sir GRANTLEY ADAMS: Rule 28 (b) A member
shall not be interrupted ...

Rt. Hon. E. W. BARROW: Mr. Deputy Speaker,
what is the hon. member standing for?

Sir GRANTLEY ADAMS: No member shall inter-
rupt another hon. member except ......

Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Two hon. members are
on their feet. May I draw to the attention of the Hon.
Leader of the Opposition that the hon. senior member
for Christ Church invited the hon. senior member
for St. John to get up and he gave way.

Rt. Hon. E. W. BARROW: Mr. Wilsonfrom Iden-
tograph brought a suit against the Attorney General
for work which he claimed that he did and which he
has not paid for, and the hon. member said that there
was a judgment of $13,000 against the Government;
but the Government also has a claim for $23,000
for income tax against him; so he still owes us, and
he has written me a letter asking me to waive his
income tax. I told him that I cannot even ,waive my
own, far less his. So that is the answer.

Mr. ST. JOHN: If the Government were com-
petent they would not have had to pay out the $13,000
and they would have collected the $23,000. (Rt. Hon.
E. W. BARROW: We have not paid out $13,000 and
we are collecting $23,000) But you still have to pay
out $13,000 because it is a judgment of the Su-
preme Court of Barbados. I do not know whether you


are telling the public and investors abroad,that you are
the type of Government that when your Supreme
Court gives a judgment, you do not appeal and that
you do not want to honour it. If that is the impression
that you want to give as to your responsibility as
a Government, you give it, not I. The position is
this; if this Government had approached this matter
with any degree of honesty, nobody could suspect
their bona fides. They had two years in which to
continue the programme; by now at the leisure of the
public of Barbados each and every single person in
Barbados could have been photographed.
6.15 p.m.

If that was not sufficient time, how much more
can you expect in three weeks to photograph some
5,000-odd people? Now it is a different matter when
you pitch your appeal to the public to point out the
usefulness of a general means of identification when
you provide adequate facilities all over Barbados for
it, because the psychological impact that you would
make would be completely different than if you at-
tempt to tie it to elections. That is what you did in
1966, and the same Minister of Agriculture now in
the Government opposed the identical thing in 1966.
Now he can support it. If you campaign for photo-
graphs as a useful thing, irrespective of voting or
not, it would be better. The criminal thing in this is
that you had two years to do it. What happened to the
cameras in the meantime? They are at "Verona" in
the house next to where one Maxwell, the Personal
Aide, has now been granted a Government house,
Maxwell lives at "Verona"! That was the Matron's
house. They had the cameras there resting and
rotting. You say they should have photographs, and
then you give them other options, that is, Social
Security cards, driver's licence and passports.

There has never been any drive in this country
for anybody to get a passport. Have you ever con-
veyed to the public the necessity to get a passport
because it would be helpful for identification to vote?
Never. Another thing is that you have to pay $5.00
for a passport; so it is not likely that a large number
of people will have passports. A good demand for
passports between now and Election Day, and your
Police Department administratively could not do it,
because right now it takes you three weeks to get a
passport. If you did not live so remotely from the
people, you would know that people only go for a pass-
port when they think they are going to emigrate. You
talk about National Insurance cards. There are two
flaws in that; one is that the obligation is on the em-
ployer to get the card, but if you are self-employed,
you would not have one either. If you are a huckster
or if you partake in the distribution system as a fish-
vendor, who is employing you? If you are unemploy-
ed, where are you going to get a National Insurance
card? If you are over 65, you are not eligible for one.
Those people who were over 65 in 1966 could never
qualify under that. They are hardly likely to get a
passport.

Let me come to driver's licences. Doyouexpect
the same category to have a driver's licence? If they
are unemployed, do you expect them to be able to pay









a driviUg school to get a driver's licence? In any.
event there cannot be any rush now to get a driver's
licence, because it takes you over three months to
get a permit to learn to drive. These are the other
means which by subterfuge and by trying to pull the
wool over the eyes of the Barbadian public, he comes
in here trying to convey the Impression to the House
that he is generous, and says that the real intent is
only to get satisfactory means of identity. He said
that they are not tying people down to identity cards
but are giving them all these options, well knowing
within his heart and mind that large numbers of peo-
ple will automatically be excluded,because they can-
not fulfil the alternatives granted to an identity card.
That is the hypocrisy of it all; and now we come down
to the real sting: "shall answer satisfactorily such
further questions as to his identity as may be put to
him by the Presiding Officer."

Burnham, the Hon. Prime Minister's good friend,
knew that the key to winning any election is to be in
charge of the machinery of elections. In Jamaicathe
J. L. P. appoints the Registration Officers and the
Presiding Officers. In Guyana Burnham, when he was
not even sure about that, decided he was going to
make sure that an arch-criminal like Luckhoo would
be in charge of the registration in London. We all
know now the world's scandal; we all know that no-
body can look at anything that took place in the
Guyana election with any degree of respectability
at all, because everybody who participated in it was
guilty of a vast conspiracy. Looking around and sur-
veying the situation, the Prime Minister has hit upon
this new device and sprung it up in the last two or
three weeks. The public must seriously consider this,
and this is what I object to in principle; how could
it be fair and right, constitutionally or otherwise,
for a House of Assembly that has any respect for
itself to allow a nominated person in the other part
of the Legislature to be in charge of their elections?
Senator Greaves has no right being in charge of
elections or anything to do with the House of Assem-
bly. He is not a member of the House of Assembly,
and we cannot confront him today. The conduct and
control of how a man is elected to a body ought to
be peculiarly within the province of thatbody. How-
ever you look at it, no Minister of Home Affairs, no
nominated Minister has any responsibility to any-
body other than the Prime Minister. He owes his
loyalty to one person, not to Barbados, because be-
tween his satisfying the Prime Minister and starva-
tion, he knows that it is satisfaction to the Prime
Minister. He is not responsible to any electorate in
this country. When you look at the implications of this,
you see how the House is giving up important points
of principle. When it comes to an election, that part
of it should be subject to parliamentary representa-
tion in here because the person you have to look to
across the floor ought to be in here and not a nom-
inated Senator anywhere else, because he does not
understand it. You cannot even say that he had the
guts to submit himself and lose. You cannot say he
has the guts to do anything other than carry out the
dictates of the Prime Minister.

I heard the Prime Minister say that there are
eight of us and we can be present, but I wonder if the


.Prime Minister really thinks he can trick anybody
with that. Even if we are present, the discretion that
is granted by the terms of the Bill is "satisfactionto
the PresidingOfficer." It is an unchallengeable dis-
cretion. The Prime Minister knows the legal signifi-
cance of that. I bet you that if we had the power to
appoint the Presiding Officer the Prime Minister
would hit the roof, because he would know how he
would exercise it if he had it.

Rt. Hon. E. W. BARROW: If the hon. member
would give way, I should like to point out that under
the 1957 Representation of the People Act whichwas
passed by the last Government, the Presiding Officers
were appointed by the Governor-in-Executive Com-
mittee, and I did not hit the roof then, although I
knew there were a lot of unsatisfactory things about
it.

Mr. St. JOHN: The more the Prime Minister
gets up, the more he will put his foot into it. You
could have accepted that because there were only
two questions the Presiding Officer could put to you.
There was no question of discretion. I will read it
for you.
6.25 p.m.

"The presiding officer may, and if requiredby a
candidate or his election or polling agent shall, put
to any person applying for a ballot paper at the time
of his application, but not afterwards, the following
questions, or either of them, that is to say-

(a) are you the person registered in the regis-
ter of electors for this election as follows
(read the whole entry from the register)?

(b) have you alreadyvoted, here orelsewhere,
at this bye-election (general election)?"

There are only two questions no discretion. It
goes on to state:

"A ballot paper shall not be delivered to any
person required to answer the above questions or
any of them unless he has answered the questions or
question satisfactorily.

Save as by this rule authorised, no inquiry shall
be permitted as to the right of any person to vote."

What is he doing? He is not saying that you have to
satisfy him as to your identity, or produce your
identity card.


If you say that there is fraud in the elections,
I say that when you get and decide in your mind that
you are going to have a proper campaign throughout
Barbados for national identification.......Now this is
where they went wrong. They saidthatthe identifica-
tion system would have been useful for Social Securi-
ty. They brought in a Social Security Act, but they did
not tie it up with that. All the time they were issuing
Security Cards, the same Social Security Office could
have been saying to the people who applied that as
soon as they received their Social Security card they











should go at such-and-such a point andhave a photo-,
graph taken. By this time nearly everybody in Bar-
bados would have had his or her photograph taken.
Mr. Deputy Speaker, 99 per cent of the Barbadians
who were under the Social Security Scheme would
have had their photographs taken, because theywould
have believed that having a proper identification card
would have facilitated them in getting their Social
Security benefits; but the Government did nothing like
that.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, we come down to this Bill.
We cannot vote for any change in the manner of con-
ducting this election, especially in view of the fact
that the Register is closed tonight; the photographic
Centre is closed tonight; they had the opportunity to
do it before, and we are not going to vote in favour
of this Bill. We feel that this Bill should be postponed.

Mr. J. M. G. M. ADAMS: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I
can hardly believe that I am really seeing what I am
seeing, and hearing what I am hearing in connection
with the forthcoming City bye-elections. It is this
that I particularly want to talk about. In general, I
believe that it is a waste of money to have a photo-
graphic system for these identity cards. You read
book after book on elections; you will see that all
the identity card system and photographs achieve is
greater expense in holding the elections. In the long
run that is all they will achieve.


Personation, Sir, is not a problem in Barbados.
I am not going to go as far as some hon. members
and say that there never has been any personation.
I have heard of it. I am obliged to the hon. senior
member for St. Michael for saying that there are
charges that one Mr. Jessamy voted for him 10
times in the Pine. He must know what he is talking
about. I would not have known about it if he had not
said so. Anyhow, personation, Sir, even if it occurs,
is not a serious problem here.

There are places where personation does occur
on a widespread scale. It is alleged that there were
20,000 personations in the 1959Elections inJamaica,
as a result of which the law was drastically altered.
No election in Northern Ireland is ever complete
without a string of prosecutions the following week,
chiefly of women, for carrying out widespread per-
sonations of persons they know. Books have been
written on the system of personations in Northern
Ireland, where it is said that the rule is: "Vote
early, and vote often." But we are not in Northern
Ireland, Sir. Even in Ireland they have not found it
necessary to have identity cards with photographs,
the reasons being expense, consumption of time,
time-wasting, and the fact that it is not even then
fool-proof. If you really wishto impersonate, you are
going to impersonate the identity cards just as
easily, photographs or no photographs, Mr. Deputy
Speaker, as if you did not have them.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, you cannot impersonate a
thumb print, but equally you cannot have a thumb print
expert at every Polling Station, and that's said to be


the only fool-proof method. That is general; I think
the photographs are a waste of time. Barbados can-
not afford it. The Government spent an enormous
amount of money under the tutelage of the former
Attorney General in organising a photographic sys-
tem. Whether or not one Mr. Wilson owes $23,000
income tax does not alter the fact that the Government
had to submit to yet another humiliation through the
Courts when Identograph sued the Government and
obtained judgment for the sum of $13,000. All of this
had gone on with the photographs.

In 1966 there was a special Act provided for
photographs, and not 1957 as the Minister of Home
Affairs is reported to have said. It is to our know-
ledge, Sir, that from that date up there at Bank Hall
memoranda have been circulated to the Ministry of
Home Affairs calling for action under the electoral
laws that then existed, but nothing has been done.
Now, all of a sudden, Sir, a sad event occurs; Mr.
Louis Lynch dies and out of the blue suddenly Bar-
bados needs photographs. We all have to be photo-
graphed and identified before we can vote if we hap-
pen to live in the City. Mr. Deputy Speaker, the
whole thing smells; it stinks of political corruption.
The only reason why these exemptions are here and
why the Government is allowing the National In-
surance Cards and drivers' licences is that it can only
get 1,400 photographs taken out of the 5,200. They
know that on Election Day the electors will burn
down the Polling Station if they find that three out of
four of them are not allowed to vote. It is the Gov-
ernment's fear that the electors would not accept the
law that says that only those photographed before
April 15 could vote, that the Government has even
gone as far as it goes in the Bill today. (Rt. Hon.
E. W. BARROW: Are you threatening to burn down
the Polling Stations?)

Mr. Deputy Speaker, the Prime Minister asks me
if I expect them to burn down the Polling Stations. How
would he feel if he were a registered elector out of
the Island and came back and found that the time for
taking photographs had passed and he could not vote?
The same way he hitthe senior member for St. Peter
in the face, he might be the first to set a match to a
Polling Station, because he is a violent man.

Now, Mr. Deputy Speaker, it is nothing more than
the sheer fear of the consequences that has drawn
back the Cabinet from supporting a politically ig-
norant Minister a Minister who has no idea of the
conditions that the voters expect to see when they
go to the polls and seek to exercise their franchise.
It is no more than political fear that has not got this
Minister and his insane wishes on the Statute Book
in this Island. This entire Bill and the amendments
are a severe, savage and damning indictment of the
Minister of Home Affairs.

The Chief Registration Officer is reported to
have published the truth, the whole truth and nothing
but the truth to a newspaper reporter, namely, that
with the law as it thenwas nobody should be required
to take a photograph before voting in the City bye-
election. The day that that appeared in the Press it










was the absolute truth, Mr. Deputy Speaker, andeven
after this Bill is passed it will stillbe the truth. But
at that time the difference was that there was no
statutory authority for taking photographs for identi-
ty cards for this Election, and until we reach the
amendment for the Special Provision Act there will
still be no authority for doing that.
6.35 p.m.

Now, Mr. Deputy Speaker, having got 5,200 on
the Register or some number such as that, and this
number of just over 1,000 photographs taken, the
Government still have the wish to prevent the great
mass of electors in the City from voting. I will just
mention something in passing, that the first place
that any of us or anybody whom we might be able to
speak to or question is recorded as saying that you
need a photograph before voting the only place we
can find that this is coming from is from aDemocratic
Labour Party van which has been driving about
Bridgetown and saying: "Go and get your photograph
taken; you cannot vote without such a photograph."
And that is a dangerous andwickedthing to have been
happening. When I heard Mr. Maxwell, Mr. Ward and
the others in the van outside my office saying this, I
picked up the telephone and telephoned the Secretary
of the Democratic Labour Party and said: "I am
going to speak to you as Secretary to Secretary. This
is not politics now. If you tell these people that they
cannot vote without a photograph, full knowing that the
whole City electorate cannot be photographed by
Election Day, you are going to get a situation that
cannot help your Party or our Party. You are only
getting a situation which will injure the voters." It
is not a Party matter at that level. Senator King will
confirm that. The ignorance of the Minister of Home
Affairs is not a Party-matter at all; it is a personal
matter, because the idea that by April 15, which is
today, 5,200 electors in the City could have been
photographed and that "if they were not photographed
it would be their ignorant fault, it would be their
foolish fault; they do not want to vote; well, don't
let them go and take their photograph" that idea
could only emerge from the brain of a political child;
somebody who really does need a Parliamentary
Course, who needs a course of getting down and
talking to the people and learning what politics, vot-
ing, election and everything is all about. It is not
school children that you are dealing with by ordering
and telling them that "if you do notwrite your essay
you are not" .. whatever inducement it is that you
hold out to little children at school.
Faced with this situation, the Prime Ministerhas
exercised a certain amount of political skill because
he has done his best not to insult the Minister of
Home Affairs but to cover his ignorance while, in
fact, making it possible to have a situation in which
you will not get a revolution or anything like that on
Polling Day. There is no doubt that allof us will now
be able to go on the platform and tell the public that
the forces of ignorance have been turned back and
that the photography will not be a condition of voting.
We will be able to say that, but, on the other hand,
although that degree of skill has been exercised so as
to save a riot, too much skill has been exercised to
save Mr. Greaves' face. What we have here is as


pernicious in its weight and as dangerous in its im-
plication as anything which I have ever seen in an
Electoral Bill anywhere.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, the Prime Minister made
a very revealing interruption when the last speaker
was speaking. He indicated that in 1957 the Governor-
in-Executive Committee could appoint PresidingOf-
ficers, but apparently his Party did not then object.
I do not altogether know what they meant, dealing
with the objective part of it, but you know what it
means dealing with the thought behind it. It means
that instinctively it occurs to the Prime Minister's
mind that if you have a right to appoint a Presiding
Officer, you exercise that right in a partisan way.
That is all the Prime Minister's interjection could
mean.

Rt. Hon. E. W. BARROW: On a point of order.
Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should just like to inform the
hon. member that only a person with a warped men-
tality could read that into reminding the hon. senior
member for Christ Church that when he saidthat we
would have gone through the roof if they have been
given the power to appoint Presiding Officers, Section,
20 of the Administrative Rules provides precisely for
that, and for appointing the Chief RegisteringOfficer
as well. How could you twist that into something say-
ing that I feelthat if you have the discretion to appoint
you can tell them what to do? The way in which the
Presiding Officers carry out their duty is subject to
the directives of the Chief Registering Officer and
the Rules, and they are lectured to and told, not by
the Minister. The hon. member knows that.

