• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Main
 Supplement: House of assembly debates...
 Supplement: Act 1969-26: Final...
 Supplement: Act 1969-27: Landlord...
 Supplement: Act 1969-28: Petty...
 Supplement: Act 1969-29: Provost...
 Supplement: Act 1969-30: Passports...














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/UF00076861/00121
 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: VID00121
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 649
        Page 650
        Page 651
        Page 652
        Page 653
        Page 654
    Supplement: House of assembly debates for 22nd October, 1968
        Page A 2127
        Page A 2128
        Page A 2129
        Page A 2130
        Page A 2131
        Page A 2132
        Page A 2133
        Page A 2134
        Page A 2135
        Page A 2136
        Page A 2137
        Page A 2138
        Page A 2139
        Page A 2140
        Page A 2141
        Page A 2142
        Page A 2143
        Page A 2144
        Page A 2145
        Page A 2146
        Page A 2147
        Page A 2148
        Page A 2149
        Page A 2150
        Page A 2151
        Page A 2152
        Page A 2153
    Supplement: Act 1969-26: Final Appropriation (1968-69) Act, 1969
        Page B i
        Page B 1
        Page B 2
        Page B 3
        Page B 4
        Page B 5
    Supplement: Act 1969-27: Landlord and Tenanct (amendment) Act, 1969
        Page C i
        Page C 1
        Page C 2
    Supplement: Act 1969-28: Petty debt (amendment) Act, 1969
        Page D i
        Page D 1
        Page D 2
    Supplement: Act 1969-29: Provost Marshal's (amendment) Act, 1969
        Page E i
        Page E 1
        Page E 2
    Supplement: Act 1969-30: Passports and Travel Documents (fees) (amendment) Act, 1969
        Page F i
        Page F 1
        Page F 2
Full Text













VOL. CIV.


*firidall


8~uettt


PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

BRIDGETOWN, BARBADOS, 14TH JULY 1969


TABLE OF CONTENTS
Gazette Notices
Acting Appointment: L. L. Austin as Permanent
Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Labour etc.
and as Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Agri-
culture, Science etc. from 1st 30th June;
1st 10th July, 1969 respectively ........... 649
Cadet Exchange Camp 1969:
Appointment of Camp Commandant ............ 650
Cinematograph Film Censorship Board................ 650
Correction: Stephen Hinds, Clerical Officer,
resigns from the Public Service................. 649
Statement of Unclaimed Articles at the various
Police Stations................... ................. 651-654
Vacant Post in the Public Service..................... 650
Vacant Post of Deputy Chief Education Officer.... 650
Withdrawals from the Royal Barbados Police Force 650
House of Assembly Debates for 22nd October, 1968.
Act 1969-26: Final Appropriation (1968-69) Act, 1969
Act 1969-27; Landlord and Tenant (Amendment) Act, 1969
Act 1969-28: Petty Debt (Amendment) Act, 1969
Act 1969-29: Provost Marshal's (Amendment) Act, 1969
Act 1969-30: Passports and Travel Documents (Fees)
(Amendment) Act, 1969.
NOTICE NO. 471
GOVERNMENT NOTICES'
Correction
Gazette Notice No. 443 appearing in issue
No. 50 on 23rd June, 1969, is hereby amend-
ed by substituting the following:


Stephen Hinds, Clerical Officer
signed from the cvice wit
from 12th Mauk 9o,0e -


(M. P. P. 9






^) .4 ^0


has re.,
:h effect


y


Acting Appointment

L. L. Austin, Assistant Secretary, Minis-
try of Agriculture, Labour and National In-
surance, has been appointed to act as
Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Agricul-
ture, Labour and National Insurance, with
effect from 1st to 30th June, 1969 and as
Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Agricul-
ture, Science and Technology, with effect
from 1st to 10th July, 1969.

(M. P. C. 690 Vol. IV)

Withdrawals
The following persons have been granted
permission to withdraw from the Royal Bar-
bados Police Force:-

(a) No. 274 P. C. Charles Anthony
Harvey, with effect from 5th July,
1969;

(b) No. 72 P. C. Anson Anderson
Brewster, with effect from 20th
June, 1969.


(M. P. 3816 Vol. VII)


NO. 56


(1 e




w-~


OFFICIAL GAZETTE


GOVERNMENT NOTICES

Vacant post in the Public Service


Deputy Chief Education Officer, Ministry
of Education.

Salary: $10, 080 per annum.

Further particulars may be obtained from
Service Commissions Department,
"Flodden", Culloden Road, St. Michael.

Closing date for applications: 9th August,
1969.

(M. P. 4165)


Cinematograph Film Censorship Board

Miss Muriel Kellman to act as a member
of the Cinematograph Film Censorship Board
from 5th June to 17th July, 1969.

(P. E. 10 Vol. 2)

Cadet Exchange Camp 1969
APPOINTMENT OF CAMP COMMANDANT
His Excellency the Acting Governor-
General has been pleased to approve the
promotion of Captain C. W. Mapp to the rank
of Major for the duration of the 1969 Cadet
Exchange Camp.

"M. P. 4812/4 Vol. II)


Vacant post of Deputy Chief Education Officer

Applications are invited from suitably qualified persons for appoint-
ment to the above post, which is permanent and pensionable.

The salary of the post is at the rate of $10,080 per annum.

Qualifications: Candidates should have academic and pedagogic qualifications
and experience in the educational field.

Application forms (S. C. 21) and full details of the post may be obtained
from the Service Commissions Department, "Flodden", Culloden Road, St.
Michael.

Application forms should reach the Chief Personnel Officer, Service
Commissions Department, "Flodden", Culloden Road, St. Michael, not later
than 9th August, 1969.



Service Commissions Department,
1st July, 1969.


July 14, 1969


III










POLICE NOTICE

Statement of Unclaimed Articles etc. in possession of the Police at Central,
Bridge & Harbour, Black Rock, Hastings, Worthing, Districts "A", "B" and "C",
Seawell and Holetown Police Stations.


Date came
Description ito
into REMARKS
of Property Possession
PossessionCENTRAL POLICE STATION
CENTRAL POLICE STATION


One (1) Purse containing $3.00
One (1) Ladies' Wrist -watch
One (1) Three-Speed Sports Model Bicycle
One (1) Pack Cards and money
One (1) Pr. Eyeglasses
One (1) U. S. A. $10.00
One (1) Pr. Eyeglasses
One (1) Knife
One (1) Pr. Eyeglasses
One (1) Pr. Eyeglasses and one (1) Ball-point pen
One (1) Purse containing money
One (1) Purse with a handkerchief
One (1) Bunch of Keys and a Pen-knife
One (1) Wrist-watch
One (1) Bunch of Keys
One (1) Photograph
One (1) Bunch of Keys in a case
One (1) Key
One (1) Pr. Eyeglasses
Two (2) Keys
One (1) Wallet
One Gents 3-Speed Bicycle
One (1) Pr. Shades
One (1) Pr. Eyeglasses
One (1) Pr. Eyeglasses
One (1) Pr. Eyeglasses
One (1) 3-Speed Raleigh Bicycle
Two (2) Jackets, One (1) Shirt,
Four (4) School Bags, One (1) Shirt and
Pants, Two (2) Coats One (1)
Travelling Bag, One (1) Pr. Shorts,
One (1) Dress, One (1) Tie, One (1)
Pr. Shades and Six (6) Parasols,
One (1) Box containing pieces of cloth,
.one (1) School Bag, One (1)
Shopping Bag, Two (2) Rain coats,
One (1) Hat, Two (2) Dresses, One (1)
School Bag with Books, One (1)
House Coat, One (1) Pr. Shoes, One
(1) School Bag with two (2) Bottles,
One (1) Food Carrier, Two (2) Pocket Books,
Two (2) Parasols, Two (2) Prs.
Eyeglasses, Two (2) Prs. Eyeglass Cases
and One (1) Cap
One (1) Pr. Eyeglasses
One (1) West Indies Sweepstake Book
Ten (10) Conduit Pipes
One (1) Barclays' Cheque


16. 4. 68
20.5 .68
26. 4.68
30. 4. 68
10. 6. 68
12. 6. 68
15. 6. 68
14. 6. 68
20. 6. 68
26. 6. 68
22. 6. 68
25. 6. 68
4. 6. 68
10. 7. 68
12. 7. 68

15. 7. 68
18. 7. 68
22. 7. 68
13. 7. 68
23. 7. 68
9. 8. 68

24. 9. 68
25. 7. 68
7.12. 68
29. 6. 68









During
April,
1968







15. 8. 68
19. 8. 68
22. 8. 68
22. 8. 68


I J


Found in City
on Bridge St., City
Tudor St., City
Baxters Rd., City
Tweedside Rd., St. Michael
in Carrington Village
on Enterprise Rd., Ch. Ch.
Suttle St., City
High St., City
Westbury Rd., St. Michael
,, 1,
Coleridge St., City

Richmond Gap, St. Michael
Princess Alice Highway
at Welches Terrace, St. M.

*I On Prince Wm. Henry St.
in Queens Park, City
ft Carrington Village
on Roebuck St., City
Broad St., City
,, ft President Kennedy Drive
It ., Barbarees Hill, St. M.
,, ,, Black Rock Rd., St. M.
,, Deacons Rd., St. Michael
S At Brandon Beach, St. M.


Found in Motor Transport Buses


Found on
tt
"o of


Constitution Rd., City.
Broad Street, City
Kensington New Road
Country Rd., City


July 14. 1969


OFFICIAL GAZETTE








OFFCIA GAET uy1,16


Police Notice-Cont'd


Description Date Came
of Property into REMARKS
Possession

CENTRAL POLICE STATION-CONT'D


One (1) Pr. Eyeglasses
Seven dollars $7.00
One (1) Ladies' Watch
One (1) Phillips Bicycle
One (1) Pr. Eyeglasses
One (1) Hopper Bicycle
One (1) Ring
One (1) Pr. Eyeglasses
Three (3) Keys
One (1) Penknife
One (1) Briefcase with an electric iron
One (1) Purse containing $5.57 and three (3) Keys
One (1) Shirt and One (1) BVD
One (1) Bicycle
One (1) Wallet with $7.10 and two (2) I.D. Cards
One (1) Ladies' Watch
One (1) Key
One (1) Gents' Bicycle
One (1) Goat and One (1) Ram

BRIDGE & HARBOUR STATIONS

One (1) Pr. Eyeglasses
One (1) Ladies' Hercules Bicycle
One (1) Ear-ring
Two (2) Keys
One (1) Powder Compact set and two (2) Keys
One (1) Pr. Eyeglasses
One (1) Purse containing $2.70
Three (3) Keys
Five (5) Keys
One (1) Parasol
One (1) Purse with 5U
One Motor cycle Pillion
One (1) Valise
One (1) Hair Brush
One (1) Raleigh Bicycle, 3-Speed
One (1) Ladies Rudge Bicycle
One (1) Gents' Bicycle
One Gents' Bicycle
One (1) Ladies Bicycle
One (1) Gents' Bicycle
One (1) 3 Speed Rudge Bicycle
One (1) Bag Flour
One (1) Gents' Watch
One (1) Purse with $1.00 & two (2) Keys


27. 8. 68
3. 9. 68
4. 9. 68
4. 9. 68
4. 9. 68
4. 9. 68
9. 9. 68
16. 9. 68
21. 8. 68
17. 9. 68
19. 9. 68
24. 9. 68
5.10. 68
18.10. 68
12.10. 68
Oct. 68
24.10. 68
1.11. 68
21. 9. 68




4. 7. 68
11. 7. 68
21. 7. 68
22. 7. 68
4. 8. 68
14. 6. 68
14. 6. 68
18. 8. 68
23. 8. 68
26. 9. 68
27. 9. 68
7.11. 68
9.11. 68
9.11. 68
13.11. 68
15.11. 68
3. 68
67
3. 68
3. 68

20.12. 68
22.11. 68
31.12. 68


Found on Pine Pltn. Rd., St. Michael
Broad St., City





Spry Street, City


" Roebuck St., City
S Prince Wm. St., City
in G.P.O.
on Martindales Rd.
New Orleans Rd.

at Win. Fogarty Store
on Broad St., City
Mahogany Lane, City
Wildey Rd., St. M.




on River Road, City
" Nelson St., City
" Chamberlain Bridge
" Worthing Rd., Ch. Ch.
" Fairview Ave., Bay Land
" Bay St., St. Michael
" Fairchild St., City
" King Wm. St., City
in Victoria St., City
in Probyn St., Car Park
" Fairchild St.,B. Stand
" Bay St., City
" St. Gabriel School Pasture
" Empire Theatre
" Nelson St., City
" Fire Station yard
" Bridge & Harbour Stn.
to ,I ,, 9,9 I,




" Constitution Rd., City
" Y. M. P. C. Grounds St. M.
" Fairchild St.


t,



,o

o,

9,



0
99











Found

,t



,t




t,
IV
$9

to

f9





"

to


''


OFFICIAL GAZETTE


July 14, 1969








"- *' L ----


Police rce-Cont'd


Description
of Property


BLACK CK POLICE STATION

Nine (9)ys
One (1). Eyeglasses
Two (2;eys
One (lr. Eyeglasses
One (13ag containing groceries
One (pr. Eyeglasses
One (pr. Eyeglasses
Ninetfour cents
FourO) Keys
Two Irses containing toilet requisites
and cosmetic bag containing cosmetics
Two2) suitcases containing clothes
one ) camera, one (1) transistor
Rad and documents
Onel) Lock with keys
On((1) Hat

HATINGS POLICE STATION

OB (1) Ladies' Handbag
Oie (1) Towel
Oie (1) Lumber Jack & one (1) Towel
Oie (1) Wrist Watch
Five (5) Keys
One (1) Wallet
One (1) pr. Eyeglasses
One (1) Ladies Bicycle
One (1) Handbag containing one (1)
Pr. Eyeglasses, one (1) Hair Brush &
receipts
Four (4) American Express Travellers
Cheques

WORTHING POLICE STATION


Two (2) Keys
One (1) Transistor Radio
One (1) Ring
One (1) Tape Recorder
One (1) pr. Shades
One (1) Roll B.R.C. wire


One (1) Purse containing one (1)
Key and pictures and 95
One (1) Bank Book


Date Came
into
Possession


REMARKS


4 +


11. 7.68
14. 7. 68
1. 8. 68
5. 8. 68
17. 8. 68
17. 8. 68
26. 9. 68
3. 6. 68
26. 6. 68


9.11. 68



9.11. 68
19.11. 68
24.11. 68




3. 7. 68
9. 7. 68
9. 7. 68
10. 8. 68
12. 8. 68
17. 8. 68
17. 8. 68
24.11. 68


26.
6.
10.
11.
18
5.


7. 68
8. 68
8. 68
9. 68
9. 68
3. 66


2.11. 68
17.11. 68


a r


Found o0
It Is

" at
" on
" on
go of

t" to
"r "


Found
ft



,t

to
"


n Fairfield Rd. B/Rock St. M.
Spooners Hill, St. Michael
B/Rock Rd. St. Michael
Bathsheba, St. Jospeh
Jones Land, St. Michael
Brighton Beach St. M.
Hill Rd. Bank Hall St. M.
Fairfield Rd. B/Rock St. M.
Farm Rd. Deacons Rd. St.M.

Paradise Beach, St. Mic.




Deacons Rd. St. Michael
at Technical Institute


in a car in Carlisle C/Park
on Hastings Rd. Ch. Ch.
" Dayrell's Rd. Ch. Ch.
S Rockley Beach
S Flagstaff Rd. St. Michael
Dayrell's Rd. Ch. Ch.
Garrison Pasture St. Mic.
Harts Gap, Ch. Ch.



Hastings, Ch. Ch.
to

at Caribbee Hotel Ch. Ch.




on St. Lawrence Gap Ch. Ch.
at "Glencairn" Worthing
on Garden Gap, Ch. Ch.
" Worthing Rd. Ch. Ch.
" No. 42 Blue Waters Ch. Ch.
at Junction of Graeme Hall
S and Maxwell Hill Ch. Ch.

on Rockley Beach, Ch. Ch.
at Carribbean Pepperpot, St.
Lawrence Ch. Ch.


I T


OFFICIAL GAZETTE


Illv 1]4 In1








T I14 1060


Police Notice-Concld


*1 I


Description
of Property


WORTHING POLICE STATION CONT'D


Five (5) Keys and a Toy gun
One (1) Motor Car Hub Cap
One (1) Wallet
One (1) Electric Lamp
One (1) British Passport for St,
Vincent
One (1) pr. Shades
One (1) Jacket, one (1) pants'
three (3) keys

DISTRICT "A" POLICE STATION

One (1) Raleigh Bicycle
One (1) Raleigh Bicycle
One (1) Bicycle
One (1) Raleigh 3-Speed Bicycle
One (1) Sheet
One (1) 3 speed Bicycle
One (1) travelling bag
One (1) Gold Pendant

DISTRICT "C" POLICE STATION

One (1) Handbag, one (1) torchlight
and one (1) pr. Pliers
One (1) Handbag containing a comb

DISTRICT "B" POLICE STATION

One (1) Shovel

One (1) Ladies' Handbag

One (1) .32 Revolver


SEAWELL POLICE POST

One (1) dollar
One (1) Coat

Three (3) Playing Records

Six (6) dollars
One (1) Gold Identification Disc

1HOLETOWN POLICE STATION

One (1) 3 Speed Raleigh Bicycle


Date Came
into
Possession


23.11. 68
27.11. 68
26.11. 68
7.12. 68

14.12. 68
17.12. 68

27. 6. 68


7. 68
7. 68
7. 68
8. 68
8. 68
9. 68
9. 68
7. 68


18. 3. 68
22.10. 68




13. 8. 68

7. 9. 68

20.10. 68


22. 2. 68
26. 2. 68

20. 3. 68

18. 6. 68
9. 3. 68



11. 9. 68


REMARK


Found
,f


Rockley New Rd. Ch.
Graeme Hall Rd. Ch.
Worthing Beach, CCh.
St. Lawrence Rd.,,. Ch.


t" Pine Hill, St. Micha
f Bay St., St. Michael

Rendezvous Terrace;h, Ch.


Found
of



to
,t
,
"



"


Found on
of ,t


Government Hill, St. N
Bridge Rd., St. Michae.
Jackson St. Michael
My Lords Hill, St. M.
Upton Rd. St. Michael
Welches Rd. St. Michael
Pine Garden, St. Michael
Bus at Grazettes, St. M.





Bath, St. John
Stn. Hill Rd. St. Philip


Found on Boarded Hall Rd. St.
George.
Found in a field at Groves Agriculture
Station
Found on Charles Rowe Bridge, St.
St. George




Found at Health Dept.
in Gents' room, Terminal
Building, Seawell
o" Terminal Building, Sea-
well
." Route 12/M/Bus
Terminal Building
Seawell


Found on


Prospect Rd. St. James.


