Friday, February 28, was one of the most rowdy sessions of the House of Assembly in recent times. The fracas was not between members of the Government and the Opposition, as happens frequently, but between Chief Minister Hubert Hughes and Minister of Social Development, Edison Baird, in particular.
The occasion was the debate on the Public Service Salaries (Temporary) Reduction Bill referred to elsewhere in this edition of The Anguillian. At the time, Mr. Baird was making the point that if certain proposed projects, for which MOUs were signed, had come into being, Government would not have had a problem repaying public servants the money owed to them in salary deductions in 2009 and 2010.
In stating his view, Mr. Baird referred to the Scrub Island project which had much promise for Anguilla, but which has not materialised. He also spoke about the proposed Mega Yacht Marine project at Blowing Point where he said certain family members owning land there complained that they were not consulted. Baird, the Elected Representative for Road North, also mentioned the proposed project at the Sandy Ground Salt Pond which is located his constituency. He had certain objections to some of the proposals for that project which he called his “red line”.
The strong position taken by Mr. Baird on the above matters, including his customary stance that an environmental impact study must be done before the signing of a MOU, led to an angry response from Chief Minister, Hubert Hughes, who charged that Mr. Baird was speaking like an Opposition member.
For the national record, the heated exchanges went as follows:
Chief Minister:“The Member for Road North, who is my Minister of Social Services, erred when he said that a Memorandum of Understanding cannot be given before an Environmental Impact Assessment.Madam Speaker, the first time that this was argued in the Executive Council was when the Scrub Island project came before us and this argument was very heated. It was supported by the Member for Road North and I could not go along with that. But I believe in democracy. A man has the right to say what he wants and live by what he says – so he said it, and I challenged it.
“A question was asked to the Director of Planning, Mr. Proctor: ‘What goes first – the MOU or the Environmental Impact Assessment?’ He said this: ‘An Environmental Impact Assessment costs a lot of money to be done, and no developer will spend that type of money when he is not sure that he will get a Memorandum of Understanding.’
“So you have to work on the conditions of a Memorandum of Understanding and the proviso in that memorandum is that no construction can start unless the Environmental Impact Assessment is done and clear the project. I think that the Member for Road North erred…”
Minister Baird: “Madam Speaker, on a point of order. I respectfully disagree with the Chief Minister because when I argued that the Environmental Impact Study must proceed the signing of a Memorandum of Agreement/Understanding, I had in mind the UK Charter for the Environment for the Overseas Territories that was signed in 2001 on behalf of the Government of Anguilla by the then Chief Minister, Mr.Osbourne Fleming, and by Baroness Amos who was in charge of the Overseas Territories. If you read that document, carefully, it says that before any project is done an Environmental Impact Study must be done and discussions must be held with the people impacted.
“That, Madam Speaker, is a binding document and it is on that basis that I argued that an Environmental Impact Study must always precede the signing of a Memorandum of Agreement. When you sign a Memorandum of Agreement, even in principle, you are providing the developer with certain rights. What we are really seeing in effect… [is the cart before the horse]”
Speaker: “Thank you, Member….”
Chief Minister: “I am responding to the debate. I should be allowed to respond. The point is this…..”
Minister Baird: “Madam, Speaker, all I was saying….was that he said I had erred…I did not err. I was speaking the truth.”
Speaker: “Thank you, Member. Please allow the Member to continue.”
Chief Minister: “I am responding to the debate, Madam Speaker. I have the constitutional right to respond to the debate and give the facts… As I said, the Director of Planning said that a Memorandum of Understanding must first be agreed upon because nobody will spend the type of money required in doing an Environmental Impact Assessment if, in fact, he is not going to get the Memorandum of Understanding. That is why the Memorandum of Understanding was signed for the Scrub Island project and then the required Environmental Impact Assessment….That’s the way it is…It is a very expensive exercise, and if it comes out positive there is already a Memorandum of Understanding to go by.