Mr. J. M. G. ADAMS: The Prime Minister did
not understand what the hon. senior member for
Christ Church was saying. What the hon. senior
member for Christ Church was saying is what
would the Prime Minister say if we inthe Opposition
had the right to appoint Registering Officers now,
not in 1957. That is what the Prime Minister did not
understand. (Rt. Hon. E. W. BARROW: Thank God
that you do not have the power. You'll never have it
again either.) In other words, in his way the Prime
Minister has hitthe roof. Exactly what the hon. senior
member for Christ Church said, that the Prime Min-
ister would hit the roof if we hadthe right to appoint
the Registering Officers, now he has just said "Thank
God you do not have it." In other words, he is invit-
ing us to say "Poor usi they have the right." He has
told himself, thank God he has the right to appoint
the Presiding Officers at this stage.

Sir, I had an experience during the last election
of seeing a woman come into the St. Thomas School
to vote. She went to the Presiding Officer, to one of
the two half boxes the man is from Arch Hall; I have
mentioned this in here before. He asked for her name
and she said that she knows her name must be there
because she got a circular from Mr. Tom Adams. He
"chuped" his mouth, threw down the list and turned
around and did not pay any more attention to her.
The man came and begged me afterwards. (LaughterThe
hon. junior member must have been there in spirit
if he can know what went on (ASIDES). If he really


'~











wants to know what went on, I do not want him to
know the name of his supporter; but if he really
wants it, I will give him the name; I will tell him that
he is a school teacher at the College of Arts, I will
tell him the woman's name, and I will tell him how
Charlie Alleyne got up and went over there to see
what was going on. I will tell him that, if he wants to
know everything. What sort of ignorant ass is it that
is going to say that somebody is lying about some-
thing that he could not know anything about? Never in
my life will I look at anybody, hear him describe
something he saw and say that he is a liar. The man
came and told me that he was sorry about it after-
wards.
6.45 p.m.


Mr. Deputy Speaker, do I hear you, Sir? I can
hear a loud chattering as of a tribe of monkeys.

Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am listening to the
hon. senior member for St. Thomas.

Mr. J. M. G. M. ADAMS: I cannot hear myself
to talk to you, Sir. I can heara loud chattering noise
over there. I thought they only had a Zoo in Grenada.
I think the hon. junior member for St. Thomas has
taken too much to heart the remark made by the
Hon. Leader of the Opposition some time ago that
when at last Barbados gets a Zoo, he will find his
rightful place. He must not take the Hon. Leader of
the Opposition so seriously. The Hon. Leader of the
Opposition was making a joke.

Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am listening to the
hon. senior member for St. Thomas.

Mr. J. M. G. M. ADAMS: I heard some remark
about somebody thieving. I am not even going to tell
him that he is a liar, because I have not been on all
occasions....... (Interruption.)

Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER: May I remind all hon.
members of the Standing Orders of this House? I am
listening to the hon. senior member for St. Thomas.

Mr. J. M. G. M. ADAMS: I am sorry, Sir. I
thought we were having a little light relief. This is
the evening humour. You bring on the buffoons and
the clowns to give you a break from the serious
business under discussion. When things are getting
too hot, you send in the clowns; you let them powder
up their faces and push out their bellies and bounce
about as if they are bouncing pillow cases,

Mr. Deputy Speaker the question of Presiding
Officers is not only what can happen; it is what the
electors themselves are going to be afraid of, Now I
hope that no political Party in Barbados will ever
aim at a low poll, or ever aim at stopping electors
from going to the polls by frightening them that when
they get there they are not going to be able to vote,
they are going to have a lot of questions asked that
they cannot answer, or they are going to suffer some
humiliation. I believe that if the Ministers with ex-
perience in here the hon. senior member for St.
Peter, the hon. senior member for St. John and the


hon. senior member for St. Lucy those are persons
who have faced not an election or two elections,
sometimes in adverse circumstances and sometimes
in favourable circumstances had been dealing with
this, they would not have done anything so openly as
the Minister of Home Affairs has done, to frighten
the people from going to the polls. I can only pre-
sume that they know that the people of the City of
Bridgetown have no love for the D.L.P., and they
are hoping that the great majority of the people will
be frightened away and stay at home.

I am calling on the Government and the Prime
Minister in particular, since he has come in, to give
the appearance of cleaning up the mess into which the
Minister of Home Affairs has thrown this whole
business, to get out and call on the people to vote, to
make it clear that nobody intends to stop them from
voting. It could be done, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In the
parishes of St. Thomas and St. Joseph, approximate-
ly 90 per cent of the people voted in the last election,
and I have not heard any rumours of personation in
these two parishes. At least nobody can ever in-
personate the hon. junior member for St. Thomas or
ever want to. That is one thing we can rely on.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, this is what we should aim
at. In some countries, voting is compulsory, and
compulsory voting may very well be thought to be
an ideal democratic method. It might not work in
some. places because some people have religious
objections to it; but the numberof religious objectors,
the infirm and those who have convictions that do not
permit them to vote should never exceed in a place
like Barbados 10 per cent of the electorate. We should
be aiming to get out4,700 or4,800 voters on Election
Day, and all of us in here should want to see it be-
cause any Party that has confidence in itself should
want its policies to be endorsed or rejected as the
case may be, by the largest possible numberof per-
sons. It behoves the Prime. Minister to contradict
openly-and not just in a concealed way b} this Bill-
any suggestion that restrictions will be placed on
persons who go to the Polling Stations to vote when
the City bye-election comes off. It is up to the Prime
Minister and the members of the Government to see
to it that everybody in the City of Bridgetown, all
those electors who are being made so many political
footballs with the foolish whims of an inexperienced
and ignorant Minister, get a fair deal and are en-
couraged to go out and vote.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, there is hardly anything I
can say to add to what hon. members who have spoken
on the amendment have said about the unlikelihood of
finding driving licences and National Insurance cards
in any quantity in the City of Bridgetown. It is ob-
vious that the City is not that sort of constituency.
The electorate is largely female, not so muchperhaps
as it once was; there are alotof self-employed per-
sons in the City. There are probably a fair number
of old persons in the City. The City is not like St.
Joseph and St. Philip where half the population is
under 18. The proportion of voters in the City is a
high proportion of the number of residents in the
City. All these people deserve a statement that











contrary to what the Minister of Home Affairs has said,
photography is not a requisite to voting, that the
Presiding Officers will accept the same means of
identification as they have been accustomed to ac-
cepting in the past. Nothing less will do but that,
Mr. Deputy Speaker; exactly the same conditions
under which the persons who wanted to vote for the
hon. senior and junior members for Bridgetown-
the late deceased junior member for Dr. Caddle,
and for Mr. Miller, voted. Let the persons who
wanted to vote then for these candidates have exactly
the same privilege of voting again for Mr. Miller
and for the man who will win, Mr. Elliott Mottley.
Let them have the same privilege of voting for Mr.
Elliott Mottley as they had at the lastelection of vo-
ting for his father, Mr. Lynch and Mr. Miller.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, it is monstrously and
foolishly wrong too to imply that it is going to be
made hard to vote at any election, because this is
what the Minister of Home Affairs is doing. He is
trying to give the impression that he isgoing to make
it hard to go and vote. I speak under correction.

I will return to the point of personation. I have
never heard of a prosecution for personation in Bar-
bados. The only report that I heard of personation re -
lated to a man who did not inform me directly it was a
second-hand report, but I am not going to give the
details. I will disappoint the hon. junior member for
St. Thomas. (Hon. N. W. BOXILL: Make up some lie
now. Come Ananias!) Mr. Deputy Speaker, the hon.
junior member for St. Thomas calls me Ananias. I
suppose we have to walk hand in hand, and I have to
call him Sapphira, because he is behaving like a
foolish old woman. All right, Sapphira; sit in your
seat and shake about. I do not mean you, Mr. Deputy
Speaker;. I am speaking figuratively.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, it is not good enough to
involve the City bye-election in this Bill.Wehave a
lot to say in Committee if this reaches Committee.
We do not want it to reach Committee; but if it
reaches, we have a lot to say. There are a lot of
little things in the Bill, and I hope that in six months'
time when the Bill is debated. I will be here to ask
what kind of ignorance it was that excluded St.
Philip's and Christ Church's Lighthouses frombeing
parts of any constituency whatsoever. They are ex-
cluded from both St. Philip North and South and
Christ Church East and South-central; but that is
merely bad drafting.
6.55 p.m.

This is something which I pointed out to the
Chief Registering Officer two years ago, and the
Minister of Home Affairs has kept this Bill on his
desk for two years doing nothing about it, not appre-
ciating the urgency of the Government, andnotliving
up to the dynamism that you expect from a team of
proper Ministers such as we on this side will offer
people at the earliest possible opportunity. Instead of
doing something with the Bill, he is upthere fiddling
around looking at it, and trying to work out how he
can stop the people in the City from voting. Mr.


Deputy Speaker, what kind of election would we have
with 1,400 voters in the City? What possible kind of
election could we have in these circumstances?

Now, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am swinging back
from the City bye-election on to the Bill itself. No
hon. member seems, so long is the passage of time,
to have remembered that this Bill represents a
belated, a wickedly belated, attempt bythe Democra-
tic Labour Party to carry out one of its foremost
pledges a pledge that we will have single-member
constituencies. Had it been a part of ourprogramme
and if we had a Boundaries Commission in the choosing
of the constituencies, I can tell you, Sir, that for the
past and the future we would never have reneged on a
pledge in the way the Democratic Labour Party did
in 1966. I hope we will never demonstrate the vile,
political cowardice of the Democratic Labour Party
in promising single-member constituencies, andthen
coming back with the double-member system which,
for nearly 10 years, the Prime Minister and his other
members had condemned.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, for year after year, from
the time of Mr. McLeod's visit to Barbados when Mr.
Speaker, the Prime Minister and others went to tell
Mr. McLeod that we should have single-member
constituencies, the Democratic Labour Party fought
for single-member constituencies; and yet when the
great opportunity came, political cowardice pre-
vailed, and no attempt was made in 1966 to carry out
the election pledge of the Democratic Labour Party.
The electors are said to have short memories, but
members of the House do not have such short memo-
ries. We have been pressing forthis since 1955. We
pressed in London for a pledge that the election
which we knew would come before Independence was
to be held under single-member constituencies. We
pressed for that in London whenwe saw the pressure
being put on the Prime Ministerto have this election.
When I went on the air at the C.B.C. immediately
after the Prime Minister and said that there would
be an election before Independence, Mr. Tony Best of
C.B.C. was victimised for allowing me to say it.
When all of that pressure went on the Prime Minister,
I supposed the British Government felt that it could
not put any more pressure by making him have the
elections under single-member constituencies.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, at long last the Democratic
Labour Party has been shamed into carrying out its
promise seven years after it first had its opportunity
so to do. Since then the electorates have changed;
some electorates have got smaller; the decision to
deprive St. James of a seat and put an extra seat in
Christ Church has now produced a constituency in St.
James that is growing faster than any other in the
Island. The cutting-up of the seats in St. Michael to
balance off Haggatt Hall with the new development in
the Pine has now produced the largest constituency
in Barbados, and one which, I believe, when it is
properly run out will have over 6,500 electors in St.
Michael South-east, and you will get electors in St.
Philip, St. George and Christ Church of less than
4,000.











All of that has happened since these constituen-
cies that appear in the Schedule to this Bill were
first delineated. Why put it in this Bill at all except
to increase the printing troubles at the Government
Headquarters? There is a perfectly good Boundaries
Commission Order of 1965 with the same constituen-
cies set out in it as part of the subsidiary legislation
in this Island. It is a proper Statutory Instrument. The
Government has gone through the trouble to print all
over again, and at enormous expense, a long list of
constituencies that already exist in the laws of this
Island. This must be the only country in the world
where you will find identical legislation in two
separate places. That is the inefficiency of this
Government, and particularly the inefficiency of the
Ministry of Home Affairs.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, I have spoken on the Bill
itself, but on the amendment the remarks which I
have made about the City bye-election are the rele-
vant remarks I would urge on hon. members for
their serious and sober consideration. Nobodywho is
in good faith and acting entirely honestly, and intend-
ing to appear to be acting entirely honestly, a few
weeks before a bye-election changes the electoral
law. That is why I would urge, in the interest of
honesty, in the interest of the appearance of honesty,
and to take away temptation from the fiddlers, that
we do not make this Bill law in time to affect the
City bye-election, and that is why I will support this
amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, I said something about the
fiddlers. A lot of tutelage has come from Guyana to
corrupt and pervert Governments in other parts of
the Caribbean where it comes to elections. The most
scandalously and shamelessly rigged elections of the
last few years have been the last election in Guyana.
Under the presiding genius of Sir Lionel Luckooin
London and an enthusiastic team of gerrymanders,
vagabonds, registering whole streets of people that
do not exist, we saw a shamelessly conducted elec-
tion in Guyana. Out in the Pomeroon they even found
ballot papers inside ballot boxes with rubber bands
around them. All of that is what can happen when we
once allow electoral fiddling to come through the
door.

Now, Mr. Neville Maxwell, Sir. Is it really wise
at a time like this for the Personal Aide to the Prime
Minister at so sensitive a time as the passage of a
new Representation of the People Act and the prepa-
ration of a new electoral Register, to be occupying a
house next door to the place where these activities
are being carried on? It is within the compound; his
car is parked there every day. Anybody can walk in
there, far less somebody who lives there. He is
searching the identification cards to see who have
been photographed.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, have we got any certainty
that the secret mark that appears onthe ballot paper
is any longer secret? Do we have any certainty that
that secret mark has not been observed? (ASIDES).
Let me tell the hon. Gentleman who may be as sim-
ple, not to say ignorant, as the hon. junior member


for St. Thomas ignorant of the way you go about
fiddling these things. If you wish to produce false
ballots, you cannot produce false ballots without the
secret mark. The secret mark in use at this election
must be one that was not in use for a number of
years, and that is the normal security. Nobody must
know what the secret mark is going to be except the
Returning Officer and a small number of printers.
At some stage the Mark File has to be opened and
discussed between the printer and the Chief Register-
ing Officer.
7.05 p.m.

I do not even know. Is it right that any political
appointee should be seen suspected, considered or
in any way associated with the possibility of knowing
the secret mark on the ballot papers or anything like
that? All of these things are not right. The compound
of the house of the Supervisor of Elections is too
sensitive a place to have a political official living.
I would not want one of our yard fowls, if we were in
power, living anywhere like that. I would not want to
see it; I would think it would be dangerous, and if
Mr. Maxwell had any self-respect, he would go and
live in St. Philip until the election is over, so as to
prevent people from seeing him there andwondering
what he is doing outside the most secret places of
elections in Barbados. I am not making any allegations
against him in respect of the secret things, because
I do not know, but I am not going to be there when any-
body is trying to find out the secret mark on the bal-
lot papers. It is not only before the election, but it
is after the election, because by law, the ballot
papers have to be kept for six months in a safe where
they can only be opened on the direction of the Chief
Justice. The ballot papers can be checked against the
stubs and counterfoils. Is it right that any political
appointee should be in anyway a part of the compound
where the ballot papers for what is called a secret
ballot are kept?



Rt. Hon. E. W. BARROW: Mr. Deputy Speaker,
I should just rise for a point of order because I de-
precate the remarks made by the hon. member; but
I should like to point out that in accordance with the
Rules, ballot papers are not kept at "Verona" or by
the Chief Registering Officer; ballot papers, to the
best of my knowledge, information and belief, are
kept by the Registrar General in a vault. That is my
information. Firstly, I think that itis an unnecessary
slur on amemberof the legal profession and a person
about whom I have never had any complaint from any-
one except the hon. seniormemberforSt. Thomas on
this occasion, to suggest that this gentleman would
act in any way which would be against the Election
Rules. It is a pure unadulterated and unnecessary
aspersion on the character of person andI am sure
that he would not go outside or write a statement to
the newspaper to this effect.I challenge the hon. mem-
ber to write me a letter complaining of the specific
instances for me to investigate and put in the hands
of the Director of Public Prosecutions (ASIDES) I in-
vite you to bring that letter to me personally tomor-
row morning.











Mr. J. M. G. ADAMS: Mr. Deputy Speaker, when
there are specific instances the Prime Minister will
get a letter. If he is challenging, well,. I will answer
the challenge. What I am saying is this, and let it get
into the heads of those who are listening opposite. It
is not what is done or can be proved to be done; it is
what looks as if it can be done. Does it look good to
see a political campaign directed from the Election
Headquarters? That is what the issue is. Does it look
good to see a man paid by the tax payers with a D.L.P.
banner everyday walking about canvassing? Paid by
the taxpayers, driving about the streets of Bridge-
town at our expense and canvassing for "Tommy"
Miller a man whom he probably does not even want
to get into the House? But that is by the way. Is it
right that he should be carrying out his Commission
from a house in the compound of the Supervisor of
Elections' Headquarters? Let the Prime Minister say
to himself: what would he say if perhaps Mr. Eric
Sealy was in our employment instead of his, and we
had him there at "Verona" carrying out the Com-
mission (ASIDES)? Have I said anything against Mr.
Eric Sealy? I have saidthat Mr. Eric Sealy is in your
employment and not in ours. That is all. (ASIDES)
Mr. Deputy Speaker, I think we really ought to invite
the proprietor of the Empire Theatre to re-open its
variety shows and make sure that at the top of the
bill will be the junior member for St. Thomas."
(ASIDES).

Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The hon. seniormem-
ber for St. Thomas is addressing the Chair.

