EVEN though the hefty fines and prison time that were reduced in Integrity in Public Life Bill 2018 have been put to what was originally contained in the draft legislation, Opposition Leader Joseph Atherley says the decision to drastically reduce the fines raises questions about how serious the Barbados Labour Party is about this piece of legislation.
Atherley who in an hour-long presentation identified deficiencies in the legislation, raised red flags and offered several pieces of advice, stressed that he was sufficiently convinced that the Attorney General Dale Marshall who introduced the Bill, was passionate not only in public discourse but also in private conversations that persons in public life who flout the law should be severely punished.
However, Atherley said he is bothered that no reasons were given why the decision was made to reduce the fines. “We are left to speculate as to what those reasons might have been to cause this legislation.”
“I am made to question the level of seriousness that obtains on the other side around this matter, principally because, this administration would have when in Opposition circulated a draft bill for public scrutiny and public comment, signalling very clearly it was their intention not to walk in the paths of their predecessors.”
“Having circulated that draft legislation – that legislation having involved the provision for heavy fines of up to $500 000 or and 5 years imprisonment, $250 000 on summary conviction and two years imprisonment for those who ran afoul of the legislation, the aspect of corruption and those who enable corruption, to then having brought a Bill to this Honourable House where those significantly heavy fines which would have constituted a real deterrent are reduced to the levels of $20 000 and $10 000 causes me, and I echo the sentiment that I hear coming from John Public, to think that we are not absolutely serious about this. Because you cannot provide legislation which outlines clearly breaches and then provide for fines which constitute no more than a slap on the wrist.”
Additionally, he said, “It would not have taken the Barbadian public to bring it to the attention of this government, that what is represented in the Bill now before us, far departs from what was circulated for scrutiny, and discussion and consultation in the draft bill.”
“It would not have taken the Barbadian public to advise and enlighten the Honourable Attorney General, the Honourable Member for Christ Church West, the Acting Prime Minister. They are all lawyers; it would not have taken the voice of the Barbadian public to persuade them that there is something which is at odds here...”
“The fact that you can only act to reverse that when the voices of Barbadians are raised in protest against it suggests that it was not your intention when this Bill was brought here to provide for fines higher than are indicated in the Bill.”
“It is ok to say that ‘we hear you’ – but surely that could not have escaped the learned minds on the other side that that departure was too drastic and it would have incurred the query and scrutiny of the Barbadian public,” he said. (JH)