BRIDGETOWN, Barbados, CMC – The Barbados government used its overwhelming majority in Parliament to easily pass the controversial Labour Clauses (Concessions) Bill even as the newly appointed Opposition Leader, Ralph Thorne, argued that it is an assault on constitutional rights that legislates punishment of business.
The Act, passed Tuesday night, establishes minimum employment terms and conditions for employees who work for businesses that receive government concessions and allows for the suspension of concessions for enterprises that do not comply with the framework legislation.
Before the debate in the Parliament, Prime Minister Mia Mottley said the government foregoes approximately BDS$750 million (One BDSS=US$0.50 cents) in revenue annually due to tax concessions. She dismissed suggestions the legislation may act as a deterrent to foreign investors.
During the debate, she stressed that the legislation would benefit the country and appealed to all stakeholders to cooperate.
The Prime Minister also dismissed the notion that the move is a conflict of interest.
“Some have said you are listening to labor and have given labor what they want. Mr. Speaker, we are not giving labor what they want; we are giving the country what it needs, descent jobs for descent increase in growth.”
She told legislators that this is not alien to the philosophy of the ruling Barbados Labour Party (BLP), noting that as soon as universal adult suffrage was achieved in the 1950s, legislation was quickly passed afterward, providing for the protection of wages and holiday pay, among other measures.
She said there was no conflict of interest then and in the following years with men at the head of governments, asking, “How is it now a conflict of interest that there is a … female prime minister?”
Labour Minister Colin Jordan told legislators that he had held talks with representatives of the private sector and “those with whom I engaged …they were all of the views and are of the view that what they considered to be their fears had been addressed by us in their interaction with them.
“I am happy, Mr. Speaker, to say to you that coming out of that meeting is not just an allay of fears but, from some quarters, an embracing of the direction this country and the government are going,” Jordan added.
But Thorne, who was, until last weekend, a member of the ruling administration, called on the administration to revisit what he termed a “curious” Labour Clauses (Concessions) Bill, suggesting that it could be trespassing on a legal hotbed that paves the way for confiscating property and allowing government ministers to act “unlawfully” by “punishing” citizens.
The senior counsel also warned that the legislation stands on “shaky legal ground.” While he praised Jordan for his “passion” and attempts to mediate the historically tense relations between capital and labor, he suggested that it may be helpful for him to take further advice from the Attorney General.
“This legislation promises to deprive employers of property given to them by another minister. A concession given may be like property,” said Thorne, sworn in as Opposition Leader on Monday.
He said under the Barbados constitution, “the state cannot, will not, must not confiscate the property of citizens,”
Thorne said while he wholeheartedly supports workers’ rights, the government’s responsibility to protect them, and the minister’s commitment to mediate the fight between capital and labor, he pointed to the government’s acknowledgment that the legislation was erroneously purporting to confiscate property from Barbadian employees with its original reference to tax refunds.
“We accept the concession that an error was made and that there is a withdrawal of the portion of the Bill. Even after that deletion is made, what is a tax concession? After consultation with the Attorney General – the government’s chief legal advisor – I asked the minister if it was a tax concession [not] property. What is the basis for its survival in this legislation? If you say that the tax refund is property and withdraw it from this legislation, let us ask the same question about a tax concession.”
He urged legislators to “let all ideas contend,” noting that a call for respect for the law is not synonymous with a statement against the interest of workers.
“It is not that we speak against the interest of workers; it is that we speak in defense of the law in this country, the law that must regulate relations between all citizens,” he insisted.
Thorne said Bill’s provision for removing concessions from firms taking public money if they violate labor standards would violate Section 16 of the Constitution, which protects the citizen from the government depriving any person of his property.
He also accused the government of promoting legislation that gives ministers powers they do not have under the Constitution.
But Attorney General Dale Marshall said he was satisfied that the government was “on good ground” with the legislation and that Thorne had interpreted the legislation “poorly.”
“The honorable member of Christ Church South has tried to argue all kinds of legal theory, and I enjoyed it. I will not be drawn into a debate on constitutionalism and rights. If the honorable member wants to do that, there is a place. It is called the law courts.
“I am not going to get in here and trade sections of this Act and sections of that – Acts that he has not read . . . because if he had read them, he would not have engaged in any of that dialogue that he engaged in today,” Marshall said, adding that the Opposition Leader had snatched some legal theories out of the air and tried to throw them into the Chamber.
“I have never heard such a disgraceful red herring in my life, and I feel insulted,” Marshall added.
and then 