Mr. J. M. G. ADAMS: It maywellbe, Mr. Deputy
Speaker, that for the first time hon. members on the
other side are hearing that many people feel great
disquiet at the activities of Mr. Maxwell. If allegations
or the appearance of allegations are made, hon. mem-
bers are having their eyes wide open to something
that they may not have appreciatedbefore. We cannot
help that; the fact is there. The City Election is an
interesting election, as it must be when one side
goes in with very little hope of winning, but feeling
that it has the capacity to stack the cards in its
favour. This Bill, as it appears at present, is the
culmination of an attempt to stack the decks in its
favour in the game which the Government is now
playing (ASIDES). I will give them a chance, Mr.
Deputy Speaker.

Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Is the hon. senior mem-
ber for the City addressing the Chair (ASIDES)?

Mr. J. M. G. ADAMS: Perhaps the best thing
would be for me to move the Rule 29 (6) be suspended
and give the hon. junior member for St. Thomas all
the lessons which he needs. Those are the reasons
why we should not deal with this Bill today, and for
those reasons I support the amendments moved by
the hon. junior member for St. Peter and seconded
by the hon. junior member for St. James.

Mr. MOTTLEY: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should
like to ask the Prime Minister if he would enlighten
us on a few things at the minute. I understand that
there are around 5,200 registered voters for the City


now that the list has been closed, and I would like to
know if the Prime Minister cantellus if there is any
truth in the fact that the time fortaking pictures has
been extended from today, or if today has only been
an administrative order or directive or it comes
from the Government, as the people were given in-
structions through the Press, radio, television, In-
formation Officer and everybody else that today is
the last day when pictures will be taken; that it will
be closed at eight o'clock tonight, in another hour
from now.
7.15 p.m.

Since then, we have been hearing that instruc-
tions have been given to extend the time for the taking
of pictures. I would like the Prime Minister to tell
us that because he has heard about the question of
the passport which costs $5.00 and drivers' licences.
:It is true that the Information Office has been making,,
it clear that the photographs would cost nothing, but
the time has been so limited. Would he also tell us
how many photographs have been taken up to now of
the 5,200 electors and if the time will be extended
from tonight? I will give way to the hon. member.

Rt. Hon. E. W. BARROW: As far as I know, Sir,
the photographing, by administrative directive, would
be concluded this evening, but in the same way that
it is purely an administrative directive, it could also
be extended. I do not know what instructions the Chief
Registering Officer has given, but there is nothing
in the law or in the Election Rules which says that it
could not be extended. The photographing could go
on for the next three years. (Mr. MOTTLEY: I want
to know if the photographing for this bye-election has
been extended.) The photographing, as one hon.
member has said, should have gone on continuously
for two years. I want to make it clear that Ministers
are not being employed to be photographers, to be
registering officers or to do Civil Servants' work.
(Mr. MOTTLEY: People are asking if it isgoing to
be extended for another week.) Iftheywant to extend
it, it can be extended until next year. No one is be-
ing excluded from voting because he does not have
an identification card. I made that point clear. The
identification card is one of the means of establish-
ing your identity. No one is suggesting that anyone
should go and take out a driver's licence in order to
establish his identity, or buy a passport. That is
pure, unadulterated nonsense. There are several
alternative ways of disclosing your identity and sat-
isfying the Presiding Officer as to your identity.
For those persons who are in possession of one or
the other or more than one of these means of identity,
it is easy. (Mr. MOTTLEY: What about Old Age Pen-
sion cards?) The PresidingOfficerhas discretion.
He can say "Are you an OldAge Pensioner? Can I
see your card?", or another Old Age Pensioner can
identify him. The thing is aswide as possible. I have
said that it is notpart of the registering process that
you should have identity cards. All I can say is that
I do not have to give any instructions. The Chief
Registering Officer or the Minister may from time
to time extend the time or give further instructions.
Next month we may be getting instructions about pho-
tographing in other districts. Then the photographing


I _











booths orwhatever they are called will be, opened and
the times of opening and closing. This process is go--
ing to go on now' until perhaps the end of the year
whn we will be photographing everybody in the island.

Mr. MOTTLEY: I do not think it is fair to take
refuge because you are a lawyer. I asked a question
and you are taking advantage of your position, because
as a lawyer, you are circumnavigating this. As Prime
Minister of this country, you cangive anorder to ex-
tend the time from tonight for another week.

Rt. Hon. E. W. BARROW: The hon. member asked
me a question and I said who can give the instructions.
I have not given any such instructions, but some-
body else might have. This is in reply to the hon. mem-
ber saying we did not do this. If we have some people
dragging their feet, what are we going to do about it?

Mr. MOTTLEY: There are 5,200 people regis-
tered in the City. Registrationwas closed today, and
I am asking you to let us know approximately how
many of those 5,200 people have been photographed.
I am not allowed to go into the place. (Rt. Hon. E. W.
BARROW: You said there were 2,000.) I am not al-
lowed to go into the place. (Rt. Hon. E. W. BARROW:
I neither.) But you have a Private Secretary who
goes into the place and you ought to know. (Rt. Hon.
E. W. BARROW: Name the cases.) Name what cases?
I am not accusing the gentleman of anything. I am
asking you approximately how many have been photo-
graphed, and I further ask whether any instructions
have been given. If you tell me that more than half
or less than half have been photographed, I would
ask whether you would be willing as Prime Minister
to say that you would give another week's grace to
people to make sure that they take advantage of the
position and get their photographs taken. (Rt. Hon.
E. W. BARROW: Yes. Two weeks.) I would like
you to stand on your feet and say that.

Rt. Hon. E. W. BARROW: The hon. member ask-
ed me whether I would give another week for people
to have their photographs taken, and I said I would
give them two weeks. If there are people in the City
who want to keep the photograph booths open two
more weeks or up to the day before election, I am
prepared to have that done. I do not think I would
have any problem with the Minister of Home Affairs
on that.

Mr. MOTTLEY: The only thing I would like to
draw to your attention is that apparently you do not
know what is happening. The boys from Harrison
College are taking the pictures at the school and at
polling booths and so on. You can use them after
4 o'clock on evenings. The Prime Minister has given
the undertaking that theywilluse them after o'clock
on evenings and use the same people for another two
weeks to extend the time.

Rt. Hon. E. W. BARROW: I did not say anything
about using the same people, because I do not know
whom they employ now; but if he says that some
school boys are involved in this, I cannot take the
boys away from their home-work and make them


photograph people. If they are working for a little
piece of change in the vacation, that is one thing; but
I cannot go and tell the people's boy children not to do
their home-work.


Mr. MOTTLEY: As a matter of fact, the Prime
Minister knows that one morning when the boothwas
to be op~1ned at 8 o'clock, at 9.30 a.m. it was not
opened because the boys turned up to say that they
wanted more money. I suppose this was reported to
you. You mr st have seen afile onthis. If, a: you say,
you are prepared co give instructions extend-ng it for
two w..ks longer so thaa people can aia'- the ir pho o -
graphs for the purpo 3,e of :hi.s bye -.3.ci:Uon, I suppose
we can have a postponement of the second read..ng of
the Bill for two w'eks. (Rc. Hon. E. W. BARROW.
Must we postpone it until the photographing is finish-
ed? ) I said two weeks.
7.25 p.m.

We can postpone the second reading of the Bill
for two weeks. I used to be in the Opposition. We
could postpone that for two weeks. I used to be in the
Opposition and you were in the Opposition. It is not
like you to come in here without your facts and
figures. Can you tell me how many people have been
registered? Can you tell me how many people have
been photographed and so on? This is something very
strange., If you agree that the time be extended it will
be all right.


I am satisfied in my mind that whoever is the
genius behind this (ASIDES). You have people un-
employed in the City; you have people 64 and 65
years of age; you have a large number of persons who
have no identity card, no Social Security, or anything.
I remember telling a member of the Barbados Labour
Party when a certain member got into the House he
was criticised. The very people you are trying to
prevent from voting today are the very people you
will have to go back and beg for a vote. Throughout
the country this very Bill is going to operate against
Government, because you have people who are willing
to vote, but they do not have a passport, a Security
card, a driver's licence and so on. How many people
do you think have passports in Barbados? I am not
supporting it.

Sir GRANTLEY ADAMS: So much has been said
that there is not much new that I can say, but I want
to support the remarks made by previous speakers
and I want to emphasise the fact that this Bill stinks.
Although it is not for us to point out to the members
of the Government that this will not help them, it is
a very good playing card in the hands of the Oppo-
sition in supporting our candidate. The average elec-
torate throughout this Island, short of the electorate
in St. Lucy they are not always seeing daylight but
the average electorate, and more especially, the elec-
torate of Bridgetown however much they may on a
particular occasion shout, or look for a rum, or look
for a dollar they think, they listen to the radio, they
read newspapers and discuss at street corners every-
thing that happens in any part of the world.











One Sunday morning I was amazed to hear the
intelligent way inwhich some men at the corner where
James A. Tudor used to keep his business were dis-
cussing Viet Nam. The electorate in the City are
wide awake; they think; theywill come and clamour at
a public meeting, but they see things for themselves.

This Bill tonight is one of the best things that the
Government could do to strengthen our hand, because
the people can see the dishonesty. Theywill ask them-
selves, as anybody would ask themselves, how could
Mr. Matthews have made that statement only to be
contradicted by Senator Greaves? How canthe Gov-
ernment reconcile the two statements? Frankly, I
do not believe a word the Hon. Prime Minister
said when he said that only sitting down there he knew
of Senator Greaves' broadcast. Is he a Prime Minis-
ter? Would a Prime Minister come inhere today with
the Bill without knowing of Senator Greaves' broad-
cast? What idiot could possibly believe that?

Mr. Deputy Speaker, these things do nothelpthe
Government; they help us. When we go and tell the
electorate of the City that the Prime Minister came
here with a Bill to try to explain away the contradic-
tion between Senator Greaves and Mr. Matthews, and
said it was only afterhewas sittingin the House that
he heard that Senator Greaves had made a broad-
cast, they will know the position.

Rt. Hon. E. W. BARROW: Mr. Deputy Speaker,I
want to make a Statement on the misrepresentation
of what I have said.

Sir GRANTLEY ADAMS: I will notgive way. The
hon. member has an opportunity of replying. If he
were put in an awkward position; if something was
being said about him and he did not have a right to
reply, one could understand. I am notgivingway. We
have too many irregularities taking place in this
House. I have been in this House for over 30 years,
and have never seen anybody behaving like the hon.
junior member for St. Thomas and the Chair not
stop him. He goes on ranting and ranting and all sorts
of things. Spectators come here and watch and go
abroad and say: "There is one badthingin the House
in that there is one member who gets on piggishly."
It is time that it stops. (ASIDES). He cannot help it -
piggish manners, and even when corrected he goes on.
It does not matter if he gets on like a pig, but it does
matter if the House of Assembly has a member who
gets on like a pig. (Hon. N. W. BOXILL: Two!)

Mr. Deputy Speaker, I put this to members of
the Government who do not, and I do know that some of
them sitting opposite us do not believe inthe attitude
the Government has adopted in this matter. Many of
us sitting around here must have seen when Labour
was in power orwhen the Conservative was in power,
members supporters of the Government, members
who belonged to the Government Party not voting
with the Government because their consciences told
them that they were wrong. If you are men tonight,
you will see that you ought to vote with the Opposition.


I have already given enough intimation tonight
that sometimes I am not responsible forthe fact that
within the ranks of the Government there willbe some
who will tell members of the Oppositionwhat is hap-
pening. Whenever I say that I know so-and-so, I do it
with the object of letting the Government know that I
know. I have never gone and asked any member of the
Government what is happening. I have never been
and asked any member of the Government Party to
tell me what is happening. (ASIDES). The hon. junior
member for St. Thomas whom I will never approach
for any reason whatever could be the only person to
say that what I am saying is not true, because it
would mean that I had been to him and got informa-
tion from him. God forbid that it would ever be
my misfortune to talk to the hon. member privately!
7.35 p.m.

I only heard the hon. member use the word
"hyena". I apologise to the hyena tribe for likening
them to the hon. junior member for St. Thomas. I
repeat, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I should not repeat
all that has been said about these driving licences and
all the rest of that, but Sir, look at the last one; no
restriction whatever on the Presiding Officer for
asking any question he likes, howeverembarrassing.
I suppose that if this Bill goes through and it covers
the working of the bye-election, if the bit about the
driving licences, passports, and so on "he satis-
factorily answers such further questions relating to
his identity as the Presiding Officer may put to
him" that gives an absolute, general, broad dis-
cretion to ask any kind of question so long as it
relates to his identity. "Were you the man who was
convicted and went to Prison for seven years in
such-and-such a year?" Is it necessary to embarrass
it is aperfectlylegitimate question- but as soon as
you have this vague, wide discretionary power given
to a Presiding Officer, then any kindof embarrassing
question may be asked.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, as I said earlier, so much
has been said and so eloquently andwell put, that if I
had thought or did think now that argument, effective
argument, was going to cause hon. memberstovote
according to their conscience and not out of a mis-
guided sense of loyalty to what the Prime Minister
happens to say, I would not have spoken; but I repeat
that many of us must have seen in the Mother of
Parliaments itself I believe, recently Mr. George
Brown and Mr. Harold Wilson-- Mr. Brown openly
questioned what Mr. Harold Wilson was saying, and
hoping that he did not mean somethingwhichhe knew
very well he meant, but which he did not regard as
right. Therefore, I will appeal to those wavering
hon. members opposite to see especially after the
Prime Minister has promised that for another two
weeks, at least, photographs could still be taken to
see that they do not hurt their own cause by agreeing
to this amendment, and that they should act accord-
ing to the arguments used and accordingto their own
consciences in voting for this amendment and post-
poning the further consideration of this Bill for the
six months asked for.











Rt. Hon. E. W. BARROW: Mr. Deputy Speaker,
earlier today there was a plea by the hon. members
on the other side to give them half an hour, to post-
pone the consideration of this matter forhalf an hour,
for them to read the amendments to the Registers of
Electors (Special Provisions) Bill, 1969. As I pointed
out, they were two short pages. The substantive Bill
which we are discussing was introduced in this
House sometime around the middle of March, well
over four weeks ago. The substantive amendments
to the Representation of the People Act were pre-
pared by the Law Revision Officers some considera-
ble time ago in order to take advantage of what the
hon. member accuses the Government for, the laying
out of single-member Constituencies; but the Special
Provisions Bill of 1969 had to be introduced and it
was passed by this House because of the recent events
which have made it necessary for us, in accordance
with the provisions of the Constitution, to hold a bye-
election 90 days after the vacancy has occurred.
Hon. members will remember that at the time of the
passing of that Special Provisions Bill, there was
not even in the Representation of the People Act
which was passed by the last Government, provision
for a bye-election on the death of an hon. member;
neither is there in the Constitution any such pro-
vision, so that this Bill had to be passed. I think that
people who are in the legal profession could argue
one way or the other, either for the purposes of the
bye-election, such as the one which will have to take
place within 90 days of the event according to the
provisions of the Constitution, whether the amend-
ment to the 1957 Act as preparedby the Law Revision
Commissioner is absolutely necessary, because
most of the provisions of that are in suspension; but
as Ministers, we have to be guided by what our pro-
fessional officers have said. That is the whole point
which has arisen.

Hon. members have had ample time to consider
the longer amendments to the 1957 Act, some of
which will be in suspension until the full single-
member Constituencies provision has been fully
introduced and implemented; and there will be no
other General Election in Barbados without that, I
assure hon. members. If there is any General Elec-
tion otherwise, I will not be running in it. I give you
that undertaking. The amendments which have been
introduced here today and of which I have given notice,
and with which I said we will deal in Committee,
have now been in the hands of hon. members for
nearly seven and a half hours, and there are two
short pages which merely provide for the enlarging
of the powers in the substantive amending Bill. It is
a question of interpretation. You will see that the
substantive amending Bill is rather restrictive and
it does not afford the wider possibilities of identifi-
cation which the amendment that we are introducing
provides. How any honest person could get up and
accuse the Government of using this as a trick in the
election is something which I really do not under-
stand, because as I said before, the only people who
would have any objection to this are people who are
not entitled to vote, or people who are completely
and utterly dishonest. They are the only people who
could get up and object to this. No person who is


genuinely on the Register, who is a bona fide resident
of the City of Bridgetown, as defined by the Bounda-
ries Commission, would have any objection to going
up proudly and saying: "I am John Brown of Chap-
man's Lane, St. Michael; here is my driver's licence,
my Security Card." We have got nearly 80,000 -
every person who has a job in this island, every
employed person in this Island has got a Social
Security Card. There is no person who is employed
in this Island, who has been employed during the
past 18 months, who does not have a Social Security
Card by law.
7.45 p.m.

We have issued over 80,000 Social Security
cards. Now the official figure of employment, in-
cluding all people under the age of 68 and over the
age of 14, is running something between 11 per cent
and 13 per cent as it fluctuates seasonally. This
means that if the City reflects the average in the
whole Island, there are less than 600 or 650 unem-
ployed people in an electoral roll of 5,000. If these
are the people who say they do not have a driver's
licence, passport, or Social Security card, we have
to substract a certain number as being children
between the ages of 15 and 18, because we consider
them as unemployed once they have left school and
are capable of working. We also have to substract
people over 65 and 68 who are entitled to vote, but
nevertheless in our statistics of employment are
included in the population of working age or in the
working population, as the case may be, whether
they are working or not. When we boil it down, we
are dealing with a handful of people who may not
have one of the possible means of identification, a
handful of, say, less than 500 people, and we have
never had any difficulty in any previous electionwith
bona fide registered voters in getting them to es-
tablish their identity, because you have polling agents
in every Polling Station and a representative of the
candidates in the Polling Station, and it is a very
simple matter.