Government Printing Office.


OFFICIAL GAZETTE


y luJ 14 1969











THE





House of Assembly Debates




(OFFICIAL REPORT)


SECOND SESSION OF 1966 71


HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY

Tuesday, 22nd October, 1968.

Pursuant to the adjournment, the House of As-
sembly met at 12.15 o'clock today.

PRESENT
His Honour J. E. T. BRANCKER, Q.C., F.Z.S,, (Speaker);
Mr. K. N. R. HUSBANDS, J.P.; Hon. E. W. BARROW, B.Sc.,
LL.D. (Hon.), (Prime Minister); Mr. J. W. CORBIN, J.P.;
Hon. G. G. FERGUSSON, (Minister of Trade, Tourism, Co-
operatives and Fisheries); Mr. R, ST.C. WEEKES, J.P.; Mr.
W. R. LOWE, J.P,; Hon. N. W. BOXILL, (Minister of Commu-
nications and Works); Mr. J, B. YEARWOOD, J.P., (Chairman
of Committees); Sir G. H. ADAMS, C.M. G., Q.C., B.A., D.C.L.
(Hon.), Leader of the Opposition); Mr. W. C. B. HINDS; Mr.
C. A. E. HOPPIN, J.P. and Mr. J. B. SPRINGER.

Prayers were read.
PROTEST BY SIR GRANTLEY ADAMS
AGAINST SPECIAL MEETING

Sir GRANTLEY ADAMS: Mr. Speaker, before the
business of this House begins, Iwant to enter a strong
protest against being summoned here today. Nothing
is to be gained by coming here earlier than the 29th
October, and, if it is a question of time, there could
easily be inserted a section stating that "this Bill
shall be deemed to have been passed from October
1," and we could have had until the 29th October to
come here.

Of course, as long as the Government tells the
Speaker to summon a meeting of the House because
of the necessity of doing Government Business, the
Speaker is bound to say "yes". I protest, because it
may happen again. Merely to get these things through
to carry out the Budgetary Proposals, you could do
them at any earlier time and say if youwanttoget
over the four-month Rule there used to be a
four month Rule you could even say that this Bill
is deemed to have been passed, as I say, at any
earlier date, to keep within the Rule. I would not
ordinarily make a protest in public, except that it
may happen again and it should not happen with all
of this eternal heat under which we are sweltering.


Mr. SPEAKER: I have noted the hon. member's
point.

LEAVE OF ABSENCE OF THE MARSHAL

Mr. SPEAKER: Ihave received a letter from the
Marshal of the House asking that he be excused from
his duties today and stating that he has nominated
the Deputy Clerk, with the Deputy Clerk's consent,
to act for him today. If the House is in agreement,
will someone please move the necessary motion.

Mr. YEARWOOD: Mr. Speaker- I beg to move
that the Marshal be given leave of absencee from the
duties of this House today.

Sir GRANTLEY ADAMS: Mr. Speaker, I beg.to
second that.

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

Mr. SPEAKER: In view of the leave of absence
which has been granted to the Marshal, he has
nominated, should the House approve the Deputy
Clerk to perform his duties today. (Hon. N. W.
BOXILL: The Deputy Clerk has been demoted)

Mr. SPEAKER: At the nioment it would appear
that the Deputy Clerk is acting for everybody.

Hon. E. W. BARROW: Mr. Speaker, I do not
think that it is proper for the Marshal to designate>
his locum tenens. If the Deputy Clerk indicate his
willingness to serve the House during the absen
of the Marshal, I would be pleased to move that
Deputy Clerk be allowed to act in the place of th
Marshal, if the Deputy Clerk so desires.


Mr. HUSBANDS: I beg to second that.

Mr. SPEAKER: I have been informed by th
Deputy Clerk that he would be perfectly willing,
it meets the pleasure of the House, and I would
mind hon. members that, when an officer is aski
for leave of absence, he intimates who would
willing to perform his duties, if such a person;
agreeable to the House.









2128
SP


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

LETTERS FROM MRS. KENNEDY re RESO-
LUTION OF SYMPATHY

Mr. SPEAKER: I have the honour to inform the
House that I have received a letter from Mrs.
Joseph P. Kennedy Which reads as follows:-

"Hyannis Port,
Massachusetts,
October 1, 1968.

My dear Mr. Speaker:

May I extend my sincere thanks to the
House of Assembly of Barbados for the copy of
the Resolution which expressed its sympathy
over the death of my son Robert Francis
Kennedy.

Mr.- Keanedy and I deeply appreciated this
tribute of respect, admiration and affection in
his memory.


Sincerely yours,
(Sgd.) Rose Kennedy
Mrs. Joseph P. Kennedy."


This letter was addressed to:
The Honourable J. E. Theodore Brancker
Speaker of the House of Assembly, Barbados,
In care of Embassy of Barbados,
Washington, D.C.

The first Order of the day stands in the name
of the Hon. and Learned Prime Minister.

SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS

Hon. E. W. BARROW: Mr. Speaker, before we
move into the Orders of the Day, I beg to move that
Standing Orders Nos. 5, 14, 16, 18, 19, 40 and 45 be
suspended for the remainder of this day's sitting.

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

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

Hon. E. W. BARROW: Mr. Speaker, there are
certain Bills for which we intend to give notice, and
will ask permission to give notice of these Bills.

DEATH OF MR. FRANCIS G. TALMA

Before we do so, Mr. Speaker, it has come to
ur attention that the Hon. Minister of Health and
community Development and this Community have
st the brother of the Hon. Minister of Health and
community Development, the late Mr. Frank Talma,
o served in the Public Service in this Island for
11 over 30 years before his retirement a short
e ago. Many of us in this Chamber have had to


deal with the late Mr. Frank Talma in a professional
capacity. He had a very quick wit and ready sense
of humour; he was somewhat philosophical about the
rigours of the Government Service, if not resigned
to the strenous nature of his duties which he per-
formed without complaint,

I think it would be fitting for us, in the circum-
stances, to express our condolences and sympathy
with the widow and relatives of the late Mr. Talma -
(Mr. SPEAKER: "Francis Gordon Talma.") Mr.
Francis Gordon Talma, and to ask that a letter to
this effect be sent to his relatives.

Mr. SPEAKER: The Hon. Prime Minister has
moved an Address to that effect.

Sir GRANTLEY ADAMS: Mr. Speaker, I beg to
second the motion made by the Hon. Prime Minister.
I do so with some feeling, because not only did I
know Mr. Talma in his official capacity for many
years through the Courts in those days, but I had
much contact with him. I was one of the fortunate
people who were personal friends of Mr. Talma. An
affable, straightforward and more honest man you
could hardly find anywhere. It was a source of
sorrow to all his friends and to other people who knew
him only officially that he has passed away.
12.25 p.m.

If every Civil Servant gave the satisfaction to
people with whom he had to deal that Mr. Talma gave,
then we could boast of having one of the finest Civil
Services in the world.

Again, I add my own personal sympathy and most
sincerely second this motion of sympathy.

Mr. SPEAKER: I beg to associate myself with
the expression of sympathy tendered by the Hon.
and Learned Prime Minister and the Learned Leader
of the Opposition. I can add that I too knew the late
Mr. Talma for many a long year and valued his
friendship. I greatly mourn his loss.

Let hon. members stand in their places for two
minutes to indicate the passing of this Address in
the customary manner.

Hon. members stood in their places.

I will request the Deputy Clerk to ensure that
copies of this Address are sent to relatives of the
deceased as soon as possible.

We will now proceed with the business which is
on the Order Paper for today.

Mr. MOTTLEY entered the House and took his seat.


PAPERS LAID

Hon. E. W. BARROW: Mr. Speaker, I beg to lay
the Economic Survey for the year 1968.


AV








2129
. 4


GOVERNMENT NOTICES

Hon. G. G. FERGUSSON: Mr. Speaker, I beg to
give notice of the following:-

A Bill to amend the Liquor Licences Act, 1957.

A Bill to amend the Commercial Travellers and
Transient Traders Act, 1935.

Hon. E. W. BARROW: Mr. Speaker, Ibegto give
notice of the following:-

A Bill to amend the Legitimacy Act, 1930.

A. Bill to amend the Registration of Business
Names Act, 1940.

A Bill to amend the Bills of Sale Act, 1893.

A Bill to amend the Registration Office Act,
1961.

A Bill relating to the registration of members
of certain professions, to the payment of fees for
such registration and for matters incidental thereto
and connected therewith.

A Bill to amend the Registration of Newspapers
Act, 1960.

A Bill to amend the Rum Duty Act, 1906.

A Bill to amend the Petroleum Act, 1882.

A Bill to amend the Brewery Act, 1950.

These Bills have all been circulated, and they
are consequential on the Budgetary Proposals and
Financial Statement which was laid, I think, in June
this year. The reason for the Special Meeting for
the consideration of these Bills is that the Statutory
time during which the proposals have validity is close
to expiration, and it is now considered necessary
that the Bill be enacted so that the proposals may
continue with the force of the Law of the land.

I shall ask leave to deal with all of these Bills
in all their stages today.


Sir GRANTLEY ADAMS: Mr. Speaker, in as
much as the Prime Minister was not here when I
said it, I wish to ask for his benefit what was to
prevent us meeting on the 29th and saying that these
Bills should be deemed to have been passed on
October, 22nd or October, 1st or any such date to
get over the Statutory period?

Hon. E. W. BARROW: Mr. Speaker, I do not
share hon. members' views that you can have a
hiatus between the expiration of the validity of the
Bills and then make them retroactive. It was re-
troactive legislation which caused the West Indian
Nation to break up, and I do not want to break up
the Barbados Nation.


BILLS READ A FIRST TIME

On separate motions of Hon. G, G. FERGUSSON, sepond-
ed by Hon. N. W, BOXILL, a Bill to amend the Liquor Licences
Act, 1957, and d Bill to amend the Commercial Travellers and
Transient Traders Act, 1935, were read a first time.


Hon. E. W. BARROW: Mr. Speaker, I beg to
move that a Bill to amend the Legitimacy Act, 1950
be read a first time.

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

Sir GRANTLEY ADAMS: Mr. Speaker, may I
suggest to the Prime Minister to read them all at
the same time instead ofwastingtime. Allof us want
to get away early.

Mr. SPEAKER: I am happy tohearthe Leader of
the Opposition saying that we all want to get away
early.

Hon. E. W. BARROW: I would like to stick to the
procedure unless the other side indicates that they
have no objection. .

Mr. SPEAKER: I think that the indication is
clear.

Hon. E. W. BARROW: Ithink the difficulty is that
if they object to a particular Bill on the ground that
it was not circulated, the whole thing would be thrown
into confusion. Since, however, the hon. memberhas
indicated for the first time that he iswilling to save
time the first time in his parliamentary career -
I beg to move that a Bill to amend the Legitimacy
Act, 1930, a Bill to amend the Registration of Busi-
ness Names Act, 1940, a Bill to amend the Bills of
Sale Act, 1893, a Bill to amend the Registration
Office Act, 1961, a Bill relating to the registration of
members of certain professions, to the payment of
fees for such registration and for matters incidental
thereto and connected therewith, a Bill to amendthe
Registration of Newspapers Act, 1900, a Bill to amend
the Rum Duty Act, 1906, a Bill to amend the Petro-
leum Act, 1882, and a Bill to amend the Brewery Act,
1950, be now read a first time.

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

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

Hon. G. G. FERGUSSON: Mr. Speaker, I beg to
move that a Bill to amend the Liquor Licences Act,
1957, be now read a second time.

Hon. N. W. BOXILL: I beg to second that.

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

Hon. G. G. FERGUSSON: Mr. Speaker, I beg to
move that Your Honour do now leave the Chair and
the House go into Committee on this Bill.








2130
II U


Hon. N. W. BOXILL: I beg to second that.

The question was put and resolved in the affirmative
without division, and the House went into Committee on the
Bill, Mr. YEARWOOD in the Chair.


Clauses 1 to 3 of the Bill were called and passed.

12.35 p.m.

Clause 4 was called. It reads as follows:-

"4. This Act shall be deemed to have come
into operation on the 3rd July, 1968."

Hon. G. G. FERGUSSON: Mr. Chairman, I beg
to move that Clause 4 stand part of the Bill.

Hon. N. W. BOXILL: I beg to second that.

Sir GRANTLEY ADAMS: Mr. Chairman, I sup-
pose if I were one of those who say: "I told you so,
some time or other you would be found out", I would
draw to the attention of the House, especially those
hon. members who were loudest in attacking me for
saying that I believe in retrospective legislation,
that sooner or later occasions arise when legislation
has to be made retrospective. All that I been cursed
throughout the West Indies for was to say that aca-
demically you could make a tax retroactive, but no
Government would normally do it. That is to be found
in Ofticial Gazettes or what would correspond with
Official Gazettes; but those who quote against my
saying: "Retrospective, you are taxing people for a
time when they were not taxable," seem to forget
my,words. I take this opportunity of saying it be-
cause, apart from saying it on the floor of the Fed-
eral Parliament in Trinidad, I have not in public
said it before. I was very careful to say that no
Government ordinarily does it, but it may be
necessary sometimes to do it.

The question that Clause 4 stand part of the Bill was
put and resolved in the affirmative without division.

The Schedule was called.

Hon. G. G. FERGUSSON: Mr. Chairman, I beg
to move that this be the Schedule to the Bill.

Hon. N. W. BOXILL: I beg to second that.

Mr. CHAIRMAN: The question is ........

Mr. HUSBANDS: Mr. Chairman, while we are
on the Schedule, we have Item 3 "Retail Licence".
The duty payable in respect of licences is set out
and it is the sum of $100 in the case of a retailer.
My observation here is in respect of the amount
of $100, and I should like to move a reduction of
that. I think that one should remember the instances
of a very small retailer in a poor agricultural
district, the sort of man who sells liquor and can
open his business place on Mondays, Fridays and
Saturday hoping to get sales for cash but on the


remaining days, he usually has to sell on credit.
The margin of profit is extraordinarily small and
his clientelle, the number of customers he has, is
small. He does his trade in a very poor district,
and I think that $100 for an annual licence to sell
liquor on a retail basis is rather steep per se for
a shopkeeper in Boscobelle, the Baltic, Lonesome
Hill, Black Bess, the Mount and Gays. I know what
I am talking about; I know almost every rum shop
in my parish, and every rum shopkeeper in my par-
ish. I know the size of his trade. I am watching the
smiles on the face of the Hon. Prime Minister. One
can easily gauge what I am saying even by paying
casual visits. I do not think that a shopkeeper in
Gays or the Baltic or Black Bess could really
hope to pay $100 a year as a licence. Surely, the
retailer in Baxters Road, when he pays $100 a year,
and the retailer in Lonesome Hill when he pays
$100 a year they all have licences, it is true; but
one finds it very, very difficult having a very small
business, a business which does not even flourish
during the holiday time it may be sometimes an
election time, but that is not dependable; that is only
regularly in every five years.

I really think that there should be some reduc-
tion in the annual licence fee for these small re-
tailers in the poor rural districts of this island;
and what I say for St. Peter equally applies to every
other parish in the Island. There are other small
villages where the retailer will find it very, very
difficult. Never mind that such a retailer can pay
the licence or that the licence can be paid in four
instalments a year; never mind that he can pay $25
at the end of every three months; it is still $100 a
year. It is only during the crop season and I have
mentioned the days of the week: Monday, Friday and
Saturday; for the remaining days of every week,
all the selling is done on credit, or 99%o of the busi-
ness is on credit. I really think that there should be
a reduction in cases like that. When one compares
the volume of trade done by such retailers as I have
described, and that done by the hoteliers, I think
that the proportion is not a very fair one. It is not
a very understandable one, and therefore I formally
beg to move a reduction by $75 in the case of the
small retailer, leaving a fee of $25. (A Pause).

Mr. CHAIRMAN: Is the hon. member still ad-
dressing the Chair?

Mr. HUSBANDS: Yes, Sir. I was listening to
asides which are proving helpful. I have made my
observations, and I hope that the Government will
see to it that some reduction be made on this score.

Sir GRANTLEY ADAMS: Mr. Chairman, at the
risk of seeming to repeat what the hon. member
who has just sat down has'said, I ask the Minister to
persuade his colleagues. Now can anyone defend a
hotel up to ten bedrooms paying $100 and a retail
shopkeeper, $100? Some shopkeepers have one door
it is a little shop. There may be a side entrance by
which you can enter at night, or inthe back when the
front is supposed to be closed; but how can that he
defended? You hit at everybody on an equally fair








2131


footing. A man who is likely to sell as much rum or
other things a hotel of ten bedrooms includes the
sale of champagne and you put that on the same
footing as a one-door shopkeeper Mr. Chairman,
I have the utmost pleasure in supporting the hon.
member as much as any human being can support
another, in moving the reduction to $25.
12.45 p.m.

It is not necessary to say anything more than
that. I do not know how many hotels have up to 10
bedrooms. If you made that $100 for the hotels
$200, $300 or $400, it does not matter. They will put it
on their guests. Imagine a one-door shopkeeper
selling a 100 rum for l5 or 165 and telling his cus-
tomers: "Well, they are taxing me the same as they
are taxing the hotels!" Need I say more?

Mr. HINDS: Mr. Chairman, this matter, I think,
deserves the consideration of every hon. memberin
this House. When one takes a look at the petty shop-
keepers with one door, one will findthat some of the
proprietors are just able to keep two or three bottles
of liquor on their shelves. Believe me, Sir, I feel
that they have proven themselves throughout the
years to be, perhaps, greater economists than the
Minister of Finance might claim to be. How they do
eke out an existence is very difficult to be deter-
mined in figures at aiy stage and in any place.

When it is borne in mind that these shopkeepers
for the most part, are people who are trying to keep
their doors open because they have, perhaps, children
they are trying to educate, and some of them may
find themselves having to pay $100 a year in taxes
and at the same time trying to educate maybe two
or three children and having to pay $35, $40 or even
$70 a term, it is difficult to understand the position.
It may be argued that if you cannot pay the tax, you
must go out of business. That may be the attitude
of the Governm.nnt; but it may be better, if the Gov-
ernment is viewing it in that light, to approach it in
an entirely different manner.

One knows that, in the case of the country shop-
keepers particularly, they exist on crediting their
customers for the most part, and during the lean
period when they are getting only three days' work
per week, as the Government has now seen fit to give
certain people at least three days' work per week,
it is known that the worker likes his rum-drinking;
he likes to take a snap of rum, whether he can pay
for it or not. If some of the people who are carrying
on these small businesses are forcedoutofbusiness,
it would be a serious matter. One may not know
here, but it may be found that a large amount is
owed to them. It maybe a case where one man owes
a shopkeeper $3, $4 or $5, and when everything is
totalled you may find that 20 or 40 of his customers
owe him similar amounts. If the small shopkeepers
forced out of business, one does not know what may
happen to that poor man's family.

