Legislative Council: Friday, 19 December 2003

Commentary by J. Brock (FINN)

AN EXPLANATION BY THE HON. FINANCIAL SECRETARY, MR. DEREK HOWATT (DH):

Mr. Speaker, Honourable Members, these rules are proposed to be made under section 8.1c of the Taxes Ordinance, subject to the passing to the Taxes Amendment Bill 2003, which will be presented under Item 5 of the Order Paper.

An earlier version of the Benefit in Kind Rules was published in the Gazette on 27 November, together with an explanation note, following consideration by Executive Council on 20 November. As requested by Executive Council, the rules were amended to reflect policy modifications in connection with the treatment of travel benefits. The Amended version of the rules was approved by Executive Council yesterday but they also require the approval of the Legislative Council before they can be made by the Governor and come into force in January 2004.

In the main, the rules give effect to the recommendations relating to benefits in kind in the Tax Policy Review. Please note that benefits in kind are non-cash benefits provided by employers to employees. The rules prescribe the benefits, which fall to be taxed under the Ordinance. Four different benefits are prescribed, namely the payment of travel expenses, use of vehicles, provision of loans and accommodation related benefits.

Annual values for the provision of accommodation related benefits are already prescribed under the existing annual values rules 1997. So, these new rules seek to prescribe three more benefits.

The annual value from non-work related travel expenses is prescribed as the amount of payment. Provision is made to exempt from the charge to tax, the cost of travel paid by an employer on behalf of an employee who was based outside of the Islands before starting work here. However, this exemption is restricted to the cost from and to the country of residence at the start and end of employment and one return journey of equivalent value to anywhere in the world per calendar year.

The annual value for the use of a vehicle provided by an employer is prescribed at £40.00 per day, subject to a maximum of £3,000.00. On a concessionaire basis, the use of a vehicle for travelling to and from work will not attract any value where that vehicle is required to be used for work purposes, for example, on call.

The annual value for the provision of a loan by an employer is prescribed as the hire of any amount written off in the year in question and the amount of interest which would have been payable if it had been charged at base rate plus three percent.

The annual values for accommodation related benefits are prescribed under tables "A" and "B." And, the opportunity has been taken to increase the rates set in 1997 to a more realistic level. The exemption for agricultural and horticultural employees is maintained.

There are certain exceptions from the charge of tax and these are set out under Rule 5. These provisions allow the Commissioner to exclude from the charge to tax any accommodation benefit enjoyed by an employee who needs to live in that accommodation in order to perform employment duties. This will allow workers building roads in Camp at public expense to be exempted from that benefit.

There are also provisions from under Rule 6 to reduce the annual value in certain cases. These provisions allow for the benefit to be reduced where the employee was not in the Falkland Islands for the full tax year. They also allow the Commissioner to determine any real value of any benefit in the sum that he considers to be fair, taking into consideration all the circumstances of each case.

Both the Annual Values Rules 1997 and the Taxes Excess Benefit Rules 1994 are revoked by these Benefit in Kind Rules.

It is important to note that the annual value of the benefits is not the amount of tax which a tax payer will be required to pay. The value of any benefits will be added to other taxable income. Allowable deductions as well as the proposed £12,000.00 personal allowance will then be given against an employee’s taxable income to arrive at chargeable income. Tax will then be charged through the two proposed tax rates of 20% and 25%, depending on the level of the employee’s chargeable income.

In cases where the annual value of a Benefit in Kind does not increase taxable income to a level above £12.000.00, no tax liability will arise. In all cases, the potential tax payable is less than the actual cost of the Benefits in Kind.

I beg to move the approval of the Taxes Benefit in Kind Rules 2003.

Honourable Members, the motion before the House is that the Taxes Benefit in Kind Rules 2003 be adopted. Does any Honourable Member wish to speak to the Motion?

Mr. Speaker, Honourable members, is the whole of the tax bill – I had more people ringing me up, stopping me in the street, stopping me out west, etc. and there were more complaints than ever. Some of the complaints are misunderstandings and refer to previous taxes and so on. In one –

TB: You are talking to the Rules, Benefits in Kind?

RE: I am talking to this. I am. That is the Taxes, Benefit in Kind Rules 2003.

TB: Thank you.