What we have done is to facilitate and make it
abundantly easy for all bona fide voters, but the
Opposition know what they are talking about. How
many bona fide voters do they have supporting
them in the City of Bridgetown? We do not know,
but the results will show how many bona fide voters
there actually were in the City of Bridgetown. This
is what they are worried about and this is what they
are fulminating about, because they are not concern-
ed with the bona fide voters; they are concerned
with the persons who do not possess the bona fides.
I cannot shed any tears for them, because they ought
to be prosecuted. You can accuse me of being Castro
or anything you like. All the people who want to vote
fraudulently in this or any other election not only
should go to gaol, but should have been in gaol or
out of the Island a long time ago. We have no room
for those people in our society and I have no com-
punction in saying that we should exclude fraudu-
lent persons out of this society altogether. If that is
whom they are holding a brief for, let them try and
get them voting in the Carriacou elections or some-
where like that, not in the City. There will be no











fraudulent voters this time. What we have done is to.
make sure that the elections are being conducted in
an honest and straight-forward manner.

We have been hearing certain allegations. If the
hon. senior member for St. Thomas is now going to
talk about allegations, a gentleman that he used to
lend his Hi-fi equipment to hold meetings to abuse
the Government has made certainallegations ...(Mr.
St. JOHN: Do you mean"'Fly" Sealy that you are pay-
ing$100 aweek)....as to the conduct of previous elec-
tions, particularly in the City of Bridgetown. If
you study the statistics of the Federal Elections and
what happened in St. Thomas, St. James and St. An-
drew, when about 17 per cent of the rest of the Is-
land ,voted, they in the most difficult terrain in the
country were able to return something between 72
per cent and 77 per cent, and people living in the City,
people living in St. John and in Christ Church with
motor cars and easy access to Polling Booths and
Polling Stations could':not return higher statistics
overall than a maximum of 23 per cent of the elec-
tion. Now this is the kind of evil that we want to
circumvent. Never again.

Mr. J. M. G. M. ADAMS: Will the Prime Minister
give way? I gave way to him.:

Rt. Hon. E. W. BARROW: On what? You were
not here during the elections.

Mr. J. M. G. M. ADAMS: On a point of elucida-
tion, I spoke on the question of high poll. Mr. Dep-
uty Speaker, I agree with the Prime Minister that it
was a high poll. I can speakforSt. Thomas. It merely
happens that St. Thomas is one of the most "voting-
est" areas of Barbados. The hon. juniormemberfor
St. Thomas would not tell you and the Prime Minis-
ter will not accuse me of fiddling the elections last
time. We got 89 per cent of the people to the poll
last time when only something like 71 per cent
voted in the same City; so is he going to say that
shows the people inpersonated in St. Thomas to
return me?

Rt. Hon. E. W. BARROW: I did not say anything
about impersonation. I said that it is a source of
wonder to political observers that in the Federal
Elections the three central parishes returned sta-
tistics of over 73 per cent when the island-wide
average was between 17 per cent and 23 percent,
including the City, on a bank holiday, and in the
most difficult terrain they could get people turning
out, according to them, to 73 per cent. I think, Sir,
that "Massa day done." What has happened to them
now is that it has come to its crisis. When we were
school boys and we did not like the way fellows were
stealing in playing cricket or marbles, we usedto say
that the game crumble." You would pick up your
marbles, pick up stumps and go home. Fellowswere
being unfair and the game has come to its crisis
now. Now the honest men will have their say, and
this is what they are fulminating against. First they
asked for a postponement for half an hour; then they
asked for a postponement generally, and now they are
asking to postpone it for six months, well knowing


that the election has to take place in 30 days. And
what is the postponement for? To consider that you
have several different ways of identifying yourself
and establishing your bona fides as an honest,
straightforward bona fide resident of the City whose
name appears on the electoral Register.


The question that further consideration of this Bill be
postponed for six months was put and resolved in the negative
the House dividing as follows:-



AYES: Mr. HINDS, Mr. CRAIG: Mr. J. M. G. M.
ADAMS; Mr. HOLDER; Mr. St. JOHN and Sir
GRANTLEY ADAMS 6.

NOES: Mr. HOPPIN; Rt. Hon. E. W. BARROW;
Hon. G. G. FERGUSSON; Hon. K. N. R. HUSBANDS;
Hon. N. W. BOXILL; Mr. LOWE; Mr. SPRINGER;
Mr. CORBIN and Mr. WEEKS 9.

The question that the Bill be now read a second time was
put and resolved in the affirmative, the House dividing as
follows: -


AYES: Mr. HOPPIN; Rt. Hon. E. W. BARROW;
Hon. G. G. FERGUSSON; Hon. K. N. R. HUSBANDS;
Hon. N. W. BOXILL; Mr. LOWE; Mr. SPRINGER;
Mr. CORBIN and Mr. WEEKS 9.

NOES: Mr. HINDS; Mr. CRAIG; Mr. J. M. G. M.
ADAMS; Mr. HOLDER; Mr. St. JOHN and Sir
GRANTLEY ADAMS 6.
7.55 p.m.

Rt. Hon. E. W. BARROW: Mr. Deputy Speaker,
I said earlier today that I had no objection, after the
passage of the second reading, to adjourn to give hon.
members a further opportunity to do the studywhich
they obviously have not done. At this stage we have
two alternatives: (1) that we adjourn now for the
customary dinner break, and the other alternative is
that we adjourn until Friday. I am prepared to go on
if they want to. If they do not want to go on, we can
return on Friday. Hon. members have been here a
long time and their tempers are getting frayed. We
should punish them.

Mr. ST.JOHN: Is the hon. member giving us an
undertaking that there will be no further amendments
to be brought down?

Rt. Hon. E. W. BARROW: Arising out of a re-
mark which was made today, I have an amendment to
make to either Section 19 or Section 20. It will only
be a couple of lines. (Mr. St. JOHN: That is the gist
of it). I do not have to polish up anything; I have
everything right here. I do not think that that Bill is
needed at all, but I am making assurance doubly sure.
I am inclined to agree with members on the other
side that special provision should be made, and that
will be the only other amendment. They cannot say
that they did not know anything about it.










Mr. J. M. G. M. ADAMS: If he is referring.to
the fact that I said we are wasting time, because this
Bill is not going to apply to the bye-election anyhow,
I would not like the Prime Ministerto misrepresent,
unintentional or otherwise, anything that I say into
saying that we want the amendment. The fact is that
Section 19 (6) prevents this Bill from applying to the
bye-election, and what he wants to do now is to
make the most crucial amendment of all to apply to
people in this bye-election. I am only sorry that I
pointed out to the Prime Minister certain things,
because the Legal Advisers to the Government did
not point it out. Do not let him say that we wanted a
small amendment.

The fact is that Section 19(6)preventedthis Bill
from applying to the City bye-election. The Prime
Minister is now trying to slip some amendment over
the House. Since he has been alerted, he I will
not say any more. (Mr. ST. JOHN: He is still missing
something.)

Rt. Hon. E. W. BARROW: I have never worked
in a Crown Law Office. They cannot pay me enough
money to work in there.

Sir GRANTLEY ADAMS: Will the Prime Minis-
ter circulate all the amendments?

Rt. Hon. E. W. BARROW: There is only one
more amendment which I propose to introduce at this
stage. There may be a comma, a full stop or some-
thing like that on Friday. There is only one more
amendment which (Mr. St. JOHN: Will make it
abundantly clear.) It is abundantly clear already. I
do not take chances with things like this. The amend-
ment will be circulated tomorrow. The amendment
is to Section 19 (6) on Page 10. It reads as follows:-

"For the purpose of the conduct of any such
election the amendments made by this Act to the
Principal Act or rules or regulations made there-
under relating to constituencies or to the conduct of
elections ........"

All of that is exactly as it was before. And these
words are now inserted; A comma is put at elec-
tions -


"Save and except Section 13 (A) as contained in
the First Schedule and the amendment to Rule 27 or
the rules for the conduct of the House of Assembly
elections as contained in the Second Schedule ......"

That is the end of the words which have been in-
serted.

"shall be deemed not to have come into opera-
tion."


That amendment will be printed and circulated to
hon. members. What are you going to do now?

Mr. J. M. G. M. ADAMS: Mr. Deputy Speaker,
the point about the Lighthouse has not got over to
the Prime Minister.
Rt. Hon. E. W. BARROW: That is a simple point.
Nobody lives at the Lighthouses, and I have satisfied
myself that the Lighthouse keepers' houses are
within the boundaries. They are also trigonometric
stations for the purpose of cadastral surveys, and I
have satisfied myself that Lighthouse keepers' houses
are within the boundaries.
Mr. J. M. G. M. ADAMS: As a matter of tidi-
ness, is it right to exclude any portion of Barbados
from a constituency? Christ Church and St. Philip
Lighthouses will be the only parts of Barbados that
do not belong to a constituency. Somebody might
move into one.

Rt. Hon. E. W. BARROW: I do not agree with
that. They are bisected by the description. You
have to go to the Middle Crown of the Lighthouse.

Mr. J. M. G. M. ADAMS: The point is that the
Lighthouses are excluded from four constituencies.
The constituency boundary runs to the Lighthouse,
and then there is a vacant area which is not in any
constituency. There are excluded and not bisected.

Rt. Hon. E. W. BARROW: If it runs to the Light-
house, it must run to the middle point of the Light-
house. All the Lighthouse keepers' houses are re-
gistered.
Mr. J. M. G. M. ADAMS: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I
am sure if the Crown LawOfficers would look at it
again, they may be able to change the mind of the
Prime Minister.

Rt. Hon. E. W. BARROW: The Boundaries Com-
mission was appointed by this House, and it is not
for the Crown Law Officers to say what the bounda-
ries are. It is for this House to say what the bounda-
ries should be. I assure the hon. member that the
keepers at Lighthouses are in some kind of electoral
district.

ADJOURNMENT

Rt. Hon. E. W. BARROW: Mr. Deputy Speaker,I
beg to move that this House do now adjourn until
Friday, 18th April, 1969 at 2.30 p.m.

Hon. K. N. R. HUSBANDS: I beg to second that.

The question was put and resolved in the affirmative
wihtout division, and Mr. DEP'TY SPEAKER adjourned the
House accordingly.

8.05 p.m,











THE


SENATE


DEBATES


(OFFICIAL REPORT)


SECOND SESSION OF 1966 71


THE SENATE
Thursday, December 21, 1967.
The Senate met in the Senate Chamber, Public
Buildings, at 3 o'clock p.m. today.

PRESENT

His Honour Senator E. S. ROBINSON, C.B.E.,
(President); His Honour Senator CAsquith PHILLIPS,
B.A., (Deputy President); Senator the Honourable
P. M. GREAVES, B.A., (Minister of Home Affairs);
Senator the Honourable F. G. SMITH, Q.C., (Attor-
ney General); Senator the Honourable L. E.
SANDIFORD, M.A., (Minister of Education); Senator
C. L. BRATHWAITE; Senator S. V. ASHBY; Senator
W. .W. BLACKMAN, M.B.E. Senator F. C. H.
CAREW; Senator S. A. BLANCHETTE; Senator D. A.
WILES, C.M.G., O.B.E.; Senator F. L. WALCOTT,
.0B.E.; Senator Erma ROCK; Senator H. F. ALKINS;
Senator Dr. R. B. CADDLE, B.Sc., M.B.B.S.; Senator
P. G. MORGAN; Senator R. G. MAPP; Senator N. A.
BARROW, B.A.; Senator M. A. KING;

ABSENT

Senator H. Odessa GITTENS, M.R.S.H. (Parlia-
mentary Secretary); Senator E. Lisle WARD;

Prayers were said.

EXCUSES FOR ABSENCE

The Clerk informed the Senate that he had been
asked to offer excuses for the absence of Senator H.
Odessa Gittens and Senator E. Lisle Ward from the
day's meeting.

CHANGES IN THE SENATE

Before the Business of the day was enteredupon
His Honour the President read the text of the follow-
ing letter from His Excellency the Governor-Gener-
al:-

ANNOUNCEMENT

HIS HONOUR THE PRESIDENT: Honourable
Senators, I have received the following letter from
His Excellency the Governor General dated 15th
September, 1967.


Dear Sir,
I have the honour to inform you that con-
sequent on the appointment as Ambassador to the
United States of America andpermanent representa-
tive to the United Nations with effect from the 15th
December 1967, Senator the Hon. H. A. Vaughan
Minister of State has tendered his resignation as a
member of the Senate of Barbados. I have, accordingly,
acting on the advice of the Prime Minister, issued
an instrument declaring vacant the seat of Senator
*Vaughan with effect from the 16th December.

(2) To fill the vacancy created by Senator
Vaughan's resignation I have, in accordance with
the advice of the Prime Minister, appointed Mr. M.
A. King as a member of the Senate with effect from
the 15th December 1967.

I will ask the clerk of the Senate to conduct
Senator King to the seat.

Mr. King entered the Senate and took his seat.
(Cheers)

WELCOME TO SENATOR KING

Mr. PRESIDENT: Senator King, on behalf of all
senators I should like to extend to you a very hearty
welcome to this Honourable Chamber. I understand
thai you are a very active member of the Bar Asso-
ciation and also that you have contributed a great
deal to various public duties in this island. I also
understand that in your profession you have paid a
great deal of attention to Constitutional Law. With
that background, I am sure that youwill assist me in
maintaining and defending the dignity and honour of
this Chamber.

We all look forward to your contribution to the
various debates that will come before this Chamber
from time to time. Once again I welcome you to this
body.

SENATOR M. A. KING: Mr. President, Ithank
you for your kind welcome to me as a senator, an
appointment made by His Excellency the Governor
General acting on the advice of the Prime Minister.
I take this occasion which Ithinkis an appropriate one
for thanking him for affording me the opportunity and
the honour of serving my country in this Chamber.


__
I _








269


I look forward, Mr. President, to being of service
in this Chamber, and I thank you for the compliment
you have paid me. Ialso look forward to upholding the
dignity of this House and making my contribution in
whatever way I can towards the progress of this is -
land and the good government of this island. (Cheers)

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES (CURRENT)
No. 31

The President called the first Order A Reso-
lution to place the sum of $9,600 at the disposal of the
Government to supplement the Estimates 1967 68
Part 1 Current, as shown in the Supplementary Es-
timates 1967 -68, No. 31, which forms the Schedule
to the Resolution.

SENATOR THE HONOURABLE P. M. GREAVES:
Mr. President, If I may refer first to that item
which falls under Head 43, Medical Aid Scheme, I
should like to say that provision was made by the
Government from time to time in the Annual Esti-
mates of sums of money to assist in sending abroad
persons who were patients at the Queen Elizabeth
Hospital to obtain medical and surgical aid which
could not be obtained locally. The persons who bene-
fit under this scheme are usually persons who are
unable to meet these expenses from their own re-
sources.

During the current year the amount of $12,000
was provided but this amount had been all used up by
the middle of this year and in fact I think that there
was only $2,000 remaining at the end of September.
Ten persons were treated abroad but one had to be
sent to New York and another the case of P. C.
Ashby to London.

It is now estimated that another $9,000 is re-
quired to supplement this vote to the end of the fin-
ancial year.

Under Head 14, Inland Revenue, furniture and
equipment, an additional $600 is required. The Senate
will recall that earlier in the year a Civil Establish-
ment Order was passed by the Legislature increase -
ing the staff of the Inland Revenue Department by two.
The amount now asked for is required to provide
furniture and equipment like desks, chairs andfiling
cabinets.

I move, Sir, that the Resolution be concurred in.

Senator the Hon. F. G. Smith seconded the motion.

The question was put to the Senate and agreed to.

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE (CURRENT)
No. 37

The President called the second Order -A Reso-
lution to place the sum of $4,034 at the disposal of the
Government to supplement the Estimates 1967 -68,
Part 1 Current as shown in the Supplementary Es -
timates 1967 68 No. 37 which forms the Schedule to
the Resolution.


SENATOR THE HONOURABLE P. M. GREAVES:
Mr. President, During the last financial yearwhen
salaries were revisedthe Government decidedthatan
effort should be made to have all arrears of salaries
paid by the 15th of January, 1967.1Now, Sir, you will
be aware that the period in which this had to be done
was short and therefore certain members of the ser-
vice had to be pressed into working overtime.

The Department of Highways and Transport has
a very large staff and the Accounting Section of the
Ministry of Communications and Works, in order to
meet the deadline, had to work overtime for 2,517
hours. It is proposed that this staff whichhad to work
for hours outside the normal hours of duty should be
remunerated for the hours they put in.

Under this head $2,500 was provided in the Es-
timates, but this was not provided to meet overtime
that has been done during the previous financial year. It
is proposed that the sum of $4,034 will be required to
supplement the vote and meet the heavy overtime
commitment.

I move, Sir, that the Resolution be concurred in.

Senator the hon. F. G. Smith seconded the motion.

SENATOR W. W. BLACKMAN: Mr. President, -
I think that this is money well spent if the arrears are
to be paid from the 15th of January. I am surprised
that the Ministry of Education did not get their ar-
rears fixed until May or June and that is one of the
reasons why teachers are a disgruntled lot of people.
It is felt at times that teachers need not be considered
when it comes to these things.