Very often a man may have a cow, a few sheep,
and a pig or two in his back yard, and he feels that,


while he is attending to them and he has a one-door
shop where he can put a bottle of liquor and retail
it, that would help to make ends meet. In other words,
if he is forced into a position where he has to rear
a pig until it reaches the age when the butcher will
buy it from him we know that most of these
shopkeepers do that. They rear an animal in the
yard, and when the time comes to pay their licences,
they sell the animal and pay the licences in order to
avoid being reported. They do not pay theirlicences
from the amount of liquor that they have been able
to sell. I am not referring to those who sell most
of it to themselves. That is the trouble with some of
these small shopkeepers.

I am quite in favour of the very substantial re-
duction that has been movedby the hon. senior mem-
ber for St. Peter in respect of those small country
shopkeepers. I say so whether it be a country shop-
keeper in Boscobelle, St. Peter, Date Tree Hill, the
Castle, one in St. Joseph or in St. Philip. I know how
difficult it is for these shopkeepers.

I am sure that you, Mr. Chairman, are sorry
that you are in a position where you cannot lend a
voice from the floor of this House in support of this
reduction. I am urging upon the Minister of Finance
to give some consideration to what has been said in
respect of these poor shopkeepers. We feel that there
are some shopkeepers in the parish of St. Michael,
in the City, and in the suburbs, who could be expected
to pay a little more. In other words, there is a
necessity for the grading of the licence fees, de-
pending upon the distance one is from the main hub
of activity, so to speak, and I am asking the Minis-
ter of Finance to give consideration to whathas been
said.

Mr. MOTTLEY: Mr. Chairman, while I am in
sympathy with this reduction, I do not like the words
"country shopkeepers". This is a question of my
representing the City of Bridgetown for a number of
years. I note here the words "Duty payable in respect
of Licences. A Wholesale Licence $500; A Retail
Licence $100." I am wondering if, in view of the
fact that for the past ten years the question of
rating for trade purposes of shopkeepers comes
directly under the Commissioner of Inland Revenue,
this could be so amended to read:

"Retail Shopkeepers a rateable value ......." just
as we do with Hotels. There are some shopkeepers
in the country who can pay $100,and others who
cannot pay $100.
12.55 p.m.

I am in sympathy with the amendment, or with
an amendment of some sort, but I would like to hear
the Minister of Finance. I throw it out maybe not for
his benefit, but just to remind him that shopkeepers
are no longer rated by the Vestry System, but they
are rated by an officer connected with and attached
to the Commissioner of Inland Revenue. From that
it can be seen that every shopkeeper in the Island -
because the officer must visit these places and must








2132


know what type of business is being carried on and
rate them accordingly.

Even though, according to the law, returns must
be made, there are many shopkeepers, as we know
shopkeepers, who make no returns. The officer has
got to go and look. He pays a visit when the shop-
keeper least expects, andhe puts downwhat he thinks
he should put.

Well, this is never objected to two objections
you had in ten years in the whole Island. Therefore
I am saying that while I am in sympathy with it,
you cannot just say "retail shopkeepers inthe coun-
try areas." This could not make sense because, I
repeat, some retail shopkeepers can pay $100. Some
cannot pay $25.00, and therefore I would prefer to
hear the Minister of Finance who is responsible for
this give us an idea if it can be done like the hotels -
10, 25, 50, 100 beds.

This can be done because, I repeat, they are now
rated directly by an officer underthe Commissioner
of Inland Revenue, and therefore he knows right
away what they can be rated at, and it can be sent
down for the purposes of licensing.

If a certain man is doing $1,000 in business at
the end of a year, are you telling me that he cannot
pay $100? All shops are rated, even blacksmiths'
shops, under the Act by the Officer of the Depart-
ment of Inland Revenue. Let us take one of these
shops in Suttle Street, someone making $25 a year.
You do not want to, say, pay$100 for a licence. That
is how I feel about the whole matter.

Mr. HOPPIN: Mr. Chairman, I do not support
the views of the last speakers, especailly most of
them from the Opposition. I have calculated this
$100 a year on a 30 day basis and it works out at
approximately $8.34 a month, or something like
27 cents a day. Take the price at which some shop-
keepers sell a snap of rum. A snap of rum is sold
today for 25 cents, and some shopkeepersin the
country even charge you 30 cents. I do not feel that
this licence is exorbitant.

There has been talk about one-door shops and
holes in the wall. I have known some holes in the
wall do very good business, andIdonot see why they
have been asking for a reduction of $25, and even in
some instances $75. I feel that the Government is
giving the shopkeepers an opportunity to look into
his business on a three-months basis; that is, if
you realise that you cannot meet the requirements
for a year you pay your licence quarterly. If in three
months' time you realise that you have not been suc-
cessful, go out of business or close it down. The
opportunity is there.

I do not agree that this should be reduced, and
therefore I support the $100 thatthe Governmenthas
charged per year for the retail licence.

Sir GRANTLEY ADAMS: Mr. Chairman, I wish
the member would state whether a hotel with ten


bedrooms works out at more or less than 27 cents a
a day or what. Why does he not deal with that argu-
ment of the Opposition, that it is unfair to put it.on
the same basis as a hotel with ten bedrooms?

Hon. E. W. BARROW: I have listenedvery care-
fully to the arguments. There is a popular supersti-
tion in this country that the people of Barbados are
ignorant and illiterate and do not understand their
politics. If members on the other side think that by
getting up here and making unfounded statements -
unfounded statements are the order of politics, but bad
arithmetic I could never excuse that this is going
to win them some kind of support and put them back
in power, they are mistaken. I do not know if they
think that these are the old days when shopkeepers
used to canvass votes, and that thiswill drum up for
them a whole army of support.

They stand by the argument that the Liquor
Licence duty should not be increased at any time at
all. I understand that that is their argument because
if you say that you want it reduced, it should not be
increased because the poor are always with you and
there is some mythical class called poor shop-
keepers. I have not seen them.

I said in the Budget Proposals thatthe fees pay-
able under the Liquor Licences Act have not been
changed for over 11 years. Since then the scale of
rates of Key-scale workers in the Government Ser-
vice have risen by over 175%, and the key-scale
workers are the people who go into the small one-
door, hole-in-the-wall shop.

That is eleven years ago. If you say now that
after eleven years, ignoring the rise in the standard
of living and the purchasing power of the ordinary
man in the street in this community, that after eleven
years of our endeavour and part of their endeavour,
that a one-door shopkeeper cannot pay 27 1/2 cents
a day when he makes 378% profit on the 26 ounce
bottle of rum, something is radically wrong.

What was revealing, what was particularly re-
vealing was that the member for the City said that
they did not pay any income tax, that they did not
normally make returns. We all know that. Youin the
City Council would know that better than anybody
else. You cannot get them to pay income tax and
they make no returns.

The Valuation Officer go around and asssess
them. No matter what the assessment is,theydo not
make any complaint and they do not file any protest.
One or two who might keep books and are on the bor-
derline, whose shop was painted up and might be
slightly what he considers over-assessed may put in
a kind of feeble protest to the Commissioner of In-
land Revenue; but by and large, there are 4,000 in
this Island, 4,000 shopkeepers, and they will not do
what the law requires them to do; andl am not satis-
fied that they pay their fair share of income tax.

Do not let us fool ourselves. It is you and I and
the key-scale worker who will have to pay this; so









2133


'.f the argument is that you are making rum expensive
for the key-scale worker, I say that liquor is a
luxury, and school meals are more important than
liquor. If you want to drink to pay for the school
meals, well then, you have to pay for it; but do not
tell me about the small shopkeeper because, No. 1,
he is not going to file an income tax return, and
No. 2, he is not going to file it because if he was
operating so much on the margin you would be sure
that he will pass it on to the consumer.

There are 4,000 of them, and you cannot get a
return out of 800 of them neither a trade tax nor
income tax returns.

Let us come to the equation between hotels and
the one-door shops. The licence for a hotel with up
to 10 bedrooms was $50 a year. I said in my Budget
Proposals $100. It is not $100 for other hotels. For
the first time I have introduced a progressive scale
so that some of the hotels have to pay $1,500 where-
as before hotels of that size would pay $100 while
the one-door shopkeeper was paying $50.

Let us be honest now and see what the proposals
are. They are on page 21 of the Budget Proposals and
I want to read them. I said:-

"The fees payable under the Liquor Licences
Act have not been changedforover 11 years. The Act
under which we are operating is the Act of 1957. I
now propose to make the following increases in the
Schedule to the Liquor Licences Act of 1957."

A general wholesale licence was $300. It is
now $1,500 per year.
1.05 p.m.

They are not small one-door shopkeepers. They
are General Traders, Perkins and Goddard and Sons
and people like that; they are the people who are
paying $1,500. I understand, incidentally that some
of them want to pool their agencies and say that they
are only one agent with all the distributing outlets;
but the minute they do that, Iwill introduce legislation
not only to separate them again but also to increase
the fee a little more so that theywill understand their
responsibility to this community. I know that they
had a meeting saying that they are going to pool all
the agencies and say that they have one wholesale.
That is what you call monopoly capitalism rampant in
Barbados. I keep an eye on all of these things; do not
let us shed any crocodile tears for the small one-door
shopkeepes.


Let us examine the total position and see whether
the Government was being fair and putting the burden
where the burden should go. The wholesale licence
fee was $100, and it is now $500. The retail licence
fee was $50 eleven years ago and it is now $100, and
as the hon. junior member for St. George has pointed
out, it is an increase of 27 a week andyou can make
that out of two "snaps" of rum. The Hon. Leader of
the Opposition has mentioned that we are charging
thmrn the same as the hotels, and in his subsequent


statement he has adverted to the fact that it was a
ten-room hotel. Sir, let me tell you about these
ten-room hotels. I do not know a ten-room hotel in
Barbados which can sell as much rum in a whole
week as one of these one-door shops in Vine Street or
up by the Paddock, which can open 24 hours a day
and night. A ten-roon hotel may have abunch of tee-
totallers in it, but very seldom visitors init call for
the occasional beer. Do you think that a ten-room
hotel in Barbados, which is only a glorifiedboarding
house, could sell as much rum in a whole week as
one of these shops which are opened all day and all
night, selling through the window, through the back-
door and some of them with the doors wide open?
Do you seriously think that any ten-room hotel in
Barbados could sell as much rum in a whole week
as one of these benighted, as they say, poor unfor-
tunate, one-door shops? The answer is "No" obvious-
ly. Nobody in a ten-room hotel could afford to sell
anybody a bottle of whiskey for $28. That is non-
sense. It may be that some of the luxury hotels down
the coast which have to pay $1,500 may do that.
(ASIDES). If the people do not know how to get into a
bus or a taxi and buy the rum somewhere else. I
would almost tell you what I do. I take my rum in my
bag when I travel. (ASIDES). Why should I pay my tax
in another country? I pay my tax in Barbados. (ASIDES).
Why should I pay any hotel $28 here or in Thy King-
dom Come, for anybottle of rum? I am not paying any
hotel that. I take my rum with me and that is the right
policy. You will be surprised to know that the owner
of the Distillery has to buy his. (ASIDES).

Mr. CHAIRMAN: I would like to remind hon.
members that when one hon. member is speaking
the others should be silent.

Hon. E, W. BARROW: Mr. Chairman, I did not
know that there was a law which says that you must
buy your rum in the dearest place anddrink it in the
cheapest place, I buy it in the cheapest place and
drink it in the dearest place. To get back to the point,
Mr. Chairman, the licence for a ten-room hotel
used to be the same as that for a retail shopkeeper,
that is, $50, That was eleven years ago and we have
put it up to $100. Thereafter you will see that the
licence for a hotel of over ten rooms was only $100,
up to 1,000 rooms apparently and there is now a
progressive increase because the larger the hotel,
the more expensive the drinks tend to be. Therefore,
we feel that it is right that they should not pay the
same kind of liquor licence as a small shopkeeper
pays. As far as I am concerned, I do not think that we
have anything to be apologetic about in this regard.

There is one amendment which I should like to
make to the occasional licence in respect of which
there has been an oversight. The occasional licence
is for people who hold dances and that sort of thing,
which used to be $5. That is No. 6 in the Schedule to
the Bill. You will find that in the Budget Speech, a
copy of which I have in my hand, the increase was
from $5 to $10. That is in respect of the occasional
licence, and in the Schedule to the Bill which we are
now considering, they should have $10. I should like
to move that the Schedule as amended stand part.









2134


Hon. N. W. BOXILL: I beg to second that.

Mr. HUSBANDS: Mr. Chairman, I regret that this
debate which I initiated has taken this turn. I did not
think that this would have become involved in income
tax and trade tax. If the Government finds it difficult
to get the small trader, to whom I have made refer-
ence, to pay his income tax or his trade tax I do
not want to believe that the Government is telling the
community that this is now means of collecting such
income tax and trade tax, through the raising of the
licencing fees. That is a rather indirect way of
doing business, one which I cannot really appreciate.
It seems to me that this matter has got involved
with income tax and trade tax, but it should not be so.
I stood up here and said in plain language that from
my observations, from my talk with the small retail-
er in the rural districts of Barbados, I cannot see him
paying $100 a year as the annual licence fee. I stated
that blandly and I have not heard anybody deny it.
That is undeniable. This is not for the purpose of
getting a vote in the next two orthree years. Whether
I am returned to the House of Assembly or not, it is
my candid observation that the small retailer in Bos-
cobelle, Date Tree Hill, Black Bess and places like
that cannot and does not, do sufficient trade during
the year to pay this licence.
1.15 p.m.

The man can only open his doors on Monday
evenings, Friday evenings and Saturday evenings.
After that he has to shut down. On Monday, Friday
and Saturday the people will buy liquor cash, and the
remaining days of the week it is credited.

The argument that the standard of living in this
country has been raised since 11 years ago does not
deny the fact that even now, in 1968, a retailer in
such districts as those mentioned cannot stand the
burden when he has the imposition of a $100-a-year
licence tax to pay. The Hon.Prime Minister will not
get up here and deny that. Do not tell me that a 10-
room hotel sells less rum than certain shops around
the Garrison. What I am saying has nothing to do with
that. That may be perfectly true, and I am not going
to deny it. I want to know if the Hon. Prime Minister
can deny what I have said. I do not have to deny what
he has said.

It may be perfectly true that the average 10-
room hotel does not sell as much rum as any shop
in Baxters Road that may be opened 24 hours a day.
That may be perfectly true, but I am speaking in re-
spect of the small retailer who has had a 100%7 in-
crease. I am saying that, in spite of the rise in the
standard of living of the people of this country, the
retailer to whom I have referred is still under a
great difficulty when he has to pay this tax, inasmuch
as he can pay it quarterly. Seeing it that way, I moved
a reduction in the licence fee.

If the Government in its wisdom and in its ob-
servation thinks that I am electioneering and trying
to put something on it in this House to get a vote,
then I am in sympathy with it. I know that the Gov-


ernment knows as well as I do, because every mem-
ber in this Chamber represents aconstituencywhere
there can be found the type of small retailer to whom
I have referred. It is that man thatI think is bearing
a burden. It is not to say that "this man does not pay
trade tax, or income tax, and ipso facto let me get at
him now by increasing the licence fee." Mine is a
straightforward proposition. I know this to be true
over a long period of time. I am not posing an ar-
gument; I am stating an observation, and this is a
different thing altogether; therefore, I am not going
to be dissuaded from my purpose by any threat that I
have been electioneering. I remain as firm as ever in
my resolve that I am right, and I am seeking to re-
move what I think is a grave impositionon the mem-
bers of this community, the volume of whose busi-
ness does not justify the increase that has been
proposed.

Sir GRANTLEY ADAMS: Mr. Chairman, unlike
the last hon. speaker, I am not going to take notice
of the infantile sneer about electioneering. Every
time a member of the opposition opens his mouth
to say something against anything done by the Gov-
ernment, if you choose to use that type of argument,
you can say that he is electioneering. I think that
that sort of thing is much too cheap to be raised on
the floor of the House, let alone by a Prime Minister.
You say that it is electioneering and the member is
arguing in order to get more votes. In the heat of an
election some people do that sort of thingon a public
platform to a number of people to whom they think
that is the best argument to use.

Over here the Opposition puts its whole case.
How can you defend $50 in the past, and $100 now for
retail shopkeepers; $50 in the past for hotels, and
the same $100 now? If the hon. member feels that he
has made out a case that the fees were too low, again
he uses the silly, sneering, argument that we, in
effect, do not want to raise taxes. That is what he
actually said. Who but a childwould say that? Nobody
says that we do not have to raise more money.

The hon. Member says that we must tax rum in
order to find money for school meals. Whowould dif-
fer from that? It is wrong, absurd and a childish
argument to suggest that because we said you have
not put the additional taxation fairly on two classes of
people, when you compare two classes of people -
how can we be honestly accused of not wanting to
raise taxes? It is not as if the scale of taxation is
uniform. Of course, it may have been wrong in the
past' to charge a shopkeeper $50. I ought really to
pass by again the silly, infantile, sneer that I cor-
rected what I said at first, and in my second statement
I referred only to 10 bedrooms. I referredto a hotel
with 10 bedrooms when I first mentioned hotels.
I was reading at the time.

Mr. Chairman, Retail Licence $50, now $100; a
hotel up to 10 bedrooms $50, now $100; but it is not
uniform when you go down the line. A Proprietary
Club Licence was $100 and it is now $500. Surely
that $500 it was not just doubled as in the case with








2135
I I'


the Retail Licence represents what the draftsman,
or the Cabinet, felt was a !air thing to charge a Pro-
prietary Club. Just as you felt that $50 for a Retail
Licence was not enough and therefore make it $100
so you said to yourself here is even a worse in-
stance: a Proprietary Club Licence was only $100
and make it $500. That is what you have done, and
that is what is in the Bill.

If you find that there was a mistake in the past
and a Retail Licence shopkeeper had to payonly $50,
then ask yourselves how can anybody reasonably
defend even if what the hon. member says is
true, that a hotel with 10 bedrooms is only a board-
ing house or how can anybody say that because
here and there you may find a Retail Licence Shop-
keeper, if I may use that expression, who cannot feel
having to pay $100 are you going to use the same
argument?, Apparently, you have not been using it in
the case of hotels. How can anybody reasonably sug-
gest that you can put a retail shopkeeper, whether
in the country or in town, on the same fotting as a
hotel? That is the argument which the Hon. Prime
Minister has not answered.

I thought the Hon. Prime Minister was going to
say: "I have a case for increasing the $50 for a Re-
tail Licence upto $100' the hotels ought to pay more."
and suggest to the House to agree to making this
$100, $250 and $1,000. It is too late to do that now.
"I will keep the Retail Licence at $100, but in the
case of a Hotel Licence, I am not putting that on the
same footing as a Retail Licence; I am making it
$150, $200, or something like that." That is a fair
argument.
1.25 p.m.