“Madam Speaker, I think it is bad faith for a member of the Government, and a member of the Executive Council, to speak in the terms in which he spoke about this Blowing Point project. The Government is hard-pressed to get economic activity going …and we have to fight. I spent months and months fighting to work on this Memorandum of Understanding for the Blowing Point development project; and for the member of the Government to speak the way he spoke – you will think that he is over on the Opposition benches…
“He spoke about one of the members of the family who had not been consulted. But we know full well that one of the members of the family is a political supporter of the Opposition. Basically, Madam Speaker, the fact is that he is a minor entity in the whole thing because the rest of the family is supporting the project…So, Madam Speaker, this politics coming from the Government’s side is most ridiculous. There is something wrong.”
Minister Baird:“Madam Speaker, on a point of order. A Member, according to the rules, cannot make statements that call into question the integrity of a Member or to cast aspersions on a Member. Madam Speaker, I simply spoke the truth. A member of the family told me that he was not consulted and was very upset because, from what he gathered, his personal house would have to be demolished. His father died intestate– without making a will. Therefore, he is a shareholder of the land that the project is to be constructed on. The Chief Minister’s statement that he is a minor shareholder is not relevant. The fact is that the administrator – or the administratrix – his or her job is to simply divide the property among the rightful owners…If he does not agree to the project it cannot proceed. I was also told that his brother, who is a shareholder, and whose house has to be demolished, was not consulted. I was not trying to kill the project. I was doing what I was elected to do …to raise issues in the House.”
Chief Minister:“Even though there is a member of the family – or two members of the family – or even six members of the family – who have expressed concerns that they do not agree with the project, the fact remains that only an Opposition Member of the House would raise these issues.”
Minister Baird: “Madam Speaker, on a point of order. I resent you (the Chief Minister) trying to portray me wrongfully as a Member of the Opposition. I have a responsibility to tell the truth and, given my background in politics and my nineteen years in this House, I have to illuminate the House….”
Speaker: “Thank you, Member…”
Minister Baird: “He is wrongfully portraying me as a Member of the Opposition. I made him Chief Minister three times, so how am I a Member of the Opposition?”
Speaker: “Thank you, member. Please take your seat.”
Chief Minister: “Madam Speaker, I didn’t say he is a Member of the Opposition. I said he behaves like a Member of the Opposition because he challenges hard work…
“Madam Speaker, the Member spoke about a salt pond project. And again, only a Member of the Opposition would speak about this salt pond project the way he spoke about it. Madam Speaker, this kind of irresponsibility must come to a halt because if you are a Member of Government, there are certain basic principles that you have to observe. You can’t enjoy the best of both worlds, or you can’t enjoy the shelter of Government and still go out there and speak – down at Nico’s Restaurant – and enjoy the ‘object’ of being a Member of the Opposition. You got to be one or the other….”
Minister Baird: “Madam Speaker, I am not a Member of the Opposition. But the Chief Minister has the authority to dismiss me. All he has to do is go to the Governor and dismiss me. That’s all he has to do. I am not bolted to this side of the House. If he wants to dismiss me, then dismiss me.”
Speaker: “Please, Member…”
Chief Minister: “I just want to read a little thing here. The Executive Council is collectively responsible to the House of Assembly and consequently the principle of collective responsibility is fundamental to the operationsof the Executive Council. A basic principle therefore in the functioning of the Executive Council is unity. It is important therefore to present a united front to the public.
“Madam Speaker, these are the principles of the Executive Council. There are plenty of them so I won’t read any more. You listen to this House of Assembly today and you would believethat the Member for Road North is a Member of the Opposition.I would ask the Minister to read this. That is a basic principle. He cannot be in a Government and enjoy the privileges of being loose.”
Minister Baird: “Madam Speaker, on a point of order. I am a Member of the Government. I serve as a Member of the Government. I serve at the pleasure of the Chief Minister. I am not a Member of the Opposition. But I am not treated with respect by the Ministers of Government. For example, I have never been given the proposal for the Sandy Ground salt project. I obtained a copy from a member of NICA.”
(Here, Parliamentary Secretary, Haydn Hughes, interjected that he had given a copy of the proposal to Mr. Baird. He and Baird later had a heated argument for which he (Haydn Hughes) subsequently apologise to the House.)
Chief Minister: “…I am saying that the way the member for Road North spoke about the salt project, any Opposition Member would speak like that. That’s all I am saying… I don’t believe in dismissing people from Government. I believe in democracy. Talk what you like, but make sure you do it responsibly. ”