SENATOR THE HONOURABLE F. 0. SMITH: Mr.
President, The Government does not accept the
contention of the senator who has just spoken. He
should know the teachers were pressed into service
to get through the business of the arrears.Itisno
fault of the Government; the teachers themselves had
to make their calculations. This revision came late
in the year. Then Independence came along and!then
Christmas. It was understandable that the teachers
themselves volunteered to work on their own scheme.
The Senator knows that.

HIS HONOUR THE PRESIDENT: I didgiveSena-
tor Blackman a certain amount of latitude; butthis
Resolution has to do with Highways and Transport. It
is nothing to do with Education

SENATOR W. W. BLACKMAN: It deals with over-
time, Sir.

The question that the Resolution be concurred in
was put to the Senate and agreed to.

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES (CURRENT)
No. 35

The President called the third Order A Reso-
lution to place the sum of $91,145 at the disposal of
the Government to supplement the Estimates 1967-68












P Irt 1 Current as shown in the Supplementary Es-
timates 1967 68 No. 35 which forms the Schedule to
the Resolution.

SENATOR THE HONOURABLE P. M. GREAVES:
Mr. President, This is a request for an additional
amount arising out of the damage that was done in
certain parts of the island at the time of the floods of
December last year.

During the last financial year $142,444 was pro -
vided by way of a supplementary vote under Highways
and Transport in order to meet the cost of repairs to
some of the damage that had been done. Of this amount
$75,940 was not spent at the end of the financial year
and therefore lapsed. It is not that the work was
stopped by the Government but that the works depart-
ment was not fully geared to spend more than this
amount by the 31st March 1967 and at the same time
to carry out all the other works required of them.

It will be appreciated that it was very difficult to
estimate accurately the amount of damage done and
the expenditure to which the Government would be put
to make good this damage. No provision was included
in this year's estimates for the conclusion of the work
which commenced immediately after the floods of
December 1966.

Sir, $68,000was includedin this year's estimates
in order to meet the outstanding bill. The amount that
was outstanding at the end of the financial year was
$62,510.59 and this has had to be paid out of the
$68,000.

It is now estimated that the damage which has
been caused in the Scotland Area would amount to
$400,000. It is impossible for the works department
to spend this amount of money by the end of this
financial year. In fact, they themselves estimate that
they cannot spend more than about $93,000 by the
31st March 1967. Therefore they have decided to make
good the damage done in St. Andrew, St. Joseph, St.
John at places like Coggins Bridge, Spring Vale,
Parkes Road, Spa Road and Newcastle.

Sir, there is amount of $2,622 now in the vote
and as I said just now the repair of the places I have
mentioned would need an expenditure of $93,767.
Therefore the amount required to supplement the
amount left in the vote is $91,145.

I move, Sir, that the Resolution be concurred in.

Senator the Honourable L. E. Sandiford seconded
the motion.

SENATOR F. L. WALCOTT: Mr. President, -
In supporting this Resolution I wish to draw to the
Government's attention that it is time that they make
a full survey of this perennial problem in St. Andrew.
Whenever there is a heavy rainfall there is this sit-
uation that you have to put back bridges or that you
find part of the land which seems to be going towards
the Atlantic Ocean.


You have to save people from themselves, and ac-
quiescence in ignorance is a dangerous thing for a
Government. The more you allow ignorance to pre-
vail in a community, the more ignorance multiplies.

If you make an analysis of the amount of money
spent in St. Andrew from time to time on this problem
it will run into millions of dollars. Whom are you
serving by that collossal expenditure? It is time that
you get expert advice from people who know some-
thing about soil erosion and have a long term plan.

For years now you have been making another
attempt at Coggins Bridge. It is time that you make
a full survey and even to divert roads to get away
from the problem of soil erosion after rainfall. The
East Coast road proved to be a relief in bringing traf-
fic from that difficult area. It would be a good thing
if the Government continues to watch that area and
see that some check is made on the erosion of soil.

There is another danger, not only in St. Andrew,
from some of these bolders overhanging some of
the cliffs in the island. I do not know what is the
Government's attitude towards these things. I have a
feeling that someone will wait until one goes into a
house and then the churches will pray for the souls
of those who have departed. Let someone go around
and see if they are dangerous rather than wait until
they fall on someone and then say that it is an act of
God.

One of these days Iwouldlike to see St. Andrew
an Industrial park. Utilise the land where you cannot
grow food and use it for other purposes. Some sort
of success has been made in the Morgan Lewis Area.
I know that these surveys are costly; but the United
Nations andorganisationslike that, have experts that
they can lend. I think that for the good of the whole
country you should do something about this area
which is plagued by soil erosion and see if you can
rehabilitate some of the land and avoid this continual
expenditure of hundreds of thousands of dollars.

If one goes back it will be seen that over the last
twenty years the amount spent will go into millions
of dollars. I hope that something will be done to re-
lieve us of this waste of land by a better use of the
land.

SENATOR THE HONOURALBE P. M. GREAVES:
There is in fact nothing to reply to. Senator Walcott
will agree with me, I believe, that like everything else,
this is a question of finance. Senator Walcott was
wrong in one respect. It is not that a survey was not
made of the Scotland Area. One was made a couple
of years ago. The findings of the survey were that
an amount of $70 million to $80 million would be re-
quired in order to put good the Scotland Area and
cease soil erosion.

The amount of $70 million and it is more than that
is a lot of money in any language. We are trying our
best in difficult circumstances. The Deputy Director
of Agriculture who still retains responsibility for soil


i -i'












-erosion problems in the area is doing a wonderful'
job in difficult circumstances because we do nothave
enough money to put that part of the island in order.

It may be true that the amount of money put into
the roads was washed away; but roads are only one of
the problems of soil conservation. There are several
other problems in the area because of which people
iare prevented from doing other things which they
would be able to do in other parts of the island.

I would like to draw attention to the time and the
money spent over the past three years on soil con-
servation alone. In 1965 -66 the amount provided was
$703,900. In 1966 67 it was $604,000. During this
year $788,681 was provided for the purpose of soil
conservation. In other words over the past three
financial years the Government has provided about
$2 million for this very purpose.

It is a difficult problem and we are hoping, now
that we have joined certain agencies, that some of
them will give us some assistance in doing these
things which Senator Walcott feels should be done. At
the moment however, these funds are needed and
should be made available.

The question that the Resolution was put to the
Senate and agreed to.

ACQUISITION OF LAND AT SAND STREET
ST. PETER

The President called the fourth Order -A Reso-
lution to approve the compulsory acquisition by the
Crown in right of its Government under the provisions
of the Land Acquisition Act, 1949 of parcels of land
together with buildings and erections which forms the
Schedule to this Resolution.

SENATOR THE HONOURABLE P.M.GREAVES:
Mr. President, This is another erosion problem ex-
cept that on this occasion erosion is caused by the sea
and the Government is moving to protect that area of
land in the Sand Street, St. Peter area.

The area referred to is twelve thousand one hun-
dred and twenty square feet. There have been a number
of chattel houses sited in the area as well as two wall
ibuitiiis. The chattel houses have now all been re-
moved and the tenants have been re-sited in another
area near the centre of Speighstown nearwhere there
is the housing estate.

Sir, the Government has been able to come to
some understanding with the tenants and the owners
of the property with the exception of one. This owner
has been asking what the Government considers to be
a very exorbitant sum of money. It is thus necessary
to invoke the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act.
In respect of some other lots of land, although the
good owners are willing to sell they are unable to give
nlarketable titles. This includes the ladiidf that owner
who has been holding out.

I move, Sir, that the Resolution be concurredin.


Senator the Honourable F.G.Smith seconded the
motion.

SENATOR F. L. WALCOTT: Mr. President, I
am pleased to see this Resolution here. I am going to
say some startling things about this. I have heard a
lot of talk about dictatorship. If it was in my power I
would acquire land, put the money in the bank and say
it is there.

This land along Sand Street should have (been
taken over after the fire. If you allow Barbadians to
waste their time waiting for a crisis youwill have to
wait too long. Sometimes a good hurricane takes fifty
or sixty years to come and I have not seen a good fire
in my lifetime to solve some of these problems. You
have to go through this democratic process aid some-
times it takes years. A goodfire settles it in a night.

Sand Street was always a dangerous area. Not
only did the sea come in, but afew years ago it near-
ly took all of them out. The Minister has said that
erosion is a questionoffinance. These are the sort of
plans that big organizations like to see you have on
paper. This is the kind of money that these organisa-
tions like to hear you talking about to be spent over
say twenty five years. When you are a Government
you can talk in terms of millions of dollars. You are
doing something for posterity.

There is another point. Barbadians must learnto
beautify their country. These little chattel house swill
be moved from time to time. I hope it will not be 'i like
in Redman's Village dropping a house here and there
and everywhere. Let us remember whatwas the area
where the Government Headquarters now is. There
were a lot of shacks. You will not allow them to
remain there now.

I had the honour for many years to represent the
constituency of St. Peter. This is something I have
been asking for for many years. All these dangerous
houses that overlook the road should be removed as
quickly as possible from the point of view of traffic.


I hope that you will also get more people to look
after the East Coast Road and Bathsheba where you
have opened land. Get people to beautify them and
make something of them not only as a tourist attrac-
tion. For the sake of the traffic give it somewhere
where you can go off the road. Would like to see the
Government acquire land in dangerous places. Do not
wait to see what might happen.


Sometimes we get ablessing-indisguise. The sea
coming in and taking away property makes you see the
dangers. I hope that this would induce the Government
to go further into matters of this nature. The time has
come when you will have to be very rigid in acquiring
Land. I find in Barbados that as soon as you talk about
acquisition of land the people think that you are going
to take away their rights. The Acquisitionof land for
public purposes like this is forthe benefit of the com-
Smunity as a whole.








272


There are many places that you will not get
cleared up until there is a fire. The present Sand
Street will always be Sand Street until we get a good
fire. I feel that this is the only way that you can get
progress.

RESOLUTION RE-POSTAGE OF PARCELS

The President called the fifth Order A Resolu-
tion that from the first dayofJanuary, 1968 the post-
age of parcels to the destinations set out in Column
1 of the Schedule to this Resolution shall be according
to the poundage as set ou in Columns.

SENATOR THE HONOURABLE P.M.GREAVES:
Mr. President, Earlier in the year the Government I
was notified that the Post Office Revenue,. Item No. 2 -'
Nett Credit on Overseas Parcel Post -was showing a
debit balance. That was because the U. K. terminal
charges on parcels sent had been increased from the
1st January 1967, but there was no corresponding in-
crease in the Barbadian terminal charges.

As it is explained, this revenue represents ter-
minal credits due by this Government on parcels be-
tween the Postal registrations of various countries.
In order to reduce this debit balance the Government
had to increase the charges made on parcels with ef-
fect from the 1st. July this year.

Now the Postmaster General has been informed
by the Postal Administration in Canada that it pro-
poses to increase terminal charges from the 1st. Jan-
uary 1968. That is what the Senate is being asked to
approve to do. The schedule to the Resolution sets out
quite clearly the amount of money that would now be
charged on the postage of parcels to Canada.

I move, Sir, that the Resolution be concurred in.

Senator the Honourable F. G. Smith secondedthe
motion.

The question was put and agreed to.

CIVIL ESTABLISHMENT (GENERAL) (AMEND-
MENT) NO. 11) ORDER 1967.

The President called the sixth Order A Resolu-
tion to give effect to the Civil Establishment (General)
(Amendment) (No. 11) Order, 1967.

SENATOR THE HONOURABLE P.M.GREAVES:
Mr. President, This Resolution is in respect of the
regarding of the salaries of Magistrates, the Assistant
Crown Counsel, the Steward of the Prisons as well as
the Chief Matron.

The salary scale for Magistrates is X. 3 1 which
is a very long one. For some time, magistrates have
expressed some dissatisfaction about their grading
and for a long time the Judiciary has been. understaffed.
In fact it was staffed by persons not on the permanent
establishment.


Sir, in order to make these posts more attractive,
it is now proposed that the Grade should be removed
from X 2-1 to X 3-1 so that the Magistrates can
start at ahigherpoint inthe salary scale and take less
time to reach the maximum of their scale.

I am happy to see that the Bench is now fully
staffed by persons who are permanent, and this is so
because they were made to understand that measures
would be taken to correct this long source of dis-
satisfaction.

As far as the post of Assistant Crown Counsel is
concerned, when the post of Cadet/Administrative
Assistant was created, two of these posts were as-
signed to the Legal Department. Sometime ago two;
posts of Assistant Crown Counsel were created spe-
cifically to replace the two posts of Cadet/Adminis-
trative Assistant assigned to the Legal Department.
When these posts were created there were notplaced
in the grade in which they were first to be placed and
therefore were not in parity with their former posts.
It is now proposed to correct this anomaly.

It is also proposed in this Order to upgrade the
post of Steward at the Prisons. The position is that the
Steward should rank immediately after the Chief
Officer at the Prisons, so that when the salaries were
revised last year the post of Steward was also revised
but the salary was not revised in such a way as to set
out the relationship between the post of Steward and
Chief Officer. It is now proposed to establish his se-
niority not onlyonpaper but also in salary. There-
fore his salary will be upgraded from $2,880 a year
reaching a maximum of $3,960 to $2,880 rising to $3,
960 4,320.

An anomaly has also arisen where the post of
Chief Matron and the post of First Class Officer are
concerned, this Order also seeks to restore the pre-
vious grade of the Chief Matron.

I move, Sir, that the Resolution be concurred in.
Seaator F.L.WALCOTT: Mr. President, You
will remember that not long ago when you were deal-
ing with salaries in the Legal Department I said that
you could not get anyone worthwhile for $300 a month.
As soon as a professional man wants only $300 a month
you can forget him. If he is still at that level he can-
not be much.

As far as these anomalies re concerned, do not
think that they will stop here. We know from expe-
rience that when you have a salaries revision anom-
alies will rise, and by the time you get the report of
of the Anomalies Committee further anomalies will
arise.

As far as increments in the Government Service
are concerned there is no point in maintaining the old
fashioned system of giving someone $10 or $15 more
a year. It is better to broaden this scale and let a man
go up in the scale quicker. To get $20 more year in
the Government Service you have to be right up.








273k


A lot of the Government increments are too low so
that the persons involved do not move quickly enough.
When it comes to Magistratesyou[ have them at dif-
ferent levels of experience. You have this long scale
of $6,300 a year to $9,000.

The salary of $9,000 year for a magistrate as a
Magistrate is comparatively high, but he cannot prac -
tice on the High Court Bench, and if the magistrate is
a man with accumulated experiences he will not be
around long enough to reach the $9,000. The whole dif-
ficulty is that the scale is too long to attract bright
people to the Service.

I am glad that the Government has moved on this.
I have no particular axe to grind for Magistrates, but
from the point of view of professional appointments
it looks to me, as I said the last time, that you will
not find people who are any good at this salary taking
into account the length of the scale. What the Minister
said today justifies my earlier remarks because you
cannot recruit and retain people at the present scale,
and I think that the Government will be forced from
time to time to revise its incremental standard.

SENATOR THE HONOURABLE F.G. SMITH: Mr.
President, The whole question of the point in the
scale at which a magistrate is appointed would depend
on his experience. Senator Walcott will appreciate that
a man can do post graduate study in Medicine and get
his FRCS, Ibut in lawyou gain by experience, education
and application to learning.

In Barbados a man who is called to the Bar may
be appointed a Magistrate the next day if the Judicial
and Legal Service Commission approves. You can see,
therefore, that you can have on the Bench magistrates
of varying experience.

I would like to add that you cannot be appointed to
the High Court Bench unless you have been a barrister
for at least ten years, so that the incremental system
enables the judicial and legal service commission to
appoint a Magistrate so that in fairness, he gets an incre-
ment for each year since he was called to the Bar.

It is not too much to hope that barristers may
serve their country in a judicial capacity. If you get
a man with one year's experience, then of course he
must work his way up and acquire experience as time
progresses. Barbados is unlike some other countries
where the law requires that a man must have been a
barrister for a certain number of years, say five, be -
fore he can be appointed to the Magisterial.Bench.

The incremental scale has been passed onto us.
It has its good points and its bad points. In any service
you must have persons who must work theirway up and
'to such time as experience enables them to reach the
top of their particular grade. If Senator Walcott is
speaking about the economy of the country and our
ability to pay I would like to hear him.
With respect to the Assistant Crown Counsel I
think we agree that the salary is not as rosy as we
would like. The Assistant Crown Counsel's, post is


purely one for a person just called to the Bar who
might not have been able to afford reading in Chambers
in England. However because of officers goingon study
leave and sick leave persons working in the Attorney
General's Office have an opportunity of being trans-
ferred from one post to another. The opportunity for
promotion in the Legal Service in Barbados was never
so promising to those who want to contribute some-
thing in the field of Jurisprudence.

I think that Senator Walcott used the words prac-
tising on people. I do not like those words. Justice is
too priceless a thing.

SENATOR F. L. WALCOTT: I would like to say
that even doctors practise on people and that is how
they get experience. All Iam saying is that when a man
goes on the Bench and deals with cases like stand-
pipe rows he is more or less practising. A mistake
made at that level is not as grave as if you are on
another Bench.

SENATOR THE HONOURABLE F. G. SMITH:
There is no question of a person trying a stand-pipe
case. Justice even at that level is precious. There is
no big justice and little justice. Any case needs to be
judgedon the basis of what is lawful and fair. I must
join issue with Senator Walcott on that score.