RE: One thing that stands out above all else is the Benefits in Kind. We, as a Council, have spoken in the past about low-paid workers setting minimum wages and so on. If we look under Table "B" Board and accommodation there are two rates there for a domestic servant and any other person. For the domestic servant, the annual value afforded accommodation, which I presume includes heating, lighting and meals, £2,500.00 and any other person, the accommodation, food, meals, heating, lighting comes to a total of £7,140.00. So, that means a person only has to earn some £90.00 per week in addition to their allowances on this accommodation. £90.00 a week in this day and age, I think everyone will agree, is a pretty low wage. And yet, anything over that, they would be paying tax on their earnings. I therefore propose an amendment to these figures. I do not believe a domestic servant and any other person living in with food and accommodation and so on provided, should be separated. That is the first amendment. I think it should all be the one.

If we look at some of the figures – lighting – £540.00. Even with the high price of electricity we pay here in the Falkland Islands at .13 pence a unit, £540.00 equates to your bedside lamp with a 60 watt bulb in it burning 24 hours a day for 365 days for eight years. I think that’s a little excessive.

Similarly, heating. I pay less heating in my whole house and this is probably a room we are referring to.

My proposal therefore, is that the rate should be the annual value so that the daily value should be £12.50 with a maximum annual value of £4,000.00. That is my proposal for an amendment to Table "B" Board and Accommodation, Mr. Speaker.

TB: Any other member wish to speak to this amendment?

Mr. Speaker, Honourable Members, I’d just like to express my support for the Honourable Member from the West on this issue.

Mr. Speaker, Honourable Members, I, too, would like to express my support for my colleague.

Mr. Speaker, Honourable Members, I have to say that I have serious concerns about the level of the assessment of people with board and accommodation. And, I believe that the figures that the Hon. Roger Edwards proposed is a much more reasonable level. I also cannot quite understand why we have a separate category of domestic servant to any other person who is receiving a benefit. I support Cllr. Edwards’ proposal.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak to the motion as a whole as well as the amendment. I think it is regrettable that we found it necessary to introduce additional Benefits in Kind Rules. I think the public is entitled to know that it is a direct result of indications proposed from the Tax Office that people have been abusing the system. We don’t do it just for fun, we don’t do it just to collect additional money as a result of probably very few people in the community are abusing the rules as they currently stand. Of course the complication, always, when you begin to introduce new rules is that you get further complications. And, you can, with the best will of all, sit down and set up rules and hope they will work on a simple and common sense basis but they you find any numbers of exceptions. So, in passing this motion, if indeed we do, I very much hope then that the Taxation Office will take a message from Legislative Council that the handling of Benefits in Kind must be done sensibly, with a large degree of common sense and with a degree of understanding about how the community works but nevertheless achieve it’s real purpose of catching those people who have been abusing the system that’s brought this on everybody. So, that’s regrettable.

We have just started to clarify that holiday credits have been specifically excluded from the Taxes Benefits in Kind Rules so they are not a taxable benefit so we won’t have to worry about that

I have sympathy with what the Honourable Member has been saying about the values of accommodation and I am happy to accept the amendment. What we do need to do in due course when we come to discuss wage liabilities and the like, is to take this into account, and, can make sure, when setting the annual values, we are encouraging a different approach in the setting of wage levels so if some employers are, in fact, paying low wages on the basis that they provide free accommodation, then the annual values are set at such a level that you discourage this practice.

I support the Motion and the amendment.

Sir, I would just like to add my voice to the other members and, sir, I support the amendment and the motion.

Mr. Speaker, Honourable members, I have been advised by the Attorney General that if any amendments are required to the rules, they will have to go back. They can'’ be made before they come into force on 01 January 2004, as they would have to go back to Executive Council.

Just one other – item 2 is the – I’m not actually clear as to what is being amended. What does the £4,000.00 replace? It replaces all the £7,140.00?

RE: It replaces the Benefits in Kind for Domestic Servants because they are now one.

DH: I should now just explain that the reason for a domestic servant- the reason for the two categories was that the Domestic Servant was for people who are required to live in their work place with their employer. For example, that is the category that Hotel Staff would have, for example. But if this amendment is required then we won’t be able to bring in these rules with effect from 21 January 2004. It would need to go back to Executive Council. And the existing annual values and excess benefit rules will continue to apply.

TB: Honourable Members, I think in that case, we have to actually put to the vote the acceptance or rejection of these rules.

MS: Mr. Speaker. I seek a clarification. Whilst it’s understandable that these rules may have to go back to Executive Council, is there nothing to prevent the Governor calling a very brief meeting of Executive Council for this purpose so the rules can come into effect?

