Apparently, opposition senators were not allowed to review the amendments after the changes were made by the attorney general’s office.
Senator Desmond Bannister accused PLP senators of “disrespecting the law” by not allowing the opposition to see the amendments beforehand. “It is embarrassing what the government tried to do today. After the opposition raised problems with the bill, the government came with amendments drafted and typed out and brought to this place,” he said.
Opposition leader Senator Tommy Turnquest demanded that the Senate proceedings be suspended for 15 minutes (which swelled to 30 minutes) to review the amendments. Senate Vice-president C.B. Moss granted the suspension, after which opposition senators bashed the amendments, citing, among other things, that the amendments “created additional problems.”
Pointing out clause two of the bill, which was amended replacing the definition of an engineer’s works, Sen. Bannister said the definition of an engineer’s work needs to be clarified … to be understood by people in and outside of the profession.
“The way professional engineering is defined in the new amendment refers to engineering works, but engineering works is not defined itself. All we have is the words that modify what professional engineering is. Engineers would have a problem understanding the amendment,” Sen. Bannister claimed.
He, along with Sen. Gladys Johnson-Sands, called for a proper review of the amendments before they were passed. If not, Sen. Bannister said in the event of a legal matter between the court and a professional engineer where that portion of the bill had to be studied, the government would be a “laughing stock.”
Both senators accused the government of failing to consult with engineers before making the changes. Whereupon, the opposition pledged to vote against the amendments contending they leave professional engineers in a worse state than before the amendments.
Moreover, Sen. Bannister also took issue with the amendment to section 22 (1) of the bill, which list the penalties for an engineer without a valid registration or certificate.
An “astonished” Sen. Trevor Whylly claimed that the opposition senators had sufficient time to debate the issue, following its second reading in March. Notwithstanding, he praised the government’s efforts in revising the bill, stating that it was for the betterment of engineers and other professionals.
Sen. Johnson-Sands reminded the senators that at the time of the March debate, the opposition requested a report on how the amendments would affect engineers.
“I wish to ask whether there was any further consultation, because this is a consultative-government, and it is important that, when drafting laws that will affect the people of this country and their livelihood, there is some level of consultation during the drafting,” she said.
Sen. Johnson-Sands continued: “I do not believe it is just and right to lay on the table an amendment after we (the opposition) briefly looked at it. We must ensure that amendments serve the purpose that they should serve.”
Defending the government, Senator Marcus Bethel, who introduced the amendments to the Senate, accused opposition senators of “grandstanding.” Although he agreed to review the amendments further, Sen. Bethel assured that PLP senators are qualified to make such changes. “That is what we are being paid to do,” he said.
The Senate adjourned about 20 minutes early, after Sen. Bethel promised to seek advice from the attorney general’s office during the break.
Khashan Poitier, The Nassau Guardian