SENATOR W.W. BLACKMAN: Mr. President,- I
must agree with the Honourable Attorney General that
the man on the street must be convinced when he goes
before a Magistrate that he knows what he is doing,
and that he is acting in accordance with the rules of law.
I still think however, that the salaries of the
Magistrates are not high enough. If you want a good
man and you want to keep him he should not be on this
long scale. The scale in executive posts should be
shorter. Salaries must be good enough. That is why
young people with qualifications are leaving the Service.

As regards the Steward of the Prison Iam glad to
see that since 1966 something has been done.

SENATOR N. A. BARROW: Mr. President, lam
in complete agreement with theAttorney General that
you cannot agree with these comments which will en-
courage some doubts about the competence of a man
on the Bench.

When the Attorney General was speaking two
points occurred to me. One was whether we will con-
tinue doing little bits like this coming to the Legisla-
ture all the time or do something more comprehen-
sive as far as outstanding anomalies are concerned.

There is another thing. The Attorney General said
that a man could do a post graduate course in medi-
cine and get his MRCS, FRCS etc., but a lawyer had
to learn from experience. I would think that it is true
to say that in any field one has to learn from experience
regardless of whether or not he does a post graduate
course. I thought that there were post graduate courses
in Law. If he is saying that if a Magistrate had a
Graduate qualification it would not be taken into con-
sideration I would like to know why.








274


SENATOR THE HONOURABLE P. M. GREAVES:
Mr. President, Senator Barrow seems to be con-
fusing posts and post graduate.

SENATOR N. A. BARROW: On a pointofOrder.
I am doing no such thing. The Attorney General gave
the impression that there are no post graduate cour-
ses open to lawyers.

SENATOR THE HONOURABLE P. M. GREAVES:
This Resolution deals with the regarding of certain
posts. Certain points have been made, one by Sena-
tor Barrow. His point is that he prefers to see a
comprehensive presentation of anomalies. One thing
to remember is that the department which deals with
these matters is not a specialised department with-
in itself. We do not have certain officers who look
after these matters and who deal with anomalies
from the Education Department, Prisons and other
departments. So it means that these anomalies have
to be dealt with one by one as it is disposed of by
by that department. I do not disagree that it would
not be a desirable thing to have them dealt with
comprehensively, but it would require much more
time for them to reach Parliament than happens at
present. Possibly by the timathat another salaries
revision come around all the anomalies from the
last revision would not have been sorted out, and
the officers themselves would be the ones to suffer.

SENATOR N. A. BARROW: On a point of Order.
Is the Minister saying that it will take five years to
get through the whole lot?

MR. PRESIDENT: That is not a point of Order.

SENATOR THE HONOURABLE P.M. GREAVES:
Thank you Mr. President. On the question of the in-
crements of magistrates I think that everyone would
agree that magistrates or anyone appointed to these
posts are credited with the number of years expe-
rience they have a person appointed as a Magistrate,
if he has eight years experience will not be placed
at the minimum. He will possibly be appointed at
the maximum.


The question that the Resolution be concurred in
was put and agreed to.

RESOLUTION TO AMEND NOTE TO ESTIMATES
UNDER HEAD 11, ITEM 17, EX GRATIA
GRATUITIES

The President called the seventh Order AReso-
lution to amend the note in the current Estimates to
Head 11 Pensions, Item 17 Ex gratia gratuities.


SENATOR THE HONOURABLE P.M. GREAVES:
Mr. President, It has been brought to the notice of
the Government that there are a few persons employed
on a temporary basis in the service of the Government
who did not qualify for retiring benefits under the Pen-
sions Act of 1947 or the Casual Employees Pensions
Act of 1961.


If such persons were appointed to permanent or
pensionable posts they wouldhave qualifiedunder the
Pensions Act, and if theywere casual employees they
would be qualified for such benefits underthe Casual
Employees Pensions Act.

This Resolution proposes to permit the making of
ex gratia awards to those persons who held costs for
a limited period and did not qualify iinder the Act.

I move, Sir, that the Resolution be concurredin.

Senator the honourable F. G. Smith seconded the
motion.

The question was put to the Senate and agreed to.

RESOLUTION TO SANCTION THE SHOPS
ORDER, 1967.

The President called the eighth Order A Reso-
lution to sanction the Order cited as the Shops Order,
1967.

SENATOR THE HONOURABLE P.M. GREAVES:'
Mr. President, For the past few years a similar Or-
der has been brought before this Chamber and passed.
They have been brought at the expressed request of
the commercial community, and the general public
finds it convenient to shop at these hours.
The Order, Sir, speaks for itself. It enables cer-
tain categories of shops like retail provision shops,
bakers, butchers, fishmongers and druggists to
remain open during the week before Christmas until
7.30 on Fridays on the c condition that any shop that so
remains open will have to close at 1 p.m. on the fol-
lowing Saturday.
The Order will also enable a shop to open until
6 p.m. on Mondays, Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday'
in order to facilitate the shopping f the general public;
and it also provides for the payingofovertime rates
to employees working beyond the normal hours of
duty.
I move, Sir, that the Resolution be concurred in.

Senator the Honourable L. E. Sandiford seconded
the motion.
SENATOR D. A. WILES: Mr. President, -I am
confounded, and my confusion is shared by certain
employers. They are not sure if this is the law on the
21st of December, 1967. Several areunderthe impres-
sion that this Order does not become effective until it
is passed by both Houses of Parliament, has received
the assent of the Governor-General and has been
gazetted.
Under the circumstances Sir, certainemployers
have seen fit to keep the law which, it has just been
pointed out by the Learned Attorney General, is a pre-
cious commodity. Others have seen fit to risk breaking
the law.
I think that it would be illuminating if either the
Minister who introduced the Resolution or the Hon-
ourable Attorney General could enlighten us onwhen
this Order becomes law. If it is-not law on the 21st








1275


of December or until it is gazetted what official
cognizance will be taken of the fact that certain em-
ployers open beyond the statutory period?

A specious argument has been advanced about
intention. The Minister made the Order, I think, on
the 8th December and if this Chamber sees fit to
sanction it, it will date from the 8th of December.
That is the argument, but I am sorry to say that I
cannot see it. You may say that it is the intention,
but it is not the law of the land. It is something which,
I feel, needs clarification.

I am reminded that this happens every year, but
several of the mercantile community have been put
in an invidious position. Clerks who are in their
employ feel that they must be protected by the law.
Itis right and proper that a person must feel pro-
tected by the law of the land. It is felt that the way
in which this matter has been handled leaves us to
expect that there will be certain official action
taken to make it clear that certain persons have
broken the law.

The Minister reminded us that this Order is a
perennial one one that is brought at the express
request of the mercantile community on behalf of
which I am now able to speak with a great deal of
personal experience.

I think that whether it is Christmas time or not,
when a clerk has been on his feet for eight continuous
hours a day he has had it. To ask them to put in
more hours in our climate is asking a great deal. I
admit that the law demands the payment of overtime
which the employee usually has to spend in taxi fare
to get home.

There is another point. If closing time is 5
o'clock or perhaps 6 o'clock does it mean that the
staff has to be off the premises at that time, or can
he or she be detained after that time? If the former
is correct, will appropriate official action be taken
to see that the staff is set free at the proper time?

In practice, it would be awkward if a clerk told
his employer "It is 6 o'clock, let me leave," but they
must be protected by the law. I think I read that in
the Other Place the question was raised about the
proposed Shops Order which is to integrate the
principles with which we are dealing this afternoon

May I suggest, Sir, that although it is said
that this Order is forthe convenience of the general
public, at 5 o'clock today business in Bridgetown is
very slack indeed. I wonder if in contemplating this
provision the welfare of the sales staffs has been
taken into consideration?

SENATOR F. L. WALCOTT: Mr. President, What
I want to say first of all is that the Government set
up a committee to go into this whole business of
shops. I was chairman of the committee and recom-
mendations have been made to the Government, and
this is only one of the things inthe recommendations.


The report of the committee was sent in since
1965. There is a series of recommendations in-
cluding this question of opening late on Fridays.
People came and gave evidence about this late
opening, not only at Christmas, but about making an
examination of the established shopping patterns of
the said island. As I remember it, there was some
disquiet about one shop having to close because it
was in Bridgetown and another just over the border
being allowed to remain open.

For a long time Barbados has cut out night
shopping. We said that we would not revert to night
shopping, that we were not going back to the old
Saturday night times. What I would like to see is the
Government getting out that report and making up
its mind that it will implement the report and do not
wait until every time Christmas comes along to
bring down this Order. This only irritates people.
As I have said, the report was handed in since 1965.
It could have been done even before this Government
came into power.

With regard to what Senator Wiles said, in so far
as the sales staffs are concerned it is always diffi-
cult to know how theyfeel. It is difficult to get a
comprehensive point of view.

With respect to the other point, I agree that if
the Minister makes an Order and that Orderdoes not
require the approval of the Legislature before it be-
comes operative some people are still in doubt as
to whether they can open or close; but my main
point is that the Government should do something
about the report of the committee so as to have a
comprehensive view about the opening and closing
of shops. Our legislation is still archaic.

SENATOR H. F. ALKINS: Mr. President, I
am not going to go over all the ground covered,
by my colleague, but using such commonsense as
Providence has endowed me with, I would think that
an Order which has to be brought before the Legis-
lature for sanction is not law until that approval
has been obtained.


What I would say is that I do not think that the
Government has treated the general public and the
mercantile community with courtesy. This is an
order to facilitate Christmas shopping and they wait
until two shopping days before Christmas to bring
it to this honourable Chamber. That does not seem to
!me to be good enough.


As the Minister said, this is an annual procedure.
It is not something new. It is not something that was
suddenly thrown on the Legal Department. It has
been in existence for some years. It is only a ques-
tion of bringing it down to the Legislature. I cannot
for the life of me see why an Order like this could
not be made a standing Order not requiring legis-
lative approval. Of course there may be some legal
reason for it.







276 .


That is the main point that I want to make. I
want to support what Senator Walcott said. The Minis-
ter said that it was brought forward at the request
of the: mercantile community. It is true that we did.
ask that this matter of closing of shops should be
looked into. The report was submitted and not a
single thing has been done about it since: asifar as
I know. The only attempt to meet our request was
this annual Order.
Before I sit, (let me take the opportunityto bring
forward my annual objection. On each occasion that
this order has come before us I have said that there
is no reason why you should pick out certain shops.
The modern supermarket sells food hardwareland
drug items and they can remain open and yet you do
not allow hardware stores and drug stores to open
late. How can a policeman stop anyone from taking
something in the drug store line or hardware line
in a supermarket at the same time that she is buy-
ing items of food?

Mr. President,I there is only one other point that
I want to make. The Minister said that this is an an-
nual procedure. Last year the Minister said that
the Government intended to bring in comprehensive
legislation. I did not think that this year we would
be having to consider this Order again.

That was the excuse last year for bringing the
Order down so late. The excuse this year is ap-
parently that because it is an annual feature it can
come down late. If we are going to facilitate the
shopping public by having an order of this sort I
really cannot understand why it is not brought down
in good time.

What is the delay in bringing down the compre-
hensive legislation? I know that we have changed
Attorneys General, but I Ithought that the matterwould
have been speeded up.

SENATOR THE HONOURABLE F. G. SMITH: Mr.
President, The Government has got to take the
blame for the criticism made against it. Let us first
deal with the point made by Senator Walcott. This
legislation has been ready for two years and should
already have been enacted. I can give you my under-
taking that this legislation will be laid before the
Other Place very early in the session.

There is no excuse. It is an oversight either on
the part of the Minister, the Civil Service or the
Mercantile community that it has not been brought.
Someone is to blame. I can give you my personal
undertaking and the undertaking of the Government
that since it is clear that the need for this legisla-
tion is urgent, it will be introduced early next year.

I always take my hat off to the members of the
business community. Senator Wiles has good busi-
ness acumen. I am Attorney General as he knows,
and he also knows that the question of a breach of the
Shops Act is a criminal matter. I have nothing to do
with prosecutions. The only person who can prose-
cute criminal cases is the Director of Public Prose-
cutions who exercises his functions subject to the


control and authority of no one. I will have to refer
to him because I do not have the information; so you
will forgive me if I do not say now whether it is a
breach of the law. If any question of prosecution
arises, the Director of Public Prosecutions will take
the appropriate action.

I can assure the senator that there was no
discrimination. Certain merchants, I imagine, who
were aware of the annual nature of this Order, took
a chance in order, perhaps, to satisfy the demands
of their customers. I think that if they satisfied the
Magistrate that it was done for that reason the most
they would get is a C.R.D. convicted, reprimanded
and dischared. The penalty for the breach would be
minimal. Because of the plea of satisfying the cus-
tomers they would get off without having to spend
some of the profits that they would have made.
Now, Sir, this Order was passed by the Other
Place possibly last week. It was hoped that we could
have dealt with it on the Thursday of the same week
by asking the Senate to suspend the necessary Stand-
ing Orders. For some reason or other I understand
the Speaker could not be found to append his signa-
ture to the document. In the general confusion some-
thing went wrong. I am sure that the Senate would
have allowed us to deal with it last Thursday.

I think that Senator Alkins' point is relevant
when he said that the shops allowedto open late bear
no relation to changing economic patterns. I will
give the undertaking that the criticisms made this
year will not arise next year. I will see that the
legislation is before Parliament at an early date.
The Government apologises for the sorry state in
which this Order has come before us.

SENATOR R. G. MAPP: Mr. President, On the
face of it the Attorney General has been very frank
and has admitted sins of omission or of commission.
What I do not appreciate is how the Civil Servants
get into this. Legislationis eitherreadyornot ready.

THE PRESIDENT: I think that he did admit that
it was the fault of the Government.
SENATOR R. G. MAPP: He said that it was the
fault of either.......

SENATOR THE HONOURABLE F. G. SMITH: I
am not blaming the Civil Servants. Senator Mapphas
been a Minister and he knows that sometimes things
do not reach you until there is a crisis already. I am
not blaming any Civil Servant except in the general
course of administrative procedure.
SENATOR R. G. MAPP: I do not remember any
case of legislation being ready for two years and not
coming down. After listening to the Attorney General
who has been so adroit I really had to get up and
talk.
After hearing Senator Walcott who said that the
Government has been considering this comprehensive
legislation since 1960 I am of the opinion that they
must seriously review the need for having the legis-
lation at all because there is no doubt that the trend
has changed drastically.













What Senator Wiles said is perfectly true. Last
year very few people did any shopping after 4 o'clock.
In years gone by when there were no supermarkets
people felt that they did not have enough time for shop-
ping and on the night before Christmas it was bed-
lam in certain areas. That pattern has changed con-
siderably.

It may be that there are some people who have
to work so hard that they sometimes cannot get a
chance to shop for themselves. That is something
for which the Government should apologise. And
may be by the time that the Government gets around
to sending down this legislation which has been ready
for twoyears we will see the need for a real re-
vision of policy.

I hope, Sir, that this Government will be as
zealous about seeing that the law is carried out as
I understand was said in a debate when I was not
present. If I was a businessman and I broke the law
I would be made an example. It seems to me that
this Government can be very threatening about
bringing down the heavy hand of the law over a
storm in a tea cup and where leglity is not even in
issue. That happens where certain people are con-
cerned.

Even now we have not heard what is the law on
this issue of shops closing from the Learned Attor-
ney General. I have the greatest respect for the At-
torney General; but when I hear statements made in
certain debates in this Chamber and when I see cer-
tain attitudes taken, I must warn that this community
is getting perturbed. If threats are to be made
against one section let them be against all.
The question that the Resolution be concurred in
was put to the Senate and agreed to.

BILL TO AMEND THE RATE OF INTEREST ACT

The President called the ninth Order A Bill
to amend the Rate of Interest Act, 1754.

SENATOR THE HONOURABLE P. M. GREAVES:
Mr. President, The Rate of Interest Act was passed
in 1754 so that money lenders wouldn't be in a posi-
tion to charge rates of interest on money loaned
which were unreasonable. This remained on the Sta-
tute Book without amendment until 1958.


It is important to state that in the intervening
years until 1958 bank rates increased a great deal.
It was in that year that representations were made
by the Colonial Development Corporation that the
rate of interest should be reviewed. CDC bases their
argument on the fact that they had to borrow money
on the market in Great Britain at the current rate of
6 1/2 per cent which is the prevailing rate in the U.K.
and it would be impossible to loan this money locally
at the rate of 6 per cent.

After the passing of the 1958 Amendment Act
it was again represented to the Government of Bar-


bados that there should be further amendments to the I
Act otherwise the Corporation would not be in a
position to lend money urgently needed in the island.
That led to the Rate of Interest Amendment Act of
1959, and again, Sir, in 1961 the Government of the
day decided to make another amendment to the Rate
of Interest Act.

It was decided that the rate of 6 per cent wad no
longer a profitable return on money loaned and that
persons who had money to lend locally would not be
encouraged to do so. In fact it was considered that
those persons would send their money abroad where
they could possibly obtain a higher rate of interest
on their investment.

The object of the Amendment Act of 1961 was
that the rate of interest should carry a maximum of
8 per cent and not 6 per cent as formerly.

The Bill now before us is dissimilar to that
passed in 1958. Last month the British Government
devalued the pound sterling by an amount of 14.3
per cent in order to discourage a spending spree in
that country and to encourage savings. The Govern-
ment also decided to raise the bank rate at the same
time that it devalued the pound.