Mr. Speaker, my difficulty was not only sending the Benefits in Kind Rules back to Executive Council. But we are very close to the Christmas Season. I have had difficulty arranging for publications regarding legislation in the Gazette, before Christmas. And, my fear is that we will not be able to achieve the publication of these rules in the Gazette, as they must be, if they are to come out before 01 January, if they are to come into force before 01 January. And, clearly these rules cannot come into force on 02 January because it causes an awful lot of difficulty. It must come into effect with the Tax Year, which begins on 01 January. That’s the particular difficulty I have in mind. Of course, an early meeting of Executive Council can be called.

TB: Attorney General, can I kind of clarify one thing? If these rules are amended, or if an amendment is sought on these rules, assuming that Executive Council accepts that amendment, do the rules have to be published in the Gazette prior to coming to the Legislature?

DL: No. They will have to be published in the Gazette prior to them coming into force. And, that is on 01 January. Now, I am not saying definitely, and may I make that absolutely clear to Honourable Members, that they cannot be published in the Gazette before 01 January, merely that I apprehend that there may be considerable difficulty that I am not sure that I will be able to achieve publication before 01 January. And, I say that because I have had difficulty in arranging for the publication of other legislation early next week to come into force on 01 January. It’s simply that. It may not be possible to bring them into force for the next tax year.

RE: Again, just a query with the Attorney General, if we did not bring in this amendment, that whole paper would have to go out – not just one particle in that paper – the whole paper?

DL: That’s the case in relation to the Taxes Benefits in Kind Rules. I hesitate to suggest a device which would help because I don’t think it’s really the way you should proceed but it is lawful.

RE: I was going to propose that.

DL: Can I tell you what the device is? That you should approve the making of the rules today with the understanding that in January an amendment will be proposed in Executive Council and that the amendment would have effect back to 01 January.

RE: That’s exactly the proposal that I was going to put – that if we accept this today we can look at the amendment in January and, if need be, I am sure that could be imposed retrospectively. So, we have come up with the same thing. One thing, also, on that amendment, and why I chose those figures, I was also going to talk to you about "Table A" the fact that it’s £1,000.00 per room. Having thought about it for a bit, usually, if employees who are given houses are on a damn sight higher wage than those who live in rooms so I did not object to Table A in the end.

TB: Honourable Members, the Motion is that the Taxes Benefit in Kind Rules be accepted and that – I think that is the Motion.

DL: Can I suggest a Motion Councillors might like to endorse that the House Approves the Rules on the understanding that the Government will seriously consider at the Executive Council Meeting in January the amendment to the Rules along the lines the House has indicated.

RE: I would accept that.

TB: Do we need that in writing or do we just take it as said? Honourable Members, the Motion is that the Taxes Benefits in Kind Rules be accepted as outlined by the Attorney General. Are all Honourable Members in favour of that?

The Supplementary Appropriation Bill was placed on the Order Paper but has since been withdrawn.

The Taxes Amendment Bill 2003:

DH: Mr. Secretary, Honourable Members, this Bill seeks to make further changes to the Taxes Ordinance 1997, mainly to give effect to the Tax Policy Review, which were approved by Executive Council on 24^th of July this year.

This is the second Bill forming part of the review process. To recap, the first Bill in this process, Now the Taxes Amendment Ordinance 2002, was passed by Legislative Council on 22 November 2002. It will be recalled that a significant provision of this Ordinance was the introduction of independent taxation for married men and women with effect from 01 January 2003 income.

By way of Background information, the Tax Policy Review was authorised by Executive Council at the end of 2001, as the need for a framework of guiding principles and the modernisation of the Tax System was recognised to serve the Falklands economy of today.

The Review first established a framework of six main guiding principles, namely, consistency, simplicity, fairness, transparency, efficiency and international competitiveness. It is on this framework that the rest of the policy review is based, with the aim of lowering rates and broadening the base.

As far as I can see from records available to me, this particular policy review was the most fundamental and comprehensive one that has ever been undertaken on the subject of taxation in the Falkland Islands. I am including the introduction of income tax in 1939, a major study in 1987 and the changes in 1994 on account of oil activity in that statement.

This Bill, together with an Explanatory Memorandum, were approved by Executive Council on 30 October and were published in the Gazette on the 19^th of November. The Explanatory Memorandum explains in detail the reasons for the amendments, clause by clause, so I will not repeat all of that in this introduction. However, I will, as briefly and simply as I can, explain how the provisions of the Bill amend the 1997 Ordinance in order to give effect to the recommendations of the