The fair thing to do is to raise the hotels' rates.
If you say it is only reasonable to leave the retail
licence at $100, we would agree with you if it fol-
lows that you raise the hotel licence beyond the
$100 atwhich you now have it. Is that too much to ask?
What hotel proprietor will say that he cannot afford
it? Shopkeeper after shopkeeper is saying that they
cannot afford it.

Because some shopkeepers may open for 24
hours a day, you are just encouraging them to break
the law because he has to raise the $100 whereas
before he only had to look for $50. Hotels are cropp-
ing up here and there in this Island and are being
filled. How can anyone begin to say that I will be hard
on the retail shopkeepers because they can afford to
pay, but soft on the hotel proprietors because a hotel
may only be in some cases a glorified boarding-
house?

'Is it reasonable to say that it is not a profitable
concern to have hotels in this Island? Is it reason-
able to say that a retail licence should be $100, but
that a hotel licence should not be $200? We know on
this side of the House that there are some hon.
members and they do not want to sneer. I do not
know that I have ever indulged in just sneering of
saying that you are a coward but surely some
hon. members facing us agree with our argument.


If you are going to keep this at $100, persuade
the Prime Minister to raise the licence of the hotels
from $100 to at least $150. I repeat that the per-
centage increase in this list is not uniform. Druggists
are raised from $10'to $25 more than doubled -
and the retail shopkeepers and hotels have been
just doubled. They are raised from $50 to $100.

Take the restaurant licence. Can anyone honestly
feel that a restaurant does not sell more than a re-
tail shopkeeper? The man who is having a meal and
having a drink there are more people likely to be
in that position in a restaurant than in the case of a
man who finds that he has to break the law by opening
24 hours. I do not know any of them, but I take the
word of other speakers whether on the Government
side or the side of theOpposition, who say that this
is what happens.
For the last time I appeal to the Prime Minister
that if he wants to show that he is hitting at whoever
is best able to hear it, and if he intends to keep the
retail licence fee where it is, even at this last mo-
ment, raise the tax for hotels in order that it may
not appear that a retail licensed shopkeeper is on a
footing with a hotel, even though it only has ten bed-
rooms.
The question that Item 3 of the Schedule he reduced by
$75 was put and the CHAIRMAN declared that the "AYES"
have it.

A division was called for and taken as follows:

AYES: Mr. HINDS, Mr. CRAIG, Mr. HUSBANDS
and Sir GRANTLEY ADAMS 4.

NOES: Hon. E. W. BARROW, Hon. G. G. FER-
GUSSON, Hon. A. DaC. EDWARDS, Hon. N. W.
BOXILL, Mr. LOWE, Mr. SPRINGER, Mr. CORBIN,
Mr. WEEKS and Mr. HOPPIN 9.

Mr. CHAIRMAN: The question is that in Item 6
of the Schedule the figure "5" be deleted and the
figure "10" substituted therefore.

Sir GRANTLEY ADAMS: That is a mistake. He
did not make a formal motion.
Hon. E. W. BARROW: I would like to enlighten
the hon. member. I made a motion that the figure
"5" be deleted and the figure "10" substituted. It
was seconded by the Hon. Minister of Trade. I should
point out that it is normal to put that the words pro-
posed'to be deleted stand part, but I do not think it
was necessary because you would have to go through
three Resolutions before you got down to approving
the Schedule. The idea was to put the motion as it
was put rather than go through a circuitous proce-
dure.
The question that the Schedule be amended was put and
resolved in the affirmtaive on the declaration of the CHAIR-
MAN that the "AYES have it .

Hon. G. G. FERGUSSON: Mr. Chairman, I beg
to move that you do now report the passing of one
Bill in Committee with amendments.

Hon. N. W. BOXILL: I beg to second that.








2136


The question was put and resolved in the affirmative,
The Committee dividing as follows:-

AYES: Hon. E. W. BARROW, Hon. G. G. FER-
GUSSON, Hon. A. DaC. EDWARDS, Hon. N. W.
BOXILL, Mr. LOWE, Mr. SPRINGER, Mr. CORBIN,
Mr. WEEKS and Mr. HOPPIN 9.

NOES: Mr. HINDS, Mr. CRAIG, Mr. HUSBANDS,
and Sir GRANTLEY ADAMS 4.
1.35 p.m.
Mr. SPEAKER resumed the Chair and reported accord-
ingly -'

Hon. G. G. FERGUSSON: Mr. Chairman, I beg
to move that this Bill as amended be now read a third
time.

Hon. A. DaC. EDWARDS: I beg to second that.

The question was putand resolved in the affirmative, the
House dividing as follows:-

AYES: Mr. YEARWOOD, Hon'bles E. W. BARROW,
G. G. FERGUSSON, A. DaC. EDWARDS, N. W.
BOXILL, Messrs. LOWE, SPRINGER, CORBIN,
WEEKS, HOPPIN and MOTTLEY 11.

NOES: Messrs. HINDS, CRAIG, HUSBANDS and
Sir GRANTLEY ADAMS 4.

The question that this Bill as amended do now pass was
put and resolved in the affirmative.

A division was taken as follows:-

A YES: Mr. YEARWOOD, Hon'bles E. W. BARROW,
G. G. FERGUSSON, A. DaC. EDWARDS, N. W.
BOXILL, Messrs. LOWE, SPRINGER, CORBIN,
WEEKS, HOPPIN and MOTLEY 11.

NOES: Messrs. HINDS, CRAIG, HUSBANDS,
and Sir GRANTLEY ADAMS 4.

COMMERCIAL TRAVELLERS AND TRANSIENT
TRADERS (AMENDMENT) BILL

Hon. G. G. FERGUSSON: Mr. Speaker, this Bill
seeks to increase the licence fee payable by com-
mercial travellers and transient traders from $24
to $500. The Bill will also make it impossible for
a commercial traveller or transient trader to bring
an action against any person unless at the time the
goods were sold and delivered or the contract made
the traveller or trader was the holder of a valid
licence.

I beg to move that this Bill be now read a se-
cond time.

Hon. A. DaC. EDWARDS: I beg to second that.


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


On motion of Hon. G. G. FERGUSSON, seconded by Hon.
A. DaC. EDWARDS, Mr. SPEAKER left the Chair and the
House went into Committee on the Bill, Mr. YEARWOOD in
the Chair.

Clauses 1 and 2 were called and passed.

Clauses3 was called. It reads as follows:-
"3. This Act shall be deemed to have come
into operation on the 3rd July, 1968."

Hon. G. G. FERGUSSON: I beg to move, Mr.
Chairman, that Clause .3 stand part of the Bill...,

Hon. A. DaC. EDWARDS: I beg to second that.

Mr. MOTTLEY Mr. Chairman, this seemstobe
a Bill with which I agree, but how are you to get at
the root of this matter? People land at Seawell Air-
port and they get permits as visitors on a holiday -
I hope that the Minister in charge will tell me a few
of these things. A tourist, for that matter, is on holi-
day and he comes in here and starts off trading. How
are we going to get at him? He has no licence or per-
mit or anything at all; he brings in some 600 watches
and sells them at $10 a piece. (Laughter). How are
we going to get at him. What is the penalty?
1.45 p.m.

That is in the budgetary proposals. Itgoes from
f 5 to $500.

Mr. CHAIRMAN: The hon. member, inmyopin-
ion, is out of order. You have allowed Clause 2 to
pass you which, perhaps, relates to whateveryou are
saying. We are now dealing with Clause 3 which
states:

"This Act shall be deemed to have come
into operation on the 3rd July, 1968."

Mr. MOTTLEY: Would you like me to exercise
all the rights I have? I know that what you are saying
is correct. Do you want me to ask that the Clause be
recommitted? I agree with changing 5to $500. I say
that it is unfair competition, and I would like to
know whether the Minister has any machinery for
dealing with these people who come here and do
business. The Minister of Trade will agree with
me that -

Mr. CHAIRMAN: I rule that you cannot discuss
it under Clause 3.

Mr. MOTTLEY: Mr. Chairman, do not be so
strict with your Rulings; you might get yourself in
a corner one of these days. Are you afraid of some-
thing? I know that I can ask that Clause 2 be recom-
mitted, if you want me to do that. You have had your
experience and teaching abroad, and you are very
strict now. I beg to move that Clause 2 be recom-
mitted.

Mr. HOPPIN: Mr. Chairman, I beg to second


that








2137


Hon. MEMBERS: Let us complete Clause 3 first.

The question that Clause 3 stand part was put and re-
solved In the affirmative without division.

(Mr. HINDS: An hon. member is on his feet).

Sir GRANTLEY ADAMS: If Your Honour had
called on the Speaker who was on his feet to sit
down, one could understand; but for a member to be
on his feet while you are putting the question shows
no respect to hon. members. Call on him to take his
seat. Could anything be more irregular than that?

Hon. E. W. BARROW: The hon. memberwas not
on his feet; he was standing on one foot, Sir.

Mr. MOTTLEY: Mr. Chairman, I beg to move
that Clause 2 be recommitted.

Mr. HOPPIN: Mr. Chairman, I beg to second
that.

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

Mr. MOTTLEY: It is very simple, Sir. "Section
3 of the Commercial Travellers and Transient Trad-
ers Act, 1935 is hereby amended as follows:-

(a) by deleting the words "five pounds" ap-
pearing in line 8 of subsection (1) thereof
and substituting therefore the words "five
hundred dollars".

I said at the beginning that I agree with that, be-
cause I felt that it was unfair competition for peo-
ple to come here with a bundle of things that cost
them little or nothing, and do a tremendous amount
of business as compared with people who must make
their returns for the entire year to the Commissioner
of Inland Revenue. Some people get away with mur-
der.

The Clause goes on to state:

(b) by inserting immediately after subsection
(1) thereof the following as subsection (1A) -

"(1A) Where a transient trader required
by subsection 1 to obtain a licence
before exercising his trade in the Is-
land fails to do so, then the rights of
such trader, in respect of any action
for goods sold ......."

Mr. Chairman, all this means is that if a man
sells you a suit length for $25 and it cost him $6, he
does not care if you ever pay him the full amount. I
want to know what machinery the Minister has to
deal with Syrians and Indians who come into this
Island with a suitcase filled with things and start
to do business throughout the Island. What machin-
ery does he have to make sure that these people pay
their taxes? They come in as visitors or tourists.


I have had experience in this matter. The ma-
jority of these people live at Guest Houses inChrist
Church and, although they were trading in the
Municipality, we found it difficult to collect any
taxes from them. When we got the names, things
were so confused that, by the time we were ready to
deal with them, they were gone. It is all well and
good to say that this is in the Budgetary Proposals
and it is intended to bring in so much money, un-
less the Government has the necessary machinery
to deal with these people, I do not see how one cent
will be collected. I would certainly like to hear the
Minister on the matter.

Sir GRANTLEY ADAMS: Mr. Chairman, al-
though the Prime Minister may have something to
say because I said something earlier about saving
time, I could have said a lot more.I merely say that
this Section needs something added to merely saying
that a man cannot sue. Why should everybody else
be penalised? Suppose he is so friendly with all of his
customers that they readily pay him? He never pays
the $500, and he does not suffer at all. He puts the
money for what he sells in his pocket. Everybody
else in all of these Bills will be fined for not doing
certain things. I could have raised this point at the
beginning and I could have made a long speech.

Hon. E. W. BARROW: If the hon. member will
give way, I will draw his attention to the fact that
there is a fine. Under the principal Act there is a
fine of 50. I will consider amending that to 500,
if you like, but I was merely concerned with the
money raising aspect rather than the penalty through
the Court. I agree with the hon. member that the
penalty should be increased, and I will considerthat
at another stage. We must get the revenue Acts
passed.

Mr. MOTTLEY: We agree that there is apenal-
ty, but the penalty should not remain at $50. When
this Act was passed those people were coming to this
Island by boats, but nowadays you have them coming
here by planes.
1.55 p.m.

This thing about not being able to sueisinmy
opinion junk. I say that for this reason. If these peo-
ple bring something for 60 cents and sell it at $10
and receive $5, they do not give a damn if you pay
the rest or not. What I want to know is what
machinery will you set in operation to see that they
take out this licence for $500?
This is coming into operation retrospectively. I
will bet that you did not have two coming and paying
$500, and I bet that over one dozen have come into
the Island since then. You have the Immigration De-
partment. That is all right for people who come in
for 17 days or two months. These traders want to
come in during the crop time when money is circu-
lating and then they go. They do not have to sue
anyone.
There are Italian goods which are a good imita-
tion of British tweeds. These traders go into the








2138


country and sell a man in the country a suit for $25
or $30. The man pays down half, about $12 and the
thing really costs about $2.00 ayard. When the trader
receives a downpayment he is getting more than the
whole cost him.

It may seem to be a help to the ordinary man,
but the trader's idea is to get money out of them when
they come here. How are you going to get this li-
cence? I know that at present you cannot get any.
They go to a hotel or a boarding-house in Christ
Church, and next morning they are in a car all over
the country, and that is the end of it. How do you get
this money? This is retroactive from July.

Sir GRANTLEY ADAMS: Mr. Chairman, I want
to save time. I do not know who put this idea in his
head. It is possible for any clever lawyer to show
that he could not sue if he did not sell as a licenced
trader.

I remember Mr. Justice Ward when he was a
small boy and I was a small boy also saying that a
druggist ordinarily did not mind if he charged you
20 cents and you paid only one penny because he
would still have made 18 cents.

Mr. CHAIRMAN: The question is -

Mr. MOTTLEY: No. I object to any indecent
haste. I am not opposing anything. I am asking for
enlightment. The Minister of Trade is in charge of
this and I ask for enlightenment. Maybe there are
means which they have of having the Immigration
Department, as soon as a man says that he is
trader, reporting that he should pay the licence fee.

I do not ask questions just to oppose something.
That has never been in me. So often you hear that
these amendments are supposed to bring in more
revenue, revenue of which we are in dire need. Sup-
pose I ask how much do you expect to get from this?
This came into operation from July. I asknow on the
floor of this House that the officers who work under
the Commissioner of Inland Revenue have not got
money from two of these traders since this came
into operation. Do you believe that anyone has paid
$500 and said that I want to sell cloth or watches?

I agree with the Bill; but it does not make sense
to me unless you go further andtellme how you pro-
pose to implement it.

Hon. E. W. BARROW: Mr. Chairman, the ordin-
ary machinery for law enforcement is there. Every
Sargeant in charge of a District Station is aware day
by day of the people travelling around and collecting
money from agricultural workers, etc. We have not
set up a special machinery for collecting this tax.

Last year there were ten people who came into
the Island for this purpose. There may have been
more whom we did not detect. We are invigilating
that a little more closely because we think that they
are offering competition to people resident in Bar-
bados, and who have to pay trade tax, company tax


and income tax. We know that there are a lot more
circulating in the country that do not come under the
Interim Traders Licence, but they are liable to trade
tax because they are domiciled in Barbados. Even if
they are East Indians or Syrians, they pay their
trade tax.

This is specifically for the people who move in
from Trinidad, Guyana etc. in the crop time. After
the second or third week in January, you will see a
big influx. If between July and now you have not got
a lot of them, the member for the City knows that they
come in at a particular time. If the Law Enforcement
Officers are on their toes, it should not.be difficult
to find out these people and we should collect about
$10,000.

The question that Clause 2 stand part was put and re-
solved in the affirmative without division.

On motion of Hon. G. G. FERGUSSON, seconded by
Hon. N. W. BOXILL, the CHAIRMAN reported the passing of
one Bill in Committee, and Mr. SPEAKER resumed the Chair
and reported accordingly.

On separate motions of Hon. G. G. FERGUSSON, se-
conded by Hon. N. W. BOXILL, the Bill was read a third time
and passed.

BILL TO AMEND THE LEGITIMACY ACT, 1930

Mr. SPEAKER: The next Order stands in the
name of the Hon. and Learned Prime Minister and
it is a Bill to amend the Legitimacy Act, 1930.

Hon. E. W. BARROW: Mr. Speaker, opportunity
has been taken, in the increasing of fees payable to
the Registrar for the re-registration of the birth of a
legitimate person, to make another amendment to the
Legitimacy Act.
2.05 p.m.

It is the considered view that the fees should be
prescribed in the law and not left to rules. You will
remember that in my Budget Speech I said, Mr.
Speaker, that on the question of the late registration
of births, at present a fee of $2 is payable to the
Accountant General and I propose that this be amend-
ed to $10. During the time that this amendment was
being drafted, which is a simple amendment, it was
considered that the provision relating to the non-
registerability or the non-legitimation of a person,
one of whose parents was married at the time when
the ,illegitimate person was born, should be brought
into line with modern legislation, and innocent chil-
dren should not be penalised for something overwhich
they had no control. I should like to point out with
regard to the particular amendment relating to that,
although it is not a tax measure, instead of having
two bites at the Legitimacy Act, we are doing it here
at the same time as the fees onlate registration. The
Bill will therefore amend the Act of 1930-3 so as to
make it possible I should like to point out that
the Objects and Reasons Clause is wrong. It is not
any part of the Bill, of course, but in the Objects
and Reasons they say that "this Bill seeks to amend









2139
- -- --,


the Legitimacy Act 1930-3 so as to legitimate from
the commencement of the proposed legislation, a
person whose father or mother was married to a
third person when the illegimate person was born.
The Bill removes hardship and inconvenience caused
to innocent children.

This amendment which is now being proposed
does not per se legitimate a person as from the date
when we pass the amendment. The amendment only
makes it possible for a person so born to be legiti-
mated. I hope that I have made that clear. This
amendment does not legitimate a person and there-
fore, in that respect, the Objects and Reasons Clause
is wrong, because it gives the impression that the
legitimation of all persons one of whose parents was
alive and married at the time when the person was
born, is automatic on the passing of the Act. The Act
only makes it possible, whereas before there was a
specific prohibition against the legitimation and
registration of a person so born. I hope that I have
made myself clear. I apologise for any mistake in the
Objects and Reasons Clause. I really do not read
Objects and Reasons Clauses because they do.not form
any part of the Legislation. I do not like, in introduc-
ing a Bill, to get up and recite the Objects and Rea-
sons Clause because I think that hon. members are
entitled to fuller explanations than those given in an
Objects and Reasons Clause. (ASIDES). This applies
to everybody. Ihonestlyfeel that hon. members are
entitled to more than a recital of the Objects and
Reasons because hon. members can read the Ob-
jects and Reasons. (ASIDES).

Mr. SPEAKER: Will the Hon. and Learned Prime
Minister continue to address the Speaker in silence?