It is well known that our currency here is tied
directly to sterling and that it is depreciated to the
extent that the pound has been depreciated in relation
to those countries which maintain the value of their
currency at what it was prior to the devaluation of
the pound.

Sir, the position is that the commercial banks
operating here draw funds from London in order to
facilitate the granting of loans and overdrafts at a rate
tied to the U. K. bank rate. They find that in order to
continue that business it would be necessary for them
to lend at a rate above 8 per cent because that is the
rate at which they are drawing on the U.K. market.

If this bit of legislation which it is now proposed
should be passed is not passed it would mean that the
banks would be in a position where theywould be un-
able to grant loans or overdraft facilities. This would
have an undesirable and hampering effect on local
trade and industry.

The purpose of the Bill before us is to remove
any impediment to short term credit finance as op-
posed to long term. It is expected that British cur-
rency will be given the desired boost within a very
short space of time and that if this occurs the bank
rate will be brought down again.


In taking such a measure as lam introducing now
in order not to statify the economic growth of the
country, it is important that the public should be pro-
tected in so far as long term loans and mortgages
are concerned. In view of this, the Government does
not propose to put solicitors and trust companies in a
position to charge rates of interest in excess of 8
per cent.


1 I _









S278


Sir, the Government is satisfied that this mea-.
sure is necessary for the reasons that I have given,
and I now move that the Bill be read a second time.

Senator the Honourable F. G. Smith seconded the
motion.

SENATOR H. F. ALKINS: Mr. President, One
of the difficulties that one experiences in assessing
the proposed measure is that one is not in a posses-
sion of all the relevant information. One can only
assume that the Minister of Finance in deciding on
the measure would be in possession of much more
information than I would be.

I start off with that comment because many of the
comments that I am going to make are based on such
information as is available to me. If I understand the
hon. Minister correctly, what he said was that many
of the local banks have to go to London to obtain
accommodation. That they cannot obtain such accom-
modation in London at the present time because of
the existing state following devaluation. He also made
the point that in continuing to finance local industry
they will have to draw in their horns if the rate re-
mains at 8 per cent and the purpose of the Bill before
us is to remedy that situation.

It seems to me that the object is two-fold. One
is to prevent money from leaving the island in search
of more lucrative rewards; while it is necessary to
have more savings locally that can be used for local
purposes.

Secondly, the object is to permit funds to come
in from abroad for development purposes but which
may not come in because of the high cost of funds.

I think that these are laudable objects on which
the Bill should be supported. The Minister made it
clear that the Government at the moment is much
more concerned with short term financing. Infacthe
went on to say "as opposed to long term financing."

One broad and general comment that Iwouldlike
to make is that since one does not know how long this
amendment will be in force, I am wondering if serious
consideration has not been given to the fact that in
ensuring short time finance we might be endangering
long term financing.

One of the points at which business is sometimes
very vulnerable is if there is not enough long term
financing available. If anything happened as a result
of which this long termfinancingwere suddenly with-
drawn it could leave us in an extremely difficult
position.


To get down to the Act itself, the Government,
as I see it, in meeting the situation, had the choice
of three alternatives. One, to abolish the rate of in-
terest altogether; two, to amend it by changing 8 per
cent to something higher; three, doing what this Bill
proposes to do.


I can see the difficulty of abolishing a principle
which has been in existence for over 200 years. The
Minister did refer to the history of the Act and I think
that I should express my own point of view on that.
When the 1754 Act was brought into force conditions
were far different from what they are today. Loans
were generally intended as usury and the laws
brought in were intended as Usury Acts aimed
against the charging of an unconscionable amount of
interest.

The money was not used to provide capital for
industrial undertakings. When it was loaned it was
largely to relieve distress. Someone wanted quick
money or something of that nature and the interest
rate was fixed to prevent unscrupulous persons from
taking advantage of particular circumstances.

The fact is that although the statutory limit was
6 per cent, banks were advancing money at the rate
of 5 1/2 per cent etc. It didn't tie the rate of interest
down, but prevented people from taking advantage of
a situation.

External influences began to operate in 1961 and
we had to raise the statutory limit from six to eight
per cent and that has not required any change so far;
but a situation has now been reached where eight
per cent is insufficient to hold the line. The Govern-
ment is saying that we will hold the loan at home but
let out more where the outside world is concerned.

Whether that is right or wrong depends on the in-
formation available. Is there enough money on depos-
it locally by which these short term loans could be
financed? The difficulty is always to know at what to
put the rate of interest. Some will say 8 1/2, some
9 and others 10 per cent.

The main difficulty I see in the method that the
Government has chosen to meet the situation is that
it discriminates in favour of the commercial banks.
They can charge what rate of interest they like and
no one can say them nay; but no person can do it. If
I wanted to go in for this kind of thing I would have
to form a company in order to do it, and these firms
must make application and get permission.

You get other anomalies arising. For example,
the Minister said that a bank would be completely
free; but a trust company of that bank, where it is a
legal entity, would have to seek permission. It would
seem that where a bank, which is free, has a trust
department which is not a legal entity, the depart-
ment is free because the bank is free; but where the
trust department is a separate and distinct legal en-
tity it must seek permission. That is howyou will get
legal complications arising.

I think, Sir, that it is well known that the struc-
ture of our economic society depends on several large
inmporters bringing in stuff. They give extended credit
to wholesalers who in turn give it to small shop-
keepers, who in turn give it to their customers. There
is the use of collateral.








279


Let us assume that the bank rate is 8 per cent.
The importer has to pay 8 per cent for overdraft
facilities. There will be difficulty. The firm cannot
charge 8 per cent when the firm itself is paying 9
per cent for the facility.

What I mean is that there are local firms who
do financing. If it is restricted to 8 per cent must
that sort of business cease or can that firm make
application for a waiver? This question of a waiver
is causing some concern because nowhere is it stated
what the conditions would have to be under which an
application can be successful. What criteria will be
applied to these applications? If it is to be left to the
discretion of the Minister he must work on some
kind of policy. What is the Government's policy?

Sir, any information which the Minister can give
in that regard will, I am sure, be very welcome.

Another point. If this is temporary legislation
one would have thought that a time limit would have
been put to it that it would have run for a year. I
see the answer that is possibly coming.. I assume that
I will be told that you will be hampering loans if it
was known that it was only for a year.

Those, Sir, are some of the difficulties. I sym-
pathize with the Government. I agree that you must
do everything possible to prevent money from going
abroad and at the same time do everything possible
to see that development money comes in from out-
side. It is not easy to see how these two things can
be amalgamated. At the same time, Ido think that we
are entitled to a little more explanation.

SENATOR D. A. WILES: Mr. President, I
understood the Minister to say that long term loans
would not be at a rate of interest above 8 per cent.
We have in our midst one or two local insurance com-
panies which make these kinds of loans andthis must
be taken into account. Is it true to say that these in-
surance companies will be restricted to 8 per cent?

SENATOR R. G. MAPP: Mr. President, This is
the second time in a decade that I have been, so to
speak, directly concerned at parliamentary level with
a measure of this sort. It is true that the first mea-
sure was to a certain extent different from this in a
way on which I will speak later on.

In 1961 when we agreed to raise the limit from
6 per cent to 8 per cent I happened at that time to be
in a position of responsibility and those of us who
found it necessary to raise the limit then were mind-
ful of the necessity to protect the people from the
exploiters of the poor man in Barbados.

Since then, Sir, much water has flown under the
bridge. Those who were .then in a;position of irre-
sponsibility and who were against the Bill today find
the position reversed; but, Sir, they are going the
whole hog. They are doing ten times worse.

What was said then is what is being said today.
Banks had to borrow money at a higher rate than


d per cent and it was stupid of us to expect them
to lend out money at that rate and on occasion
pressures were put on the Government.

We spent a long time considering the matter;
but there is one thing that we did not do, that is to
remove the control altogether. At least we retained
some control.

Now, Sir, the Minister has referred to CDC as
one of the bodies which pressured the Government.
I remembered the Financial Secretary and myself
discussing the matter with CDC who were interested
in investing money in the Cave Hill project along with
a financial concern from Bermuda. They couldn't do
it at the then prevailing rate of interest.

Talk what you may, the changing of that Act plus
the economic infrastructure that was established then
by the last Government, the Development Board, the
Deep Water Harbour, Seawell Airport, and the im-
provement of tourism laid the foundations for future
investment and brought a great deal of development
into this island. It is no coincidence that after the
passing of that Act there was a tremendous influx
of capital. There was not just the question of a change
in Government.

Whether we like it or not what happens outside
has a direct bearing on what happens inside this is-
land. We cannot do like Australia. We do not even
have a central bank to be the controlling agent of the
commercial banks in this island. We are so small
and we are influenced by what happens outside.

There is no sense in trying to tell people that we
are not in the same position as we were ten years ago.
Let us be practical. Let us admit that there are pres-
sures economic and otherwise against which this is -
land is too small to stand up to.

Let us go further. If this Government has fol-
lowed us and raised the interest rate Iwould not have
had a leg to stand on. Iwould have had to say that we
are all in the same boat and sit down and close my
mouth. I hear a voice asking me what figure. I am not
in a position of authority to say that. It is a matter
for the people who are running this country to say
that. I think that we will soon know it as soon as the
Bill is passed. We will have no control at all over
the commercial banks. We are independent, but fo-
reign interest are more powerful than ever.

Do not ask me what the figure should be. I shall
ask him. The Prime Minister has said to let the ques -
tion of demand and supply operate in that respect,
and that the figure will rise or fall according to that.
Everyone knows that what Senator Alkins has said
is true. We have certain firms which advance loans.
They do not know I whatposition they would be in and
any local firm in that (positionoperatingthrougha
bank will charge ten .r twelve per cent or whatever
rate they possibly can get. When the rate in England
goes up they do not come down. I have never heard
of the rate being lower than eight per cent in ten
years. I hear a voice saying sit down.











Mr. PRESIDENT: I did not hear the remark.

SENATOR R. G. MAPP: Everyone who knows
about these things knows what lan interest rate of eight
per cent means. Before you look around, inten years
you are paying back the interest the whole amount that
you have borrowed. Under this Bill the position would
be worse. This is nothing to say sit down about. It is
something to be concerned about. I can understand
that you cannot do better whenyou tell me to sitdown.
Mr, President, I will address you because youwould
not do that. This is fantastic. Those of us who have
to pay eight percent know what it means. Those who
have not and who have got reserves will be able to
say sit down. I am trying to prevent myself and thou-
sands of others from being driven down.

This is not a matter for the big merchants only
or for someone trying to get a mortgage. One must
remember the question of cost and price. Whether it
is building a house, or borrowing to build one, or
borrowing to buy a car, or borrowing to get a re-
frigerator, or buying shoes in Broad Street or
Swan Street, all along the line people are going to
feel it. This is nothing to be laughed at or some-
thing to be told sit down about.

There is no point saying that the last Govern-
ment passed a Bill in 1958 what I am saying posi-
tively is that the fact is that there is no control in
the present Bill at all. Do not tell me that com-
mercial interests who werevultures/yesterday, and
who were not interested in Independence except for
what they could get out of it are not vultures today.
It is not that I agree that allcommercial interest are
vultures; but if you do not put limits and controls
they will take advantage of it. Do not expect that
overnight they will turn into people caring for the
people's interest instead of their own. The people
who called them vultures are the ones who should be
now supporting my argument.

As I have said already, this Bill removes all con-
trols; but the very fact that you are telling a local
company or a local concern or a local money lender
that he does not know where he is although those out-
side know where they are is unheardof inthis day and
this age. The man from inside will have to go to an
individual and say I want to do so and so; may I do it
at such a percentage? I know that when we say these
things we are accused of being suspicious,but anyone
individual is subject to error or anything else.

I am not castingreflections onanyone but I must
repeat that this Bill does not provide the type of pro-
tection for the community that it should. It is dan-
gerous. This very Government could boast at a con-
ference in the U. S. A. that we had certain safeguards
against the sort of corruption that could go on in
other countries. Those safeguards were not passed
by this Government. Quite the contrary. Create
legislative control. Do not leave it to an individual
in a society where the opportunity or corruption may
be there. There is no control here at all. The safe-
guard should be in the law itself, and not left to one
individual to judge between certain firms or
Individuals .


SIf you say leave it to supply and demand, that is
an argument of laissez faire that should be ended
years ago. I am wondering what certain Senators who
are always arguing against laissez faire, always ar-
guing for control will say about this matter of supply
and demand by those who regulate the supply and
demand. We do not have a central bank or such in-
stitutions that can take a controlling hand.

Mr. PRESIDENT: Please confine your remarks
to some other point of view. I think that you have made
that point on several occasions.

SENATOR R. G. MAPP: I am just extending the
point. What I was saying is that unlike the position in
Great Britain where the Government can regulate the
flow of investment and the demand for certain items,
that does not happen here, and when you wipe off all
controls it is a dangerous thing.

It is possibly wrong and therefore at this stage
I cannot support this measure because,while we agree
with the Government about these outside pressures
being too strong for them they mustnot do something
that is wrong. This is a bad Bill which opens us out
to more exploitation and so we must protest against
this method employed by the Government.

SENATOR F. L. WALCOTT: Mr. President, -
Senator Alkins made a sound speech but the main
thing that he left out is that you are dealing with a
monetary' system that you cannot change. We can-
not say we do not belong to the sterling area. This has
nothing to do with the banking system or with the
question that we do not have a central bank. This is
the monetary system of the area in which we live.

Jamaica said that she was not going to devalue,
but she had to. Members must be clear in their minds.
This Bill is an indication that Barbados, being tied to
the sterling area automatically has to devalue its
dollar. Eighty per cent of our sugar is sold in the
sterling area. If you accept devaluation what is the
nonsense of saying that the Barbados Government is
corrupt because they devalue?

SENATOR R. G. MAPP: On a point of Order. Is
the Senator saying that I said so? At no time did I
ever say so.

SENATOR F. L. WALCOTT: Senator Mapp said
about countries in Africa where corruption is taken
as the normal and said that we were opening our-
selves to the same thing because we were introducing
legislation without any controls.

SENATOR R. G. MAPP: I spoke about that part
of the Bill in which people could go to a particular
individual and get permission.

SENATOR F. L. WALCOTT: He brought in cor-
ruption. This Government has not devalued the $1.
He is talking as if the Government has done some-
thing to increase the cost of living of the people of
Barbados. It is ignorance to talk of being corrupt.
Are you saying that Harold Wilson should not make
decisions.








281
I


SENATOR R. G. MAPP: Onapoint of explanation.
Is the Senator implying that firms have to go to
Harold Wilson?

SENATOR F. L. WALCOTT: Mr. Harold Wilson
made that decision. You were one of the first min-
isters in this country. How long since did you know
about this purity of the Ministerial System? You are
responsible for certain negotiations. You have to de-
cide to whom you could give work. When you come
saying that because this Act says thatyou must go to
a certain minister you make people in Barbados
believe that no minister should have the authority to
say who should get so and so, that that would make
him corrupt. He wants to make us believe that when
he was a member of the Government it was not the
same thing. I was on the Executive with him.

This is a question of opposition. No matter what
this Government introduces they will say that there is
corruption. It happened with the stadium.

SENATOR R. G. MAPP: I object to that. We de-
fended the Government over the stadium. That is un-
true.

SENATOR F. L. WALCOTT: Every time I come
here I hear that same insinuation. He said that we
are giving this power to one man. The man is the Min-
ister of Finance. Tell me of any country where you
are independent and have a Ministerial System that
this would not follow. There was a time when the
Governor had the authority to do these things. I was
on the Executive and you were a member of the
Executive Committee of this island. Although you
were a member the Governor could ignore the advice
of the collective members.

Now, Sir, you have a situation where the Min-
ister of Finance is the Minister to make this deci-
sion and this question cf short term finances.
Barbados is dependent upon shot term financing. On
the other hand long term loans are on the basis of
people wanting to build a house. You have no money
market per se. You have no stock exchange.

No person in Barbados can go to a finance house
and say that he wants money as a loan on a house.
Solicitors are not finance houses. When a solicitor
lends money the owner of the money must have a say
about whom the money is being loaned to. There is
no house in Barbados to finance loans. Barbados finds
itself in the difficulty that bank rates go up and you
have to rely on this kind of capital from sources out-
side. If you have this money inside you would not have
to do it.

You have to bear in mind that one of the objects
of this Bill is to prevent money from leaving the coun-
try. There is not enough money in the banks on deposit
to finance the sugar industry in Barbados and to carry
all the over drafts that you need to carry. If these
banks could not get money from overseas, how many
loans or qver-drafts would they be able to make? The
point that the Senator has made has nothingto do with


the facts of the situation. We would not be discussing
it were it not for the devaluation of the pound.

They are arguing from the point of view that there
is no limit. From 1754 there was never any problem
because you had a bank rate at six per cent, but
money was loaned I as low as three per cent some-
times. This problem of the banks andover-draftwill
be reflected in the cost of goods.

Senator Alkins wants to know what will happen
when an individual wants to lend money to someone,
The Government is taking a precaution. The Govern-
ment is saying that permission will have to be granted
in these circumstances. The pound was devaluedlast
month. Why talk about limitation? This Government
did not initiate devaluation.

The U. K. devalued the pound and they did not
say that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should re-
sign. When I hear Senator Mapp speak if I had a
cross I would nail you up on it.

SENATOR R. G. MAPP: Mr. President, -Is the
Senator threatening to nail up other members?

SENATOR F. L. WALCOTT: What is the economy
of this country? It is sugar andprices would increase
as a result of devaluation. Are you going to buy
dollar imports from Britain?

I would say that the time for the Usury Act no
longer exist. When the money market devices are
equitable you do not need these things. In Barbados
the reason for the Usury Act was that Barbados was
a small community and people were limited to de-
pending on those sources who had money to lend,
We are not in the same circumstances today. Today
in the majority of cases the money we are talking
about is money for business. One of the things that
stultifies economic growth in that interest rates are
too low and you do not get enough investment capital.

I do not think it is fair to suggest that the Min-
ister of Finance should not have the right to say who
should lend money at what rate. The Minister of Fi-
nance today is no different from the Minister of Fi-
nance 'yesterday. The argument should not be on an
individual basis.

They talk about a dictator. Then Harold Wilson is
a dictator. What sort of controls are you going to set
up to deal with this situation? In the final analysis :it
is the consumer who pays.
I would like to see the Government of Barbados
join with other Governments and draw to the atten-
tion iof the liberal powers of the world that the pre-
senf monetary system is not in the best interest of
the developing countries. If Britain devalues the pound
further what will be your position? There will be
some unemployment because unfortunately Barbados
is an importing community.

Mr. PRESIDENT: The senator assured me that
he would not be very long.







282


SENATOR F. L. WALCOTT: Many of us do not
like these short term methods, but they are inevitable.
If the Government do not do something like this the
Government would have been accused of doing nothing.
Whenever interest rates are changed you automatic -
cally are forced to change. I do not think it is fair
even to suggest what Senator Mapp has suggested.

SENATOR N. A. BARROW: Mr. President, I
too intend to be short. For the first time I realized
that some people were under the impression that we
are here to discuss whether to devalue or not. I do
not see how anyone could make the statement that be-
cause we belong to the sterling area we are bound to
devalue.

SENATOR F. L. WALCOTT: On a pointof Order
that is rank dishonesty. I said that if you had balances
you would not have to devalue.

Mr. PRESIDENT: I do not think that Senator
Walcott should accuse a senator of rank dishonesty.

SENATOR F. L. WALCOTT: Anyone who could
get up and say so has to be congenitally dishonest.

SENATOR N. A. BARROW: I would ask that those
remarks be withdrawn.

SENATOR F. L. WALCOTT: I explained. I said
that if you had no balances the situation would be dif-
ficult. Are Australia and Barbados in the same posi-
tion as far as sterling balances are concerned?

Mr. PRESIDENT: I think that you could have said
that the Senator/ was misinterpreting what you said;
but to accuse him of rank dishonesty is going beyond
the limit.

SENATOR F. L. WALCOTT: You have askedme
to withdraw the remark and I have withdrawn it.

SENATOR N. A. BARROW: I am willing in most
instances to make allowances for all sorts of people,
people who can read and those who are most illiterate.
The question of vocabulary often jeads people to make
strange statements. You must sympathise with the
problems from which some people may be suffering.

What.I was saying is this: I use almost the exact
words of Senator Walcott who said that it is because
of the monetary system and because we are members
of the sterling area that we had to devalue. He was
talking arrant nonsense because Australia is a mem-
ber of the sterling area, and has not -

SENATOR F. L. WALCOTT: On a point of Order
I said that if Barbados had dollar balances you would
not need to devalue. That is all I said, and the words
I used are the only ones that can be appropriate.

SENATOR N. A. BARROW: I am referring to
what the Senator formerly said.
SENATOR F. L. WALCOTT: Iunderstandhis dif-
ficulties. I made specific reference to dollar balances.
I evwn naeatoned Jamaica.


SENATOR N. A. BARROW: I was listening very
carefully. There was an evident confusion. between
devaluation and the rate of interest in Barbados which
made for much nonsense.

SENATOR F. L. WALCOTT: I never made any
confusion. I said that itwas as a result of devaluation
that we were discussing this.

SENATOR N. A. BARROW: If Britain had de-
valued and interest rates had not been raised we
would not be here discussing this. Devaluation is one
thing and the rising interest rates is another thing.
We have this Bill before us in the context of our own
position. One of the things that really count is that
if we had a bank we would not have to pass a law.

SENATOR F. L. WALCOTT: I said if we had our
own bank.

SENATOR N. A. BARROW: Perhaps it is not what
anyone says, but what they meant to say. There are a
few more observations which I would like to make.
I would like some information as to the possibility of
the flight of capital from this country because one
of the steps being taken in the U. K. is to restrict
credit. The pound has been devalued for about a month
and I think that the banks should be in a position to
supply information as to whether any unusual flight
of capital is taking place.

Secondly, there should be some information about
our getting the money from abroad, so that we can
better assess the needs for removing the ceiling. The
lack of this kind of information is what makes you ex-
tremely hesitant about this Bill. I do not know the
extent to which this sort of information is in the hand
of the Government. If the Government has it they
should be in a position to give it to us. We are not here
to pass legislation without considering it clearly.

Neither Senator Walcott nor the Attorney General
can tell me how to do my duty as I see it. We do not
know the extent to which local business has grown in
relation to the demand for funds.

The interest rate is eight per cent at present.
People who go to the banks to get loans have been
paying eight per cent. If the intention of the law is
that eight per cent should be the interest rate I think
that the banks already charge well in excess of that.
Guyana and other countries have legislation which
not only deals with money lending but have reference
specifically to higher purchase, and that is the same
sort of legislation that we should have in this coun-
try. Therefore it should be eight per cent on the re-
ducing rate and not on the fixed rate. The rate of eight
per cent is already a very high rate of interest. There
are business houses that do not charge six per cent.
The banks chargeeightper cent. If, under the Bill,
banks will be allowed to charge as they like, think of
the possible effect on trade credits and the result on
the whole cost of living.

This is not something that we can scoff at. The
cost of living is alreadyup by about ten or twelve per












cent and when you add this Bill heaven knows where.
it will take it.

Are we here to play party politics or to look at
the problems before us? Look at some of the main
items in your cost of living index. Food accounts for
58.7 per cent and we are importing $33 million in
food of which $23 million is coming from areas that
have not devalued their currency. Take clothing.

Mr. PRESIDENT: What point is the senator try-
ing to make?

SENATOR N. A. BARROW: I am speaking about
the possible effect on the cost of living. I am trying
to suggest what sort of items are likely to be affec-
ted. Nearly 75 per cent of our imports come from
areas that have not devalued. Forty per cent of the
cement we use comes from that area. Our cost of
living will be seriously affected by devaluation alone.

That, Sir, is why it is my belief and persuasion
that we must be convinced that anyone who introduces
a Bill of this sort must beina position to give us the
kind of information on which we can pass normal
judgment. That is the kind of exercise which I consider
invaluable.

It is one thing to tell us that the bank rate is not
going to be that high for a very long time. We cannot
say that this is just the matter of a week or two. It
seems to me that what is most important is the cost
of living because immediately that the pound was de-
valued we have had in many instances increases in
the price of items which come from areas which have
not devalued. In some instances goods even coming
from England were already marked up in some shops.

Although you tell a trader that he cannot charge
more than x per cent, if he has to borrow from the
bank at a higher rate his prices will be higher. It
seems to me that there will be need for a great deal
of control..

Mr. PRESIDENT: Is the Senator embarking on the
subject of controlling the prices of various commo-
dities?

SENATOR N. A. BARROW: I am speaking about
control of the interest rate. I am trying to look at it
in that context. I cannot do like some people and just
vote for the Bill. I am not in a position to support the
Bill at present. As I see it, the Bill will make the im-
pact of devaluation on the public even greater.

The question that the Bill be read a second time
was put to the Senate.

SENATOR H. F. ALKINS: Mr. President, May
I point out that I asked some questions. Perhaps the
Minister does not have the answers.

Mr. PRESIDENT: I am afraid that the question
has already been put.

SENATOR H. F. ALKINS: In those circumstances
I will have to vote no.


The question that the Bill be read a second time
was put to the Senate and resolved in the affirmative
on the following division:-

AYES: Senator the Honourable P. M. GREAVES,
Senator the Honourable F.G.SMITH, Senators F.C.H.
CAREW, C.L. BRATHWAITE, S. A. BLANCHETTE,
Erma V. ROCK, Dr. R. B. CADDLE, P. G. MORGAN
and M. A. KING 9.

NOES: Senators H. F. ALKINS, R. G. MAPP and
N. A. BARROW 3.

Senator the Honourable L. E. Sandiford, Senators
S. V. Ashby, W. W. Blackman, D. A. Wiles, F. L.
Walcott and C. Asquith Phillips were absent.

On the motion of Senator the Honourable P. M.
Greaves, seconded by Senator the Honourable F. G.
Smith, Senator C. L. Braithwaite was appointedto act
as Deputy President in the absence of Senator
C. Asquith Phillips.

On the motion of Senator the Honourable P. M.
Greaves, seconded by Senator the Honourable F. G.
Smith, the Senate went into Committee on the Bill,
Senator C. L. Brathwaite in the Chair.

Clause 1 was called.

The question that Clause 1 stand part of the Bill
was put to the Senate and resolved in the affirmative
on the following division:-

AYES: Senator the Honourable P, M. GREAVES,
Senator the Honourable F.G.SMITH, Senators F.C.H.
CAREW, S. A. BLANCHETTE, Erma V. ROCK, Dr.
R. B. CADDLE, P. G. MORGAN, H. F. ALKINS and
M. A. KING 9.

NOES: Senators R. G. MAPP andN, A. BARROW
2.

Clause 2 was called.

The question that Clause 2 stand part of the Bill
was put to the Senate and resolved in the affirmative
on the following division:-

AYES: Senator the Honourable P. M. GREAVES,
Senator the Honourable F. G. SMITH, Senators F.C.H.
CAREW, Erma V. ROCK, Dr. R. B. CADDLE, P. G.
MORGAN and M. A. KING 7.


NOES: Senators H. F. ALKINS, S. A.
BLANCHETTE, R. G. MAPP and N. A. BARROW 4.

The question that the passing of the Bill be re-
ported to the Senate was put and agreed to.

His Honour the President resumed the Chair
and the passing of the Bill in Committee was re-
portedI accordingly.
On the motion of Senator the Honourable P. M.
Greaves, seconded by Senator the Honourable F. G.
Smith, the Bill was read a third time and passed.







284
I _


BILL TO AMEND WIDOWS AND CHILDREN
PENSION ACT

The President called the tenth Order -- A Bill
to amend the Widows and Children Pensions Act, 1963.

SENATOR THE HONOURABLE P. M. GREAVES:
Mr. President, -- On the 1st of April last year cer-
tain officers were transferred from Local Govern-
ment to the Central Administration. Some of these
officers so transferred elected to remain under the
Local Government Miscellaneous Pensions Act of
1947.

The position now is that these officers are re-
quired by the Widows and Children Pension Act of
1963 to contribute to the Pension Scheme; but unless
they fall under the present Act of 1947 the dependents
of such| persons will not become eligible for pensions.
This Bill seeks to rectify the situation.

I move, Sir, that the Bill be read a second time.

Senator the Honourable F. G. Smith seconded
the motion.


The question was put to the Senate and agreed to.

On the motion of Senator the Honourable P .M.
Greaves, seconded by Senator F. C. H. Carew, the
Senate went into Committee on the Bill,SenatorC.L.
Brathwalte in the Chair.


Clause s 1 and 2 were called and passed without
debate.


The question that the passing of the Bill be re-
ported to the Senate was put and agreed to.



His Honour the President resumed the chair
and the passing of the Bill in Committee was re-
ported accordingly.


On the motion of Senator the Honourable P. M.
Greaves, seconded by Senator F. C. H. Carew, the
Bill was read a third time and passed.


SEASON'S GREETINGS

SENATOR THE HONOURABLE P. M. GREAVES:
Mr. President, This is the end of business for today.
Before I move the adjournment of the Senate may
I take this opportunity to extend the season's
greetings to senators generally. I am sorry that
many are not present.

It is unlikely that the Senate will meet again
before Christmas or New Year unless unforeseen
circumstances arise. I therefore take this oppor-
tunity of extending on behalf of the Government wish-
es for a Happy Christmas and a Prosperous New
Year.

We have had a very long year. I think that this
year has been longer in terms of hours than we have
had previously in the history of the Senate and
debates have not been as smooth as in the past;
but I think that sometimes one has to be tolerant,
and there is no better time to be tolerant than at
Christmas time. On behalf of the Government I want
to offer everyone best wishes for Christmas andfor
the new year.
Mr. PRESIDENT: I would like to associate my-
self with the kind remarks of the Honourable Min-
ister of Home Affairs. It has been a very great
pleasure for me to have had your kindness and
courtesy during the year, and to preside over the
deliberations of this Senate. You have greatly as-
sisted me in carrying out my duties for which I am
very grateful.

I would like to extend the season's greetings to
all Senators and their wives for a Happy Christmas
and a Prosperous New Year.

SENATOR N. A. BARROW: Mr. President, I
associate myself with the sentiments of the Min-
ister of Home Affairs; and on behalf of the other
side I extend the greetings of the season to you and
particularly to the Government benchers. I hope
that next year we will be able to make a good use of
the time that we spend here.

ADJOURNMENT

On the motion of Senator the Honourable P. M.
Greaves seconded by Senator the Hon. F. G. Smith
the Senate adjourned at 7.20 p.m. sine die.






Statutory Instruments Supplement No. 25
Supplement to Official Gazette No. 34 dated 28th April, 1969.


S.I. 1969 No. 68

The Industrial Development (Export Industries)
Act, 1963

DECLARATION OF APPROVED EXPORT MANU-
FACTURER (BARBADOS FIBRE GLASS LIMITED)
(FIBRE GLASS BOATS AND OTHER FIBRE GLASS
AATER SPORTS EQUIPMENT) ( REVOCATION)
ORDER, 1969
The Minister in exercise of the powers conferred
upon him by section 29 of the Industrial Development
(Export Industries) Act, 1963, hereby makes the fol-
lowing Order:-
1. This Order may be cited as the Declaration of
Approved Export Manufacturer (Barbados Fibre Glass
Limited) (Fibre glass boats and other fibre glass water
sports equipment) (Revocation) Order, 1969.
2. The Declaration of Approved Export Manufac-
turer (Barbados' Fibre Glass Limited) (Fibre glass
boats and other fibre glass water sports equipment) L.N. 132of
Order, 1966 is hereby revoked. 1966.
Made by the Minister this 21st day of April, 1969.


ERROL W. BARROW
Minister of Finance.
(M.P. 7018/66/167)








2 STATUTORY INSTRUMENT

S.I. 1969 No. 69
The Industrial Incentives Act, 1963
(Act 1963-31)

DECLARATION OF APPROVED ENTERPRISE
(BARBADOS FIBRE GLASS LIMITED)
ORDER, 1969.

The Minister in exercise of the powers conferred
on him by section 4 of the Industrial Incentives Act,
1963, hereby makes the following Order:-
1. This Order may be cited as the Declaration
of Approved Enterprise (Barbados Fibre Glass Limited)
Order, 1969.
2. Barbados Fibre Glass Limited, a company regis-
1910-7. tered under the Companies Act, 1910, is hereby de-
clared to be an approved enterprise for the purposes
of the Act in relation to a factory situated at Water-
ford in the parish of St. Michael and to all the products
of manufacture namely, fibre glass boats and fibre
glass water sports equipment, which were declared to
be approved products by the Industrial Incentives (Ap-
s.I. 1969 proved Products) (Fibre Glass Boats and Fibre Glass
No. 64. Water Sports Equipment) Order, 1969.

3. The date on which manufacture of the approved
products is deemed for the purposes of the Act to be-
gin at the factory aforesaid is hereby declared to be
1st October, 1966.
Made by the Minister this 21st day of April, 1969.


ERROL W. BARROW
Minister of Finance.
(M.P. 7018/66/167)








STATUTORY INSTRUMENT 3


S.I. 1969 No. 70
The Industrial Incentives Act, 1963
(1963-31)
DECLARATION OF APPROVED ENTERPRISE
(CURACAO LABORATORIES (BARBADOS)
LIMITED) (DEODORANTS) ORDER, 1969
The Minister in exercise of the-powers conferred
on him by section 4 of the Industrial Incentives Act,
1963, hereby makes the following Order:-
1. This Order may be cited as the Declaration of
Approved Enterprise (Curacao Laboratories (Barbados)
Limited) (Deodorants) Order, 1969.
2. Curacao Laboratories (Barbados) Limited, a
company registered under the Companies Act, 1910,
is hereby declared to be an approved enterprise for
the purposes of the Industrial Incentives Act, 1963, in
relation to a factory situated at Fontabelle in the parish
of St. Michael, and to the products of manufacture,
namely, deodorants, which were declared to be ap-
proved products by the Industrial Incentives (Approved
Products) (Pharmaceutical Products, Veterinary Pro-
ducts, Cosmetic and Toilet Accessories) Order, 1966.
3. The date on which production of the approved
products is deemed to begin at the factory aforesaid
for the purposes of the Act is hereby declared to be
1st July, 1969.
Made by the Minister this 22nd day of April, 1969.


(Sgd.) ERROL W. BARROW
Minister of Finance.


(M.P. 7018/66/68)




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