Hon. E. W. BARROW: I was merely pointing out
that there is a mistake in the Objects and Reasons
Clause and I apologise for it. I am merely pointing
out that I do not hold myself responsible for Objects
and Reasons Clauses because they form no part of the
legislation. I want to make it abundantly clear and
I say again that it is not correct to say, as the
Objects and Reasons Clause says, that this Bill will
legitimate from the commencement of the proposed
legislation, a person whose father or mother was
married to a third person when the illegitimate per-
son was born. As a matter of fact, it is misleading
in another respect because I believe that when you
register a birth, the legitimation then I speak sub-
ject to correction because I have not read the Act re -
cently; I used to have a little to do with this in my
legal capacity, but my recollection is that on re-re-
gistration, it legitimates a person from birth or from
the date of marriage. Therefore, it is not from the
date on which you go to the Registry and say: "Here
is the birth certificate of my child; this child was
born before marriage; we are now married", and the
legtimation is on that date. The legitimation goes
back and therefore the Objects and Reasons Clause
is again erroneous in that respect, in my humble
opinion. I am only giving an opinion. I am not saying
it categorically because I have not checked that aspect
of it.


Mr. Speaker, having now made myself clear on
that I am not supposed to listen to asides.

Mr. SPEAKER: I am not hearing any at the
moment, I am listening so intently to the speaker.


Hon. E. W. BARROW: I have pointed out before
that we are bringing this legislation in line with other
Commonwealth countries both in the Caribbean and in
the United Kingdom. It is good to havewhere no de-
triment is suffered in the community, forthe sake of
case law and so on, similarly in legislation, and it
may also do a lot of good to people who, through no
fault of their own I am notone: so I do not have to
worry; it is not done for anybody on this side of the
House as far as I know, or for any individual person
that I am aware of. It was a proposal put up to us by
the legal luminaries through the normal channels,
and the Hon. Attorney General looked at it and is
satisfied that the Bill should be amended.

What was wrong with it, I do not know. I have
heard certain sotto voce remarks, but Iknow that the
same person who makes the sotto voce remarks never
finds anything wrong with the United Kingdom, and I
would like to put his mind at rest by telling him that
it was passed in the United Kindgom in 1959, I think.
It was in 1959, as far as I remember, that this pro-
hibition was removed in the United Kingdom. It has
also since been removed in other Commonwealth
Caribbean Countries. In view of the explanation which
I have given, hon. members are satisfied that this
is not a matter of personal legislation for me or for
any of my Ministers, and I therefore beg to move
that this Bill be now read a second time.

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

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

Hon. E. W. BARROW: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move
that you do now leave the Chair and the House go into
Committee on this Bill.

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

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

.Mr. SPEAKER left the Chair and the House went into
Committee on the Bill, Mr. YEARWOOD in the Chair.

2.15 p.m.

Clauses 1 and 2 were called and passed.

Clause 3 was called.

Hon. E. W. BARROW: I have a little difficulty
here, Sir. This Clause states:

"5. No fee for re-registration under this
Schedule shall be charged if the necessary in-








2140


formation for the purpose is furnished within
the time specified in paragraph 2 but in any
other case there shall be paid to the Registrar
on the re-registration of each child afee of $2."

I do not know where they got this from, because the
fee should be $10. It was 10/- before. If you look at
the Act itself it states:

".......shall be charged in respect of such re-
registration such fees, not exceeding in the ag-
gregate ten shillings, as may be prescribed by
regulations under this Schedule."

This is a problem. I do not think that hon. members
really appreciate the reason why a fee is charged. It
is in the interest of children that early registration
should be done. It is in the children's interest, because
if their parents should die intestate, the children
would not be entitled to succeed, unless you try to
stimulate some interest in the parents to have the
registration done. After both parents are dead, it is
not possible under this Act, or any Act that I know of,
to legitimate the children.

I should also point out that very shortly I hope
to introduce in this House I cannotunderstand why
it has not come down before, but about three or four
years ago I informed the House that the law of intes-
tacy is quite wrong and outmoded in this country
where the eldest child inherits everything, if the
eldest child is a male. If there is only one male in
the family and there are eight daughters, the male
gets all the real property. Since 1925 this has been
changed in the United Kingdom. As far as I know,
every Commonwealth country now has all of the
children participating inequal shares on an intestacy.
Where a father or mother dies leaving lawful issue,
or legitimate issue, they should all share equally
in the property. I do not know whywe have continued
with this outmoded form of Real Property devolution.

With regard to the fine, do not be worried about
the $10 because we want it to be high. We want to en-
courage people to re-register their children so that
the children do not suffer from late registration, or
non-registration. If they leave it until too late some-
thing may happen which may not be in the interest
of the children. (Mr. MOTTLEY: What about the case
where there are four or five children?) This is not
a fee for registering late. The fee is increased if
you register late, but if you register on time there
is no fee. If you register late, you will pay a fee
according to the Schedule. Previously it was not
exceeding ten shillings. This matter has given me
some trouble.

I should point out something that is not in the
Act. The Registrar has prescribed his scale of fees
for re-registration, but the re-registration is late
re-registration. The Act says that no fee shall be
charged, and this is being maintained. The fee which
the Registrar, under the Act, has prescribed is
"one or two children ...... Id". If you register one
child late you will pay 5/-; if you register two


children it will be the same 5/-; if you register
three children late you will pay $1,80, and if you
register.four or more children you will pay $2.40,
since the maximum under the Act is $2.40. If you
register 18 children you will pay $2.40.

What we are saying now is that late re-registra-
tion is not in the interest of children, and you should
pay a fee of $10, according to the amendment which
we have included here. There is a fee of $2 in the
amendment which we have here. I was trying to point
out that I have a difficulty. Let me explain what the
difficulty is. My intentionwas that where it says $2.40,
$10 should be substituted. The $2 is in respect of a
late re-registration of an individual child. It should
be more than $2 for a late re-registration of more
than one child. The draftsman, in my opinion, has
made a mistake.

The difficulty is that the law prescribes one thing,
but still gives the Registrar the authority to say what
it should be within the overall maximum prescribed
by law. My opinion is that this should read $10, and
the $2 maximum per child is what the Registrar, by
Regulations, makes under the Schedule.

Now the Chief Justice has minuted on this matter
that he thinks everything should be in the Act, be-
cause once you have this dichotomy, this division of
authority, for who is to say how much it should be -
you say in the Act that it cannot be more than it is
here now, before amendment, $2.40 if there are 18
children. My proposal in my Budget Speech was that
it should not be more than$10, butthis has been mis-
understood. In the course of the discussions and so on
we said that it should be a maximum of $2 for each
child, but that should not have been in the Bill at all.
I would like to delete this "$2" and substitute "$10",
and I can assure hon. members that I will give the
Registrar the necessary directions.

The Chief Justice has said himself that he thinks
that everything should be specified in the Act. I am
inclined to agree with him, because you get confusion
when you leave a maximum irthe Act and then let the
Registrar, without even any notice to the general pub-
lic other than the Official Gazette whichveryfew of
us read, I believe, except our own speeches, be given
a discretion within the prescribed limit.
2.25 p.m.

We can either say for the registration of each
child a fee of $2.00 which will meet the Chief Jus-
tice's suggestion and not leaving it to the Registrar
and then you can add the words "providedthat ......
Let me go back to the original Act. We can use the
same words as in the original Act and add the words
"not exceeding in the aggregate $10.00".

I think, Sir, that that would meet both sides,
because my proposal was a maximum of $10.00 if
there were 18 children or not. Now, the Registrar is
fixing the scale and they have left out the most im-
portant part of the Budget Proposals, "not exceeding
an aggregate of $10.00".








2141


If hon. members would accept that amendment
which comes straight from the existing Schedule, it
would meet my intention in the Budget Speech. Again
I want to emphasise that this is not a fee which would
have to be paid. It is only afee which is paid more in
the nature of a penalty for late re-registration of a
birth in the case of more than one child. Maybe the
Leader of the Opposition can help us. That is my sug-
gestion as to how it can best be met.

Mr. HINDS: What I am worried about is that we
have for re-registration of each child a fee of $2.00
not exceeding in the aggregate -we retainthe words
"two dollars".

Hon. E. W. BARROW: Yes. I did not realise that
that was the difficulty. For each child $2.00, but not
exceeding in the aggregate $10.00. We retain the
$2.00. Inferentially it means not more than $10.00 in
the aggregate.

Sir GRANTLEY ADAMS: I would suggest that
you postpone consideration of this Bill. If may be that
the Hon. Prime Minister was too busy. After that
long speech he is mixing up late registration and re-
registration. Re-registration means what it says, that
the child is already registered. The birth of the
child is registered and where the word "re-regis-
tration" comes in, it means that it is legitimate in
accordance with the Legitimacy Act and you are re-
gistering the fact that it is not a legitimate child.

The Hon. member never said one word in the
Budget Speech about re-registration. He spoke as
regards late registration, which is a different thing.

Hon. E. W. BARROW: I would explain that Iam
not confused. The hon. members confused; I am not.

Sir GRANTLEY ADAMS: I took the trouble to go
through the Act.

Hon. E. W. BARROW: Mr. Chairman -

Sir GRANTLEY ADAMS: I am not giving way.

Hon. E. W. BARROW: Iwillaskthehon. member
before he embarrasses himself -

Sir GRANTLEY ADAMS: I insist on not giving
way. When he gets up and makes rude and stupid re-
marks like that, I am not giving way. He said in the
Budget Speech "On the re-registration of one or two
children a fee of $1.20 is payable, forthree children
$1.80 and for four or more children $2.40". What does
re-registration mean? It is nonsense to say that it
means the same thing as late registration. Youmust
know that the child is already born. Let me refer to
the original Act. Section 1 of the Schedule says:

"The Registrar of the Island may, on produc-
tion of such evidence as appears to him to be satis-
factory, authorise at any time the re-registration of
the birth of a legitimate person whose birth is al-
ready registered under the Registration (Births,
Baptisms, Marriages and Burials) Act, 1891, and


such re-registration shall be effected in such man-
ner as the Registrar may by regulations prescribe."

Is it not quite plain and obvious that the child is
already registered? Now he is re-registered as a
legitimate child. The Budget Speech which I have be-
fore me speaks of re-registration. I am not giving
way.

Hon. E. W, BARROW: The hon. member is getting
himself more and more embarrassed in his anxiety
to score a point.

Sir GRANTLEY ADAMS: Embarrass me?

Mr. CHAIRMAN: Two hon. members are on
their feet.

Hon. E. W. BARROW: I want to explain to the
hon. member what it really is; but he insists and
persists in his contumacious conduct.

Sir GRANTLEY ADAMS: The hon. member re-
ferred to his Budget Speech. You will see that today
he makes mention of $10.00. That is on the question
of the late registration of births. Is the hon. member
thinking that a village idiot, let alone a member of
this House, would believe that late registration and
re-registration mean the same thing? Does he think
that anyone in here would believe that, even his col-
leagues?

He has confused himself, but stating what he
said in the Budget Speech. Re-registration and late
registration are totally different things. That is why
I got up as calmly as I thought that I could and sug-
gested to postpone consideration of this so that he
could get it clear in his own mind.

Hon. E. W. BARROW: I got up and implored the
Hon. Member not to embarrass himself in his own
interest. I do not want to be harsh or unduly critical;
but there is too much of this business of getting up on
trivialities by members on all sides sometimes,with
the exception of Ministers that tendency to show
off and score cheap points. The House is plagued with
this kind of behaviour.

I am the Minister of Finance and I am also the
Minister responsible for introducing this Bill. I am
not confused, neither is the Act confused. I pointed
out to members how the mistake occurred so that
the amendment which is now before us did not fully
carry out my intentions in the Budget Speech in pre-
scribing a maximum.
The Legitimacy Act itself does not use the words
"late registration". The point is, as Iwas explaining
to the member for St. James andthe member for the
City, that the law not only said that children should
be legitimate, but that they should be legitimatedas
early as possible; and so, the law has said that as
soon as you get married you have six months in
which to re-register births.
This is the registration of all legitimate chil-
dren breathing oxygen, nitrogen, argon and all the








2142


other elements that constitute the atmosphere and
living under the Queen's Peace in this Island. Even if
they only live for one hour, by the law you must re-
gister the birth.

I have to go back to Low Primer now. When a
person is born and his parents are not married, the
law now provides that you can legitimate that person.
That was known in Roman Law as Legitimato per
subsequent matrimonium. That is something which
goes back to the dim recesses of legal history which
has beea well known and developed in civil courts.
That is, legitimation by subsequent marriage.

What, however, the law says is that you have to
re-registerthe birth.You have a birthcertificate show-
ing a blaS k space vhe re the fathe r's name should be.
There are ma-.y people in this Island who unfortunately
were in that position,. We now say tha: if the parents
get married the child has to be legitimate. That old
certificate is torn up and your birth is re-registered
so that anyone going and calling for this certificate
will see that your mother's name was so-and-so and
your father's name was so-and-so, andthe old certi-
ficate no longer exists.

What I said in my Budget Speech, although I did
not spell it out in words of one syllable for those who
think that they are smart, but who are not so smart,
is that the law gives you six months after your mar-
riage to re-registerthe births of these children. The
law says that if you do it within six months we are
not going to charge yoj a fee; but the law at present
says that the aggregate maximum fee is $2.40 if you
do it after six months have expired; and I am saying
that the maximum fee should be $10.00 in the
aggregate.
2.35 p.m.

I have gone back to Lower Primer. I cannot go
any lower than that because when I went to an Ele-
mentary School, they did not have any classes lower
than Lower Primer, even for Lawyers. Therefore, I
cannot explain it anymore than that. If I said late re-
gistration in my Budget Speech, anyone who is reading
the Act and Clause 5 of the Schedule would understand
that I meant late registration and the original birth.
I am giving a Budget Speech which is setting out the
principles and it is then for the draughtsmen to sit
down, look at the original Act carefully and put into
effect what I proposed in my Budget Speech. When I
am making a Budget Speech, I am not drafting legis-
lation. The pointwhich I am trying to make, where the
hon. member was wrong, is that there is no registra-
tion of an illegitimate child; it is a re-registration.
There is no registration under this Legitimacy Act at
all. Everything is in relation to the tearing up of the
old certificate and making re-registration of birth.

Mr. Chairman, can I make myself any simpler
than that? They are always anxious to score cheap
points. What I am proposing now is that I think that
the draughtsman did not fully carry out the intention
of my Budget Speech of putting a maximum as there
was before. Where it was $2.40 we are asking to add
the amendment which I have mentioned before, "not


exceeding in the aggregate $10". We are putting a
comma where a full stop occurs at $2 and adding the
words "not exceeding in the aggregate $10".

The question that Clause 3 of the Bill be amended by
using a comma after $2 and adding the words "not exceeding
in the aggregate $10", was put and resolved in the affirmative
without division.


Hon. E. W. BARROW: Mr. Chairman, I beg to
move that Clause 3 as amended stand part.

Hon. N. W. BOXILL: I beg to second that.

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

Hon. E. W. BARROW: I beg to move, Mr. Chair-
man, that you do now report the passing of one Bill
as amended in Committee.

Hon. N. W. BOXILL: I beg to second that.


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

The CHAIRMAN reported and Mr. SPEAKER resumed the
Chair and reported accordingly.

On separate motions of Hon. A. DaC. EDWARDS, se-
conded by Hon. N. W. BOXILL, the Bill was read a third
time and passed.


Mr. SPEAKER: The next Order of the Day stands
in the name of the Hon. and Learned Prime Minister: -
To move the second reading of a Bill to amend the
Registration of Business Names Act, 1940.

SUSPENSION OF SITTING

Hon. E. W. BARROW: Mr. Speaker, at this
stage, I beg to move that this sitting be now sus-
pended for half an hour.

Hon. A. DaC. EDWARDS: I beg to second that.

The question was put and resolved in the affirmative
without division, and Mr. SPEAKER suspended the sitting
accordingly.
2.45 p.m.

On resumption:

Mr. SPEAKER: Let the bell be rung, Mr. Clerk.

The Clerk rung the bell and a quorum was obtained.

THE REGISTRATION OF BUSINESS NAMES
(AMENDMENT) BILL, 1968


Mr. SPEAKER: The next Order of the Day is a
Bill to amend the Registration of Business Names
Act, 1940.









2143
I,, I


Hon. E. W. BARROW: Mr. Speaker, in moving
the Second Reading of this Bill, I should like to point
out that in my Budget Speech I made certain propo-
sals to change the amount paid under the Registra-
tion of Business Names Act from $1.20 and 604 to
$20 and $10 respectively. The objects and Reasons
fully set out the provisions of the Bill which are
already in force, and I beg to move that this Bill be
read a second time.

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

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

Hon. E. W. BARROW: Mr. Speaker, I beg to
move that Your Honour do now leave the Chair
and the House go into Committee on this Bill.

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

The question was put and resolved in the affirmative
without division, and Mr. SPEAKER left the Chair and the
House went into Committee on the Bill, Mt. YEARWOOD in
the Chair.

Clauses 1 to 7 inclusive were called and passed.

The Schedule was called and passed.

Hon. A. DaC. EDWARDS: Mr. Chairman, I beg
to move that Your Honour do now report the passing
of one Bill in Committee.

Hon. N. W. BOXILL: I beg to second that.

The question was put and resolved in the affirmative
without division, and Mr. CHAIRMAN reported to Mr.
SPEAKER who resumed the Chair and reported accordingly.

Hon. E. W. BARROW: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move
that this Bill be now read the third time.

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

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

Hon. E. W. BARROW: Mr. Speaker, Ibeg to move
that this Bill do now pass and be cited as the Regis-
tration of Business Names (Amendment) Act, 1968

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

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

THE BILLS OF SALE (AMENDMENT)
BILL, 1968

Mr. SPEAKER: The next Order of the Day also
stands in the name of the Hon. and Learned Prime
Minister, and it is a Bill to amend the Bills of Sale
Act, 1893.

Hon. E. W. BARROW: Mr. Speaker, this Bill
increases fees for the filing of a Bill of Sale and the


Affidavit of execution of a Bill of Sale and entering
satisfaction on a Bill of Sale. There are three
main amendments or increases proposed by the
legislation now before the House. The Bill is self-
explanatory, and I beg to move that this Bill be read
a second time.

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

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

Hon. E. W. BARROW: Mr. Speaker, Ibegto move
that Your Honour do now leave the Chair and the
House go into Committee on this Bill.

Hon. G. G. FERGUSSON: I beg to second that.
The question was put and resolved in the affirmative
without division, and Mr. SPEAKER left the Chair and the
House went into Committee on the Bill, Mr. YEARWOOD in
the Chair.

Clauses 1 to 3 inclusive were called and passed.
Hon. A. DaC. EDWARDS: I beg to move that the
Chairman do now report the passing of one Bill in
Committee.

Hon. N. W. BOXILL: I beg to second that.


The question was put and resolved in the affirmative
without division, and Mr. CHAIRMAN reported to Mr.
SPEAKER who resumed the Chair and reported accordingly.

Hon. E. W. BARROW: Mr. Speaker, I beg to
move that this Bill be now read a third time.

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

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

Hon. E. W. BARROW: Mr. Speaker, I beg to
move that this Bill do now pass and be cited as the
Bills of Sale (Amendment) Act, 1968.

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

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

3.25 p.m.


Mr. SPEAKER: The next Order of the Day stands
in the name of the Hon. and Learned Prime Minister,
and it is to move the second reading of a Bill to
amend the Registration Office Act, 1961.


Hon. E. W. BARROW: Mr. Speaker, in the Bud-
get Proposals I set out certain revisions in the fees
which are payable to the Registrar for Notarial pur-
poses. These fees are already in operation, andthey
may be found on page 24 of the Financial Statement
and Budget Proposals.








2144
[


The fees have been increased from an average
of 100 per cent to 150 per cent in most cases. In most
cases the increase is from figures of $5to $10, $6 to
$15 and' $20 to $50 for drawing a protest on a Bill
and recording same etc.

I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second
time.

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

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

Hon. A. DaC. EDWARDS: I beg to move that
Your Honour do now leave the Chair and the House
go into Committee on the Bill.

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

Mr. J. M. G. M. ADAMS: Mr. Speaker, is it not
easier to give all the Bills the second reading and
commit them all at the same time?

Mr. SPEAKER: It might be easier, but it -

Mr. J. M.- G. M. ADAMS: I do not know of any
rule which it transgresses. I do not know of any
rule which says that you cannot discuss more than
one Bill in Committee just as you can discuss more
than one Resolution especially if the Standing Orders
are suspended Standing Order No. 42.

Hon. E. W. BARROW: I welcome the proposal
made by the hon. member. As amatterof fact I would
like to see the guillotine and kangaroo introduced, not
so much for the liquidation of the Opposition, but for
despatching the business of the House expeditiously.
I am talking about constitutional terms, and not
instruments of torture. I do not know of anything in
the Standing "Orders which is against it. It does not
specifically state that Bills must be submittedtothe
Committee seriatim. This House has been in the prac-
tice of submitting more than one Money Resolution
to the Committee, and I see no reasonwhy more than
one should not be submitted, but dealt with, of
course, seriatim. If the House is disposed to agree
with what seems to be the consensus on both sides,
I would be willing.

Mr. SPEAKER: I would be loth to create a pre-
cedent without an opportunity of giving the matter con-
sideration. For me to do that of course, there would
be the delay which we are all seeking to avoid. If the
Prime Minister will proceed with this matter I will
then suggest that with respect to the second reading,
the second reading of each of the Bills be proposed
at the same tme. Let the hon. Prime Minister pro-
ceed with this first.
The question that Mr. SPEAKER do now leave the
Chair and the House go into Committee on the Bill was put
and resolved in the affirmative without division, and Mr.
SPEAKER left the Chair and the House went into Committee
on the Bill, Mr. YEARWOOD in the Chair.
The Clauses of the Bill were called and passed.


On motion of Hon. E. W. BARROW, seconded by Hon.
G. G. FERGUS SON, the CHAIRMAN reported the passing of
the Bill in Committee, and Mr. SPEAKER resumed the Chair
and reported accordingly.

On motions of Hon. A. DaC. EDWARDS, seconded by
Hon. G. G. FERGUSSON, the Bill was read a third time and
passed.

BILLS READ A SECOND TIME

Hon. E. W. BARROW: Mr. Speaker, there are
outstanding five Bills resulting from the Financial
Statement and Budget Proposals. All of these Mea-
sures are already in force, but in accordance with
the provisions of the interim legislation, they have to
be enacted before the expiration of the Statutory
period. I am theredore proposing, Mr. Speaker, that
a Bill to amend the Registration of Newspapers Act,
1900, a Bill relating to the Registration of members
of certain professions to the payment of fees for
such registration and for matter incidental thereto
and connected therewith, a Bill to amend the Rum
Duty Act, 1906, a Bill to amend the Petroleum Act,
1882 and a Bill to amend the Brewery Act, 1950.
be now read a second time.

I propose to deal seriatim with these Bills in
Committee.

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

Mr. HINDS: If these five Bills are going to be
given second reading at the same time -

Hon. E. W. BARROW: We will go into Committee
once, but the Bills will have to be dealt with seriatim,
Clause by clause and the hon. member will have the
opportunity -

Mr. HINDS: What I want to ask is this: will an
hon. member be able to make more than one second
reading speech? There will be five Bills beinggiven
second reading. Will anhon. memberbe able to make
five second reading speeches?

Hon. E. W. BARROW: That is the prerogative
of the House. No one can take that away from an
hon. member if he wants to speak on the first, second,
third or any Bill. He can do so. That is how I see
it. I do not think that I will have to call on you, Sir
for a Ruling.

Mr. SPEAKER: An hon. member is entitled to
as many speeches as there are readings. Of course
there is no limit to the time of each speech. Not that
I am encouraging hon. members.

The question is that each of these Bills be now
read a second time. It is clearlyunderstoodthat this
motion is so put as the result of an indication from
the Official Opposition that there is no objection so
to do. It also appears to me to be the unanimous wish
of the Chamber. I do not declare that this creates a
precedent.








2145


Mr. J. M. G. M. ADAMS: Perhaps my points can
be dealt with in Committee. I am speaking to the Bill
relating to registration of members of certain pro-
fessions. There is a slight loophole in favour of the
Government, that apparently has been left open. The
point is intricate, but it does arise in practice, par-
ticularly with barristers and sometimes doctors.

Someone may be registered and not domiciled in
Barbados. A Trinidad barrister may come here to do
a case, and he will have to pay $50 registration fee.
In the following year he may not even think that he
will be getting a case in Barbados, but in September
or October he gets another case and he will have pay
$120 for practising for the second year; but what I
am saying is that the way the Act is drafted he will
also have to pay a penalty because he did not pay in
January. I do not think that that is what is intended.
3.35 p.m.

I do not know if that is really the intention. I
think that what is needed perhaps is some propor-
tionate Clause. For example, a Barbadian Barrister,
for reasons of health this has happened recently -
may be away forthree months of the year. That might
be the first three months. He does not register
during that time, and for all he knows, he may never
return to practise. But God restores his health and
he comes back, and although he was not practising
for the first three months, he not only has to pay his
registration fee, but he will also have to pay a penalty
for not having paid it during the months of non-
practice. I am hoping that the Prime Minister will
agree with me that this matter could be remedied by
having some Clause provided for proportionate pay-
ment where an already registeredpractitioner is not
in practice for a certain proportion of the year.

Hon. E. W. BARROW: Mr. Speaker, I wouldlike
to make two points on the intervention of the hon.
member. The first point that strikes me is that I do
not see why a Barbadianbarrister shouldbe in a less
favourable position than someone who is coming in
here, drawing a fee and going back out. That is the
first objectionwhich Iwould have if Iwere practising.
If a person wants the honour and title to practise in
more than one place, then he must subscribe to the
Rules and Laws of the Country inwhich he is practis-
ing. He is not only practising in his country of domi-
cile, but he is coming inhere and probably depriving
some up-and-coming young lawyer of a senior or a
junior brief; therefore I would not like to discrimi-
nate.


The second point which I would like to make is
that if the hon. membercouldgetthe Bar Association
to make a submission as to how this could be amended
- it does not have to be unaminous as long as it
comes as a Resolution passed by a majority of the
members of the Bar, I would be pleased to pay at-
tention to it.

Mr. J. M. G. M. ADAMS: Mr. Speaker, if Your
Honour does not mind my rising on a point of order,


I would like to say that I did not know that the Hon.
Prime Minister, too, was aware that no Resolution
has got through the Bar Association for twelve
months at least, whether by majority or otherwise.

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

Mr. HINDS: Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak,
however briefly, on this Bill dealing with the Regis-
tration of newspapers. I must say that it affects me
as the Editor and Publisher of a newspaper; but I
think I should say that we are being asked here today
to lend ourselves or our support to the legal repres-
sion of newspapers in this Island. I am to say that I
know that there are no more than sixor seven regis-
tered newspapers in this Island, and when you look
at the fees expected to be receivedfrom this imposi-
tion which has come about resulting from the Budget
Proposals, one would say that the time has really
come when one has got to give very serious consid-
eration to one or two simple facts. One fact is this,
that the Public Health Department or the Ministry
of Health is presently engaged in a campaign of
immunizing people against polio which may never
come; but do you know, Sir, that nowhere can we find
any attempt being made by the Government to immu-
nize people against lunacy?

Mr. Speaker, I am very serious in making that
statement. What do we see here is this attempt at re-
gistering newspapers? You have got to bear in mind
that the registration of existing newspapers becomes
effective during the month of May. We can very well
see that from the monthofJulywhenthe Budget Pro-
posal was made, until the end of Aprilnext year, the
Government cannot hope to receive one penny from
the registration of newspapers. You will realise then
that at that time we will be very nearly on the eve of
another Budget Proposal, and what will happen then,
Heaven knows. Mr. Speaker, even when registration
fees are being collected from all the registered
newspapers in this Island, it is going to net a mere
$600 or $700 and not more. What we do see here is
this, that newspapers mine and others have been
very critical of the present Government and we have
every reason to believe, judging from statements
which have come forth from the mouth of the Prime
Minister when he was on the political soap box, that
this registration fee of $100 at this time is the mere
end of the wedge. We must say that it is an attempt
to stifle free expression, and it is to be regarded as
retrogressive legislation when we know that in Eng-
land since something like 1855, I think it was, any
form of tax on a newspaperwas abolished. Therefore,
Sir, you will find that here is a case where a Gov-
ernment is prepared to use its majorityforany rea-
son where any member of the community stands to
suffer. Libel laws and soon are allthere for the pro-
tection of the community who may be offended by a
newspaper or anything of that sort.
3.45" p.m.

But what you will find is this, Sir. I can hardly
believe that the Minister of Finance has any just rea-
son to advance for his decision to affix a fee of $100








2146
, H _-_


per annum for the registration of newspapers in this
Island.

Sir, newspapers are not money-making con-
cerns, except in the case of such newspapers that
lend their support to the Government in power as we
may have in this Island. In the case of those news-
papers that are published weekly here is another
case where it is not taken into consideration that a
daily newspaper must pay $100 for registration, a
bi-weekly a lesser fee, and a weekly must pay least
of all. Even then, Sir, one might be tempted to look
for, if there is to be seen, any measure of rationality
in such an exercise.

What we are saying is this: there is absolutely no
necessity I will go further and say that it is aiming
at the freedom of the Press of this country. It is re-
trogressive legislation, and I can hardly think that
the Minister of Finance can advance any sane rea-
son for this imposition. I have said that newspapers
do not make money, and are not money-making con-
cerns. I am in the business myself and I happen to
know it.

We have seen quite recently that Barbados which,
at one stage, had the benefit of good number of dai-
Slies, today finds itself with one daily newspaperfunc-
tioning in this Island. I am saying that whilst the
dailies that have gone out of business, or have been
liquidated from time to time, might have suffered
from faulty administration, it still goes to reason that
we are not progressing as we would appearto be, or
would like to make the world believe we are.

When you look at this stark fact that Barbados
today I say that Barbados is showing itself that it
can hardly support one daily newspaper in this Island.
That is the situation with which we are faced. It might
be said that $100 per year is nothing, but it must be
remembered that a newspaper like any other business
has to face other methods of taxation. There is in-
come tax, there is trade tax, and there can be com-
pany tax depending on the type of organisation that
has been set up. All of these things have to be taken
into consideration; and when you look Sir, at the fact
that the gross intake at the end of a whole year
amounts in the eyes of Government revenue to a mere
pittance of $600 or $700, let us ask ourselves what
it is the Minister of Finance is going after.

I am saying that the freedom of the Press in
Barbados is being dealt a blow. It is a very serious
blow in view of the fact that when legislation is
passed here today to make this $100 effective, there
is no stopping in the future. It is $100 today, and it
may be $1,000 or more in the coming year. What we
are arming ourselves against is that we do not want
the Minister of Finance to have an opportunity, if he
feels that he cannot get at anewspaperthat is expos-
ing the nakedness of his Government to the public, to
use the forum of this House and his position as Min-
ister of Finance in this country to attack the freedom
of the Press.

Mr. Speaker, when you attack the freedom of the
Press, you attack the freedom of every living crea-


ture in the Nation. We have to see to it that we do
not sit here and, because the Minister is the Minister
of Finance, let him start to legislate that even you,
Mr. Speaker, will be called upon to pay a fee to sit
in that Chair, apart from what you may have to pay as
parliamentary dues. It is not good enough, Mr.
Speaker,

What is the Government getting? What does this
bring in? What would $600 do to the budget of this
country, bearing in mind that you will get $600 from
six newspapers? I know that there are many people
who do not, and will not, and cannot, appreciate
newspapers.
3.55 p.m.

We are to say that it is not everything that a
newspaper publishes which will find favour and the
acclaim of every reader. I am the Editor and pub-
lisher of a newspaper, and I would be in a very dan-
gerous position if everything I publish on every
occasion was finding popular acclaim. I would be a
frightened man.

But, Sir, this is what I tell you. Any attempt
by a Finance Minister or a Prime Minister, however
strong his Government may be and I warn the Gov-
ernment backbenchers, some of the Ministers, some
of the backbenchers engaged however remotely in
some form of business that theirday will come when,
if you go on supporting the Prime Minister or Min-
ister of Finance in taxing everything without rhyme
or reason, he will one day turn around on his own.

I am sure, Sir, that dairy-keepers standthreat-
ened at the hands of the Minister of Finance in the
coming year. Private Schools stand threatened at the
hands of the Prime Minister andMinisterof Finance
in the coming year. I do notwant to say, Sir, that the
operators of fishing fleets stand threatened, although
they might well be.

But, Sir, some of the Government backbenchers
have seen this very day what rum shops are now
faced with. The guillotine, the sledge hammer has
been brought down. What did the backbenchers do?
They dared not opentheir mouths. So what have we
got to look into?

I must tell the House that this registration of
newspapers takes effect in the month of May. I did
not register my newspaper until after.the Prime
Minister and Minister of Finance wrote me a letter
telling me that I had to pay this $100 fee because I
did not do something during the month of May?

However, I must be fair to him. Although I am
not a barrister I argued my case with him and after
some weeks he replied to me, after writing me a
second time, that he had got some sortof advice I
do not know where he got it that I was right. He
did not say that he was wrong.

But, Mr. Speaker, there have been battles fought
in the United Kingdom and elsewhere throughout the
years against this encroachment, this attempted en-
croachment of the right and freedom of the people.








2147


One must bear in mind that most of the struggles
throughout the years on the part of newspapers have
been against the imposition of a tax. There has been
an advertisement tax in years past. There have been
things like stamp duty and paper duty and the like, and
we well recall that in the year 1712 there was a stamp
duty of half a penny onevery half sheet of newspaper.

There was a penny imposed on a full sheet, and
I think that it was in 1712 that we read about the
Bolingbroke Agency. We learned that this taxbrought
about the closing down or liquidation of many existing
newspapers in England during those days.

Now, these taxes as I said earlier, were abol-
ished altogether in 1855; and if this is now 1968, one
would see how far back we are throwing ourselves
now further back than in the year 1855. If I could
move that further consideration if this be postponed,
Mr. Speaker -

Hon. E. W. BARROW: Mr. Speaker, on a point
of order.

Mr. HINDS: Arising out of what I said?

Hon. E. W. BARROW: No. On a point of order,
arising out of the Standing Orders. No one was lis-
tening to what you had to say anyhow.

Mr. HINDS: Mr. Speaker, I can get this Prime
Minister to listen to everything I have to say.

Hon. E. W. BARROW: I am on a point of order,
Sir.

Mr. HINDS: I can send him to Westbury Road to
see -

Mr. SPEAKER: As things have gone so well so
far today, may we not conclude in similar vein?

Mr. HINDS: The trouble with him is that he was
born somewhere between St. George and Nestfield,
St. Lucy.

Mr. SPEAKER: I would not like to have to sus-
pend the Sitting until next Tuesday in grave disor-
der. In any event the House is due to meet next
Tuesday.

Hon. E. W. BARROW: I was on a point of order.

Mr. HINDS: On a point of order what?

Mr. SPEAKER: The Hon. Prime Minister has
risen and said "on a point of order",

Hon. E. W. BARROW: On a point of order aris-
ing out of the Standing Orders.

Mr. HINDS: It is a fraudulent point of order. I
am not giving way.

Mr. SPEAKER: As soon as a member rises and
says "point of order", I have to listen to that point


of order to determine whether it is valid or invalid,
and every other member must sit. There should not
be two members on the floor and there should be no
member on the floor when the Speaker is speaking.
The Hon. and Learned Prime Minister has said "on
a point of order" and I will listen to that point of
order.

Hon. E. W. BARROW: Mr. Speaker, you will
remember that we suspended Standing Orders at the
beginning of this sitting. It is now my understanding
that hon. members would like to have this sitting sus-
pended for reasons with which I think Your Hon-
our will be familiar: with due respect, in my case,
in respect of a Government Business appointment;
and in the case of other hon. members because of
certain circumstances that we should have this
sitting suspended until 7 p.m.

Mr. SPEAKER: I do not regard that as being a
point of order as made by the Hon. and Learned
Prime Minister; but the intimation which he has
made is helpful, and may I suggest that if it is the
feeling of hon. members that we would like to be
absent from this House at the moment because of a
certain duty which certainly the majority of us would
like to perform, if the junior member for St. Peter
were now to move that further consideration be post-
poned, and if that motion were passed we could re-
sume this evening later.
4.05 p.m.

An intimation has been given that 7 o'clockis in
the minds at least of the hon. members on my right.
Will the hon. member care to move he is under no
obligation so to do that further consideration of this
matter be now suspended, and if that motion is passed,
the hon. member will resume his address?

Mr. HINDS; Mr. Speaker, I am more than re-
luctant to move any such motion. If the Hon. Prime
Minister is to benefit by half a second to go any-
where, let him get up and go where he has got to go.

Mr. SPEAKER: But there are other hon. mem-
bers, too, who would benefit.

Mr. HINDS: I agree that other hon. members
would benefit, but it is his method, his approach to
problems in here. He thinks that other people have
come in here on wheel barrows and forgets his own
nasty nakedness outside. That is the trouble.

Mr. SPEAKER: Oh! Dear, dear! This sittingnow
stands suspended until 7 o'clock p.m. on account of
grave disorder.
4.10 p.m.

On re-assembling,

Mr. SPEAKER: When the sitting was suspended,
the hon. junior member for St. Peter was addressing
the Chair.

Mr. HINDS: Mr. Speaker, I was saying that one
of the reasons why we might be temptedto say that a


--








2148


registration fee is now imposed on newspapers is due
to the fact that the Government in power today has not
yet learned to appreciate the value of a newspaper;
hence, every effort must be made to extinguish any
newspaper or all of them for that matter. It is the
surest way of preparation for the coming of a dic-
tatorship. The moment that there is no Press and
there is silencing of organs which are critical of a
Government, that is the first step to the setting up of
a dictatorship in any country. Let it be clearly under-
stood that we, on this side of the House, are pre-
pared to do everything that is lawful and right, wheth-
er newspapers are silenced in Barbados or else, to
see to it that we do not have more of these dictatorial
trends than we have seen in the past, or rather, at
present.

Mr. Speaker, newspaperdom is somethingwhich
has a correspondingly long history attached to it.
The history of it is rich; it has a wealth of exper-
ience; and arising from it all there have been laid
down dicta which, from time to time, bear very
valuable relations to the present-day life of any com-
munity. We must bear this in mind, that one of the
Chief functions of a newspaper is to portray as much
as possible of the life of the community of yesterday
and relate it as closely as possible to the present
day. What Barbados must begin to consider is this;
let us, for a single moment, wake up to find that there
is no newspaper being published in this community
for one week! I am to tell you this, that the commu-
nity would feel that it has lost the greater part of its
life. If there were no newspapers published in Barba-
dos for a week or a month for that matter, you will
find that residents of St. Peter would feel that they
are completely out of touch with residents of St.
Philip or those of St. Michael.
7.05 p.m.

In other words, he would cease to realise that he
is living in a smallworld. The boundary, so to speak,
would be wide open. Why? Because in one part of the
Island he would not know what is going on. If we did
not have Radio or Television Services in the Island,
we would feel that we are all dumb sheep and actually
dead. What this Government must do is to begin to
learn that it is by the watchful eye of newspapers -
not those newspapers that are complimentary to the
Government and even bend over backwards occasion-
ally to compliment the Government when it oughtnot
to be complimented, but it is through the watchful eye
of a newspaper that is critical of the Government that
the Government can be urged to do its best for the
benefit of the community; that is, if the Government,
is prepared to appreciate it.

We have heard lots of threats to the existence
of the newspaper in this country. I have heard that
the Government has plans for taking over the only
daily newspaper in Barbados today. Exactly how it
intends to go about it I cannot say at this stage, but I
am in a position to say that the day when the only
daily newspaper in this community is run by the Gov-
ernment, the very next step will be to extinguish
every other organ of public opinion in the commu-


nity and usher in a dictatorship. That is what we have
to fight against.

Now, Sir, I have said earlier that the registra-
tion of newspapers we might call it by that name
at the present moment. What is the reason behind it?
That is what I would like to know. It is not a case
where we have seen any sort of progressive scale of
registration fees. It only covers a periodofone year
for the present, $100, but what is aback of it all?
There are very many avenues that Government could
have tapped to realise $600 a year. What must irk
some people is that even if the Governmentwas gett-
ing $600 a year from newspapers, exactly what would
be done with the $6007 Surely, Sir, the hon. junior
member for St. Andrew, who is not now in his place
I very much regret, Sir I know how he would feel
at this moment that so much money is being frittered
away on these joy-rides, and all he is left to do is
to show himself as an excellent herdsman in this
community. I know how he must feel.

You will understand, Mr. Speaker, that when a
situation such as this presents itself, that you are lay-
ing the axe at the root of the people's freedom,
because, as I have said earlier, the freedom of the
Press is the freedom of the Nation and of every
member of the community. The moment that taxes
are applied to the Press you have to pay this fee
or that fee the Press ceases to be completely
free. You might soon hear, Sir, that you must have
Press censorship in some form or fashion. All of
these things we have to guard against, and it is not
good for us to sit idly by and accept these things
just as they come.

We fully realise that unless some members of
the Government Party should muster sufficient cour-
age to be men; unless members of the Government
Party should cast behind their backs a fat salary at
the end of each month and all of these perquisites and
stand up like men; until that day you will find, Mr.
Speaker, that things such as this I am sure that
sitting on the Government benches here there are to
be found hon. members who feel within themselves,
and who have expressed elsewhere, that a $100 re-
gistration-fee on newspapers is not something which
a community ought to feel proud of.

I would say this, Sir. If there is anydissatisfac-
tion with any section of the Press by any member of
the community, there are laws that provide ample and
adequate compensation for redress to any member
of the community who feels himself wronged in any
respect. But the functions of a newspaper are not
appreciated by the Government, and more so by the
Head of the Government. That is why we are here
debating, at this stage, the imposition of a $100 re-
gistration fee.

We are saying now, and we have said before,
that it cannot be justified; no case can be made out
for it in any respect. I know that I cannot accuse the
Hon. Minister of Finance of applying the spite wea-
pon. I could not say that at all; but surely, Sir, when








2149
SI


one recalls what the said Hon. Minister has had to
say from the political platforms, and thento find that
this Hon. Chamber is used to put into effect what
had been hackneyed about on the political platforms
with regard to newspapers what one must remem-
ber is that on each occasion that the Prime Minister
made a threat, he was not sufficiently careful as not
to mention a particular newspaper by name.
7. 15 p.m.

He spoke out in such away that one had to under-
stand that he held something somewhere in his mind
for certain newspapers; and we are saying now that
this $100.00 registration fee is merely the thin edge
of the wedge being driven in; but we must insist that
whatever fees, or whatever imposition be brought to
bear upon the Press, that it is for the Press in this
community to assert its freedom.

I should not turn back, Sir, and this is what I say:
if its vigilance has caused it to be paying a $100.00
registration fee, it should be more vigilant in the
future, and I urge upon the Press, upon all the com-
munications media to attack the Government right
and left vigorously. That is the only way that the
Government will be kept on its toes, and the com-
munity itself will know what the Government is doing,
and more so be brought face to face with what the
Government has failed to do.

I know, Sir, the opportunity will present it-
self for me to say more on this matter as time goes
on, and I think that I have said enough at this parti-
cular moment.

Mr. SPEAKER: The question is that these Bills
be now read a second time. Hon. members in favour
with please say "Aye"; those of a contrary opinion
will please say "No", Ithinkthe "Ayes" have it, and
I hereby declare each and every one of these Bills
duly to have been read a second time.

On the motion of Hon. G. G. FERGUSSON, seconded
by Hon. A DaC. EDWARDS, Mr. SPEAKER left the Chair and
the House went into Committee, Mr. YEARWOOD in the Chair,
with an instruction to the Committee to deal seriatim with a
Bill to amend the Registration of Newspapers Act 1900, a
Bill relating to the registration of members of certain profes-
sions, to the payment of fees for such registration and for
matters incidental thereto and connected therewith, a Bill
to amend the Rum Duty Act, 1906, a Bill to amend the Petro-
leum Act, 1882 and a Bill to amend the Brewery Act, 1950.

BILL TO AMEND REGISTRATION OF
NEWSPAPERS ACT, 1900

Clause 1 was called and passed.

Clause 2 was called.

Hon. G. G. FERGUSSON: I beg to move that
Clause 2 stand part.

Hon. N. W. BOXILL: I beg to second that.


Mr. HINDS: Mr. Chairman, Clause 2, paragraph
2 says that: "There shall be paid to the Registrar
by the printers and the publishers for the time being
of every newspaper on the filing of the return under
subsection (1) a fee of one hundred dollars."

Now, Sir, under the Registration of Newspapers
Act, 1900 it is very carefully set out what a news-
paper is, and it goes on to tellyou in Section 2 about
occupation, place of residence, proprietor and the
like. But this Bill tells us that the fee shall be paid
by the printers and publishers.

What the authors of this Bill or the draftsman
seemed not to realise is that there are many printers
of a newspaper who are not the publishers of the
newspaper. This Bill purports to tell youthatthe fee
must be paid by the printers and publishers who
operate the newspaper, so to speak; but it does not
tell you that at all; but I have had enough to do with
matters of this sort to know that the very news
vendors at the street corner, the messenger boy in
the office who rides on his bicycle and delivers the
paper at your door, he too is the publisher of the
newspaper.

So, if this Bill tells you about printers and pub-
lishers, are we to understand that the Government
intends to collect $100.00 from each of these, from
each of the agents of newspapers published in this
island? It tells you about collecting front the printers
and publishers, but you will find printers who are
not publishers.

I would very much like to be informed. The
Prime Minister who is thought to be some authority
on matters of this sort happens not to be in his place,
and I only hope that the Hon. Minister of Trade can
offer some sort of explanation as to the points I have
raised on Clause 2.
7.25 p.m.

Hon. G. G. FERGUSSON: Mr. Chairman, the hon.
member has mentioned and made it quite clear that the
printer need not be the publisher. I would think that,
in this case, eitherone couldbe chargedwhether he is
the printer or the publisher, and the same thing could
apply to a libel on his newspaper. If he prints a
newspaper the very boy who delivers the newspaper
could be sued for libel and not necessarily the
Printer. Therefore, either one whom you choose to
prosecute or agree to bring the case against, you
would be in a position to bring the case against. That
is as I would see it. It need not be the publisher or
the editor who has committed libel; the boy who de-
livers the newspaper is equally as liable as the pub-
lisher or the editor.

Mr. HINDS: Mr. Chairman, with all due respect
to the attempt made by the Hon. Ministerof Trade to
explain this matter perhaps as well as he could, is he
suggesting that during the month of May next if no
newspaper in Barbados is registered, if the Registrar
feels like doing it, the first boy that turns up to deli-
ver a newspaper at his office door, he can ask the








2150
, IlIIP


boy his name and charge him with not registering his
newspaper as a publisher? I appreciate the Hon.
Minister's limitations; this is a matter of law with
which he is not familiar, and therefore I do not want
to make it appear difficult for him; but really and
truly this point definitely needs being cleared up by
somebody who is familiar with the law. It is no easy
matter. We know from the Act that during the month
of May newspapers must be registered. You have
here in Section 3 of the principal Act, 1900, it tells
you how .........

Mr. CHAIRMAN: I do not think that the hon. mem-
ber is in order to deal with Section 3 of this Bill be-
cause we have not got there yet. The hon. member
has ample time to deal with that when we get there.
We are now on Clause 2.

Mr. HINDS: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your
willingness to help the other side in this instance,
but what I am saying is this; you ought to remember
my saying that Section 3 of the principal Act and
words "principal Act" have a strict definition I
said that Section 3 of the principal Act sets out ......

Mr. CHAIRMAN: And what I have said is that you
have ample time to deal with Clause 3. We are now
dealing with Clause 2 of this Bill.
Mr. HIND4: Mr. Chairman, a Bill has Clauses,
an Act has Sections. I have specifically stated that I
am referring to Section 3 of the principal Act. Any
Third Standard boy would understand that. I am not
dealing with Clause 3 of the Bill; I am dealing with
Section 3 of the principal Act, 1900-1.

Hon. A. DaC. EDWARDS: Mr. Chairman, I sup-
pose that I can cast a little light on the fears of the
hon. member. If he looks at Section 3 of the princi-
pal Act 19J0-1, he will see that: "It shall be the duty
of the printers and publishers for the time being of
every newspaperto make or caused to be made to the
Registrar in the month of May in every year a return
of the following particulars according to Schedule A of
this Act, that is to say, the title of the newspapers the
names of all the proprietors of such newspapers to-
gether with their respective occupations, places of
business, if any, and places of residence." The hon.
junior member for St. Peter has quoted apart of the
amendment. He has said that according to the Amend-
ment here, the Crown Law Officers or the Parliamen-
tary Draughtsmen have put in here: "There shall be
paid to the Registrar by the printers and the publish-
ers for the time being of every newspaper a fee of
one hundred dollars"; but I think that he has missed
the point. It does not mean that the boy in the street
who sells the newspaper is made to pay the one hun-
dred dollars, because if the hon. member were to
continue down the same Section he will see this;
"There shall be paid to the Registrarbythe printers
and the publishers for the time being of every news-
paper," and this is what modifies it, "on the filing of
the return. ....."

Section 3 of the principal Act says that the print-
ers and publishers must file a return. The Amend-


ment here is saying that on the filing of this return,
the printers or publishers of the newspaper must
pay this fee of one hundred dollars. Therefore, It
does not mean that you can go into the street and
tell the boy who is selling the newspaper around the
corner that he has got to pay this fee of one hundred
dollars. We must read the whole section and inter-
pret it in the context in which it is written.

Mr. HINDS: Mr. Chairman, I feel that it might
take quite a number of years before these budding
lawyers, these up-and-coming lawyers, can set about
to expound the law in the manner in which the hon.
senior member for St. Andrew has just set about to
do. The principal Act 1900-1 at nowhere tells you
what is a printer or what is publisher. I agree that
the same Act falls short of such a definition as to
who is the printer and who is the publisher because
it tells you that the printer and publsiher shall do so-
and-so during the month of May and make his return
and so on; but it does not tell you, nor does the amend-
ment seek to tell you, who is the printer or who is
the publisher.
7.35 p.m.

It is rather strange, Mr. Chairman, that in the
principal Act you are toldwho is the proprietor, what
is a newspaper, what's place of business, and all of
those things, but there is no definition in the principal
Act for the publisher and the printer who are called
upon to pay the $100 fee, nor does the amendment
mention anything about it. I am telling you, Sir, that,
in the absence of a good lawyer, I am satisfied that
there has been an error in the drafting of this Bill.
I would advise the Hon. Minister, although he need
not adhere to my pleadings because he has his num-
bers, that even if this Bill is passed as it is, we are
open for criticism at some other level. I would like
wherever possible, to avoid any such criticism.

I feel that you, Mr. Chairman, have your Clerks-
at-the-Table who are all members of the Legalpro-
fession, and some very useful advice could be given
even to the Hon. Minister. I realise that nothing I may
say can stop the passing of this Bill at this stage.


The question that Clause 2 stand part was put and re-
solved in the affirmative without division.

Clauses 3 and 4 were called and passed.


THE PROFESSIONS (REGISTRATION FEES)
(AMENDMENT) BILL, 1968

Hon. G. G. FERGUSSON: Mr. Chairman, the next
Bill relates to the registration of members of cer-
tain professions, to the payment of fees for such
registration and for matters incidental thereto and
connected therewith, and I beg to move that Clause 1
stand part.

Hon. N. W. BOXILL: I beg to second that.

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








2151
1 I ....... ,-


Clause 2 was called and passed.

Clause 3 was called.

Hon. G. G. FERGUSSON: I beg to move that
Clause 3 stand part.

Hon. N. W. BOXILL: I beg to second that.

Mr. HINDS: Mr. Chairman, I am particularly con-
cerned with this registration fee on medical practi-
tioners and on druggists. My concern is for the bene-
fit of the poor people who have to seek medical at-
tention from those doctors from time to time. It is
known that no medical practitioner in this Island is
going to bear the cost of this registration. There are
no two ways about it. Even the hon. member who is
now sitting on my right (Hon. A. DaC. Edwards) will
bear with me that even in the case of veterinary
surgeons, the registration fees imposed onthemwill
be passed on to the people who have to make use of
their services from time to time. In the case of the
veterinary surgeons, this is a time when Government
is seeking to encourage animal husbandry in this
Island, or dairy farming, or whatever you might call
it, and at the same time you are increasing the re-
gistration fee paid by these veterinary surgeons.

Mr. Chairman, we have not seen an influx of
veterinary surgeons during the past three or five
years in this Island. There is still a shortage of these
officers, and you cannot get their services when-you
need them. This is not the time, to my mind, to be
imposing these increased registration fees on these
people. The poor people who keep a sheep or a goat
may need the services of the veterinary surgeons,
and these increased fees will be passed on to them.
This is what we do not like.

The poor people have to call on the services of
the doctors and the dentists. Mr. Chairman, you
know that there are many people who walk along the
street with numerous bad teeth in their mouths. They
know that a bad tooth is no good company. They work
all day, and at night when they would be glad to rest
their weary heads, they have to suffer a lot of pain
from bad teeth. They cannot get enough money to pay
the dentists for extractions, and they have to keep
the bad teeth in their mouths for months and years
until, eventually, their health is ruined. When you
put a dentist in a position to charge additional fees
for his services, exactly what Government is doing
to the poor people of this country.

We appreciate the fact that nothing we say can
move hon. members on the other side of the House.
They were once poor; they once mingled and mixed
with the poor; they have every right to know of the
sufferings of the poor, and I feel that it is their duty
at an hour such as this to draw to the Government's
attention that this type of legislation is making it in-
creasingly difficult for the poor people to live.
7.45 p.m.

Sir GRANTLEY ADAMS: Mr. Chairman, Sir,
frankly I thought that the meeting was over. I thought


that everything was concluded, but seeing the lights
on, I thought it was my duty to come in, and I seem to
have come in at the appropriate moment.

I am asking the Minister in charge of the Bill at
the present moment to take what suggestions Imake,
what criticisms I make not in the spirit in which the
Prime Minister seems to have taken them earlier,
that you are making points because you are in the
Opposition and you have to say something, or because
you are catching votes.

Seriously, the points that I am putting before the
Committee, I am putting because it would be abso-
lutely wrong for me to see them, and not only keep
quiet about them, but not to try to persuade even those
who are at times impossible to persuade members
of the Government.

We are not infallible. Even the Pope is infalli-
ble only in matters of morals when he speaks ex
cathedra; and there is a great difference among
Roman Catholic theologians as to how many times,
if ever, the Pope has made an infalliable utterance.
Even the Pope can make mistakes, but the Prime
Minister seem to think that he cannot.

What I put to him this afternoon was put after
careful thought and reading of his Budgetary Proposals,
and he turned a deaf ear.

Mr. CHAIRMAN: I would be grateful to the hon.
member if he would say what he is speaking on.

Sir GRANTLEY ADAMS: I am too old a parlia-
mentarian -

Mr. CHAIRMAN: I would be grateful to the hon.
member if he would say what he is speaking on.

Sir GRANTLEY ADAMS: I am speaking on the
Clause that is being discussed now. Does the Chair-
man think that I come in here and do not ask before
hand what the Committee is dealingwith? (ASIDE) (Do
not shout at the Chair!) He should not shout at mem-
bers. He always does. At mytime of life having that
sort of thing thrown at me inthe middle of a speech!

Mr. CHAIRMAN: I said that I would be grateful
if the hon. member would state what Clause he is
speaking on.

Sir GRANTLEY ADAMS: I am in order to deal
with what was being spoken on.

Mr. CHAIRMAN: I am saying that you are com-
pletely out of order.

Sir GRANTLEY ADAMS: Why am Iout of order?
The hon. member who has just sat down was dealing
with this Clause and I am dealing with it. I am saying
that after careful consideration of this Bill I am point-
ing out things that I consider to be wrong, and I am
asking the Minister in charge not to do as the Prime
Minister did earlier this afternoon, but to take my
suggestions seriously.








2152
,", i' ]i i .


Only this Chairman could find that out of order.
I am not going to sit quietly anylonger under alleged
correction like that. Itis insulting even to be spoken
to by this Chairman, let alone to be corrected.

As regards what is contained in this Bill, I can
well understand that you need higher taxation; but We
are saying that even the Pope can make mistakes
and the proposals might not have been seen by the
Cabinet as by those who come with an unbiassed
mind. We come with an open mind and we look to
see whether it carries out what the Cabinet or the
Budget Proposals intended.

I say that this particular Clause has obvious
mistakes. I ask hon. members on the other side not
to think that we on this side say something because it
affects us personally or because we are trying to
catch votes. There are some obvious mistakes in this
Clause.

For one thing, not because I am a barrister -
but because of the argument which I will give you,
barristers should not be in it. A barrister cannot sue
for his fees. It is an honorary profession, and if a
client does not pay him he canneverget it; and if he
walks out of a case the client cannot do anything to
the barrister, unlike a doctor.

A doctor may make mistake in surgery and you
sue him for damage. A barrister is not working for
money. The theory, and it is not only a theory, is that
a barrister is a member of an honorary profession
and he cannot sue for a half cent, and the client can-
not sue him for doing his case badly.

You can always sue a doctor for doing a case
badly, and unfortunately there has been a lot of it
recently in England. I say unfortunately because I
think that it is hard lines on a doctor after he has tried
his best and makes a little slip that he has to pay a
couple of thousands of pounds damages.

Barristers should not be in it. Barristers' fees
are gifts not only because of the medieval theory, but
actual practice in the Law Court. A Barrister can do
a case as badly as possible, and the only thing you
can do with him is to tell other people not to give
him work. That is not true of doctor or a contrac-
tor or anybody else in this Bill.

Everybody else in this Bill, if he does not do his
work properly, can be sued and he can sue for his
money. It is wrong to put barristers in it.
No. 2. It does not take a lawyer to see the mis-
takes in the Clause that speaks of a man who holds
out as having the professional skill to do work. The
way in which it is drafted, anylawyerwho knows the
interpretation of words in a Court knows that what
you have here excludes certain people because they
are not mentioned certain people who might do
some kind of work such as building bridges etc. who
are not mentioned.
The clause says "any man who holds himself
out." I believe the Minister is listening. "Any man


who holds himself out as having professional skill
in some particular class or classes of work such as
the construction of bridges, buildings, canals, docks,
drainage works, harbours, railways, roads or other
works which he undertakes to superintend or for
which he prepares plans or specifications."

I do not wish to repeatwhat the hon. member who
has sat down has said, but I want to point out that in
drafting a Bill of this sort you cannot be too careful
as to what you put in and what you do not put in.

I did not hear all the argument of the last hon.
member, and we on this side do not specifically ob-
ject to certain inclusions or the nature of the offices
except that earlier in the day we pointed out two
classes of people who are likely to earn considerably
different sums of money, but who have to pay the
same rate of tax. There are other things with which
I will deal specifically.

I suggest that a barrister is among the type of
people who should not be put in. A solicitor a so-
licitor can always sue, but abarrister cannot sue. He
cannot be sued for bad work or for neglecting his
work. A Barrister can take your money and never
come into court, and you cannot get it back unless he
chooses to give you back. You cannot get it back by
law.

A druggist is like a doctor. If he makes a bad
prescription, you can sue him for damages. Itis not
necessary for me to repeat the argument which I
have put at length, and loudly, I am afraid. I shall
not go any further now: but I wish that the Minister
would take seriously the points that I have made and
reconsider it because as I have said, just as you do
not have to pay income tax on a sweepstake because
it is not money earned, similarly, unlike the druggist
fees paid to a barrister are not money earned. It is
money that your clients give you. It is not necessary
to repeat that.

The question that Clause 3 stand part was put and
resolved in the affirmative without division.
7.55 p.m.

Clauses 4 to 12 inclusive were called and passed.

Clause 13 was called. It reads as follows:

"This Act shall be deemed to have come into
operation on the 3rd July, 1968."

Hon. G. G. FERGUSSON: Mr. Chairman, I beg
to move that Clause 13 stand part of the Bill.

Hon. N. W. BOXILL: I beg to second that.

Sir GRANTLEY ADAMS: Mr. Chairman, I beg to
move that Clause 4 be recommitted for one reason
only.


Mr. CHAIRMAN: We are now dealingwith Clause
13 and I suggest that we finish that first.









2153
'- I -- --' -, -


Sir GRANTLEY ADAMS: Do not shout, Sir.

Mr. CHAIRMAN: I am not shouting. (Hon. N. W.
BOXILL: Why don't you sit down and behave yourself?)

Sir GRANTLEY ADAMS: Has Your Honour heard
that hon. member shouting at me? (Hon. N. W.
BOXILL: No, I did not shout).

Sir GRANTLEY ADAMS: No, you did not shout
but .......

Mr. CHAIRMAN: The sitting has not yet been
suspended.


The question that Clause 13 stand part of the Bill was
put and resolved in the affirmative without division.

The Schedule was called.


Hon. G. G. FERGUSSON: Mr. Chairman, I beg
to move that this be the Schedule to the Bill.

Hon. N. W. BOXILL: I beg to second that.

Sir GRANTLEY ADAMS: Mr. Chairman, as re-
gards the Schedule, I can speak on that without hav-
ing to ask for a recommital. You are fixing a penalty
for a barrister or a doctor or any professional man
who does not pay in January of any year, the Regis-
tration fee for that year. A barrister comes here
and he practises. He is entitled to be registered be-
cause he is actually practising. He then decides to
stop practising. I am not referring to myself; there
are no thoughts crossing my mind of practising, and
the same thing applies to doctors. I know of actual
cases of doctors who come back here having been
doctors in Barbados and gone away and spent a lot
of their lives away. They come back here and decide
to retire, and then some patients, inthe case of doc-
tors, and some clients, in the case of lawyers,
persuade them to come back into practice. No provi-
sion is made for a practitioner who comes to prac-
tise after January. If he does not registerby January
he is fined, although in January, February, March and
April he may have no intention of practising. This is
an omission and I suggest to the Minister to bring
it to the notice of the draughtsman.

Some lawyers pass through Barbados and have
been called to the Bar and, in some cases, they
have come up here and done a case or two. There
seems to be a lot of interchange nowadays or some
interchange. For instance, the hon. senior member for
St. Thomas and the hon. senior member for Christ
Church seem to be frequently in one of the smaller
island practising and there are also some Trinida-


dians and other people I know one lady in Dominica,
for instance, who is a member of the Barbados Bar
and she may have done a case here; but, as I say,
a medical practitioner or a barrister who is sud-
denly asked to heal some patient or take a case in
March or April breaks the law because he was not
registered in January. In short, you should make
provision that those who 'want to practise can apply
for permission to pay the tax in some month other
than January. It is a simple matter. As I say, nobody
is infallible and it may have escaped the notice of the
draughtsman.

The question that this be the Schedule to the Bill was
put and resolved in the affirmative without division.


RUM DUTY (AMENDMENT) BILL

Clauses 1 to 3 inclusive were called and passed.

PETROLUEM (AMENDMENT) BILL

Clauses 1 to 3 inclusive were called and passed.

BREWERY (AMENDMENT) BILL

Clauses 1 to 3 inclusive were called and passed.

Hon. G. G. FERGUSSON: Mr. Chairman,Ibegto
move that you do now report the passing of five Bills
in Committee.

Hon. N. W. BOXILL: I beg to second that.


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

The CHAIRMAN reported and Mr. SPEAKER resumed
the Chair and reported accordingly.

On separate motions of Hon. G. G. FERGUSSON, se-
conded by Hon. N. W. BOXILL, the five Bills passed in
Committee were read a third time and passed.

8.05 p.m.

ADJOURNMENT

Mr. SPEAKER: In view of the fact that this is a
Special Meeting for the consideration of certain
measures, and of the fact thateach of these measures
has now been dealt with, this sitting of the Chamber
is now adjourned until the date and time to which it
had previously been adjourned, namely, Tuesday of
next week at twelve o'clock noon.
8.12 p.m.






Supplement to Official Gazette dated 14th July, 1969.


FINAL APPROPRIATION (1968-69) ACT, 1969-26


Arrangement of Sections
1. Short title.
2. Supplementary grant of $7,050,458.
3. Date on which grant takes effect.
4. Appropriation of sum granted.
SCHEDULE
















y.. ~696t TI Onv


X32e,
12aa eo g









BARBADOS.


I assent,
W. R. DOUGLAS
Acting Governor-General.
8th July, 1969.

1969 26
An Act to grant an additional sum of money out of
the Consolidated Fund and appropriate the same for
the service of the Island for the year ended the 31st
March, 1969.
(14th July, 1969.)1 commencement.

WHEREAS the sum of money granted out of the Preamble.
Consolidated Fund by the Appropriation Act, 1968,
for the service of the Island for the year ended 31st
March, 1969 has proved insufficient to meet the de-
mands of such service;

AND WHEREAS certain Resolutions were passed
during the year ended the 31st March, 1969 and sub-
sequently granting additional sums out of the Consoli-
dated Fund for the service of that year and it is









FINAL APPROPRIATION (1968-69) ACT, 1969-26



deemed expedient to appropriate the same in the man-
ner hereinafter mentioned:

BE IT THEREFORE ENACTED by the Queen's
Most Excellent Majesty by and with the advice and
consent of the Senate and House of Assembly of
Barbados and by the authority of the same as follows:

1. This Act may be cited as the Final Appropria-
tion (1968-69) Act, 1969.

2. The Accountant General may on the warrant of
the Minister or some person authorised by the Minister
in writing, issue out of the Consolidated Fund and
apply for making good the supply granted for the ser-
vice of the year ended on 31st March, 1969 the sum
of seven million fifty thousand four hundred and fifty-
eight dollars.

3. The sum granted by this Act shall be deemed
to have been granted on 1st April, 1968 in addition to
the sum granted by the Appropriation Act, 1968.

4. The sum granted by this Act out of the Con-
solidated Fund for making good the supply granted
for the purpose aforesaid is appropriated and shall
be deemed to have been appropriated as from 1st
April, 1968 for the purposes expressed in the Schedule.


Short title.


Supplementary
grant of
$7,050,458







Date on which
grant takes
effect.


Appropriation
of sum granted.








FINAL APPROPRIATION (1968-69) ACT, 1969-26 3



Read three times and passed the House of Assem-
bly this twentieth day of June one thousand nine
hundred and sixty-nine.

THEODORE BRANCKER
Speaker.
Read three times and passed the Senate this
third day of July one thousand nine hundred and
sixty-nine.

C. ASQUITH PHILLIPS
President (Acting).









FINAL APPROPRIATION (1968-69) ACT, 1969-26


SCHEDULE

PART I CURRENT Section 4

Head 2 Service Commissions .... 65,787
Head 3 Parliament .. .. 46,735
Head 5 Judiciary .. .. 9,587
Head 7 Registration .. 6,374
Head 9 Ministry of Finance .. 77,272
Head 10 Accountant General .... 2,874
Head 11 Pensions .. .. 59,547
Head 13 Customs ... .. 26,026
Head 14 Inland Revenue .. 12,739
Head 15 Statistical Services ... 1,320
Head 16 Office of the Prime Minister .... 88,174
Head 18 Economic Planning Unit .... 38,875
Head 20 Civil Aviation .... 2,234
Head 21 Establishments Division .... 45,500
Head 22 Ministry of External Affairs .... 252,634
Head 23 Ministry of Home Affairs .... 7,103
Head 24 Lands and Surveys .... 2,148
Head 25 Police ...... 21,131
Head 26 Fire Service .... 3,090
Head 27 Town and Country Planning .... 160
Head 28 Prisons ...... 4,600
Head 30 Printing Office .... 29,000
Head 31 Ministry of Agriculture, Labour & National
Insurance .... 58,887
Head 34 Ministry of Communications and Works .. 148,317
Head 35 Waterworks ...... 498,662
Head 37 Electrical Inspection .... 2,619
Head 38 Ministry of Education
(1) General Administration .. 5,847
(3) Technical Institute .... 29,331
(4) Housecraft Centre .... 495









FINAL APPROPRIATION (1968-69) ACT, 1969-26


SCHEDULE- Cont'd.

PART I CURRENT Cont'd.


Head 39
Head 40
Head 43
Head 44
Head 48


Section 4


(5) Schools .... 594,071
(7) Public Library .... 220
Ecclesiastical .... 84,229
Ministry of Health & Community Development 159,783
Queen Elizabeth Hospital .... 375,052
Mental Hospital .... 44,703
Ministry of Trade, Tourism, Co-operatives &
Fisheries .... 1,200


ANNEXED ESTIMATES


Head 1 Post Office


170,678


2,977,004


PART II CAPITAL


Head 102
Head 103
Head 104
Head 105
Head 108
Head 109


Ministry of Communications & Works
Ministry of Health and Community Development
Ministry of Education ..
Ministry of Home Affairs
Ministry of External Affairs ..
Ministry of Finance ..


1,546,496
13,024
660,218
867,850
479,130
506,736

4,073,454

7,050,458







Supplement to Official Gazette dated 14th:July, 1969.



LANDLORD AND TENANT (AMENDMENT) ACT, 1969-27



Arrangement of Sections

Section
1. Short title.
2. Amendment to section 35 of Act 1897-2.









BARBADOS.


I assent,
W. R. DOUGLAS
Acting Governor-General.
8th July, 1969.


1969 27

An Act to amend the Landlord and Tenant Act,
1897.

(14th July, -1969.)' Commencement.

BE IT ENACTED by the Queen's Most Excellent
Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the
Senate and House of Assembly of Barbados and by
the Authority of the same as follows:-

1. This Act may be cited as the Landlord and short title.
Tenant (Amendment) ,ct, 1969.

2. Section 35 of the Landlord and Tenant Act, Amendment to
section 85 of
1897 is hereby amended as follows ctn 189 7-

(a) by deleting the words "fifty pounds" ap-
pearing in the fifth line thereof and sub-
stituting the words "one thousand dollars";








LANDLORD AND TENANT (AMENDMENT) ACT 1969-27.



(b) by numbering the existing section as sub-
section (1) thereof;

(c) by inserting immediately after subsection
(1) thereof the following as subsection (2) -

"(2) Notwithstanding the provisions of
arny enactment to the contrary, any com-
plaint made to a magistrate under this
section shall be heard before a magis-
trate sitting in the exercise of his civil
jurisdiction."

Read three times and passed the House of Assem-
bly this twentieth day of June one thousand nine
hundred and sixty-nine.

THEODORE BRANCKER
Speaker.
Read three times and passed the Senate this
third day of July one thousand nine hundred and
sixty-nine.

C. ASQUITH PHILLIPS
President (Acting).







Supplement to Official Gazette dated 14th July, 1969.



PETTY DEBT (AMENDMENT) ACT, 1969-28



Arrangement of Sections

Section
1. Short title.
2. Amendment of sections 21, 22, 28 and 40 of
Act 1899-3.









BARBADOS.


I assent,
W. R. DOUGLAS
Acting Governor-General.
8th July, 1969.


1969-28

An Act to amend the Petty Debt Act, 1899.

(14th July, 1969.)' Commencement.

BE IT ENACTED by the Queen's Most Excellent
Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the
Senate and Fouse of Assembly of Barbados and by
the authority of the same as follows:-


1. This Act may be cited as the Petty Debt
(Amendment) Act, 1969.

2. The Petty Debt Act 1899 is hereby amended
by substituting the words "one thousand dollars"
for the words "two hundred and fifty dollars" where-
ever the latter words appear in sections 21, 22, 28
and 40.


Short title.


Amendment of
sections 21, 22,
28 and 40 of Act
1899-&








2 PETTY DEBT (AMENDMENT) ACT, 1969-28



Read three times and passed the House of Assem-
bly this twentieth day of June one thousand nine
hundred and sixty-nine.

THEODORE BRANCKER
Speaker.
Read three times and passed the Senate this
third day of July one thousand nine hundred and
sixty-nine,

C. ASQUITH PHILLIPS
President (Acting).








Supplement to Official Gazette dated 14th July, 1969.


PROVOST MARSHAL'S (AMENDMENT) ACT, 1969-29



Arrangement of Sections


Section

1.

2.


Short title.

Amendment to section 50(1) of Act 1904-6.









BARBADOS.


I assent,
W. R. DOUGLAS
Acting Governor-General.
8th July, 1969.


1969-29

An Act to amend the Provost Marshal's Act, 1904~

(14th July, 1969.)l Commencement.

BE IT ENACTED by the Queen's Most Excellent
Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the
Senate and House of Assembly of Barbados and by
the authority of the same as follows:-


1. This Act may be cited as the Provost Marshal's
(Amendment) Act, 1969.

2. Section 50(1) of the Provost Marshal's Act,
1904 is hereby amended by deleting the words "fifty
pounds" appearing in line 6 thereof and substi-
tuting therefore the words "two thousand dollars".


Short title.


Amendment to
section 50(1)
of Act 1904-6.









2 PROVOST MARSHAL'S (AMENDMENT) ACT, 1969-29



Read three times and passed the House of Assem-
bly this twentieth day of June one thousand nine
hundred and sixty-nine.

THEODORE BRANCKER
Speaker.

Read three times and passed the Senate this
third day of July one thousand nine hundred and
sixty-nine.

C. ASQUITH PHILLIPS
president (Acting).








Supplement to Official Gazette dated 14th July, 1969.


PASSPORTS AND TRAVEL DOCUMENTS (FEES)
(AMENDMENT) ACT, 1969-30


Arrangement of Sections
Section
1. Short title.
2. Amendment of section 3 of Act 1967-43.









BARBADOS.


I assent,
W. R. DOUGLAS
Acting Governor-General.
8th July, 1969.


1969-30

An Act to amend the Passports and Travel Docu-
ments (Fe es) Act, 1967.

(14th July, .1969.)c Commencement.
BE IT ENACTED by the Queen's Most Excellent
Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the
Senate and House of Assembly of Barbados and by the
authority of the same as follows:-

1. This Act may be cited as the Passports and Short title.
Travel Documents (Fees) (Amendment) Act, 1969.

2. Section 3 of the Passports and Travel Docu- Amendment of
section 8 of
ments (Fees) Act, 1967 is hereby amended Act 1967-48.

(a) by renumbering the existing section as sub-
section (1) thereof; and








2 PASSPORTS AND TRAVEL DOCUMENTS (FEES) (AMENDMENT)
ACT, 1969-30

(b) by inserting immediately thereafter the
following as subsection (2) thereof -
"(2) The Minister may waive any fee
payable hnder subsection (1) in respect
of such categories of passports and
travel documents as he thinks fit."

Read three times and passed the House of Assem-
bly this twentieth day of June one thousand nine
hundred and sixty-nine.

THEODORE BRANCKER
Speaker.
Read three times and passed the Senate this
third day of July one thousand nine hundred and
sixty-nine.

C. ASQUITH PHILLIPS
president (Acting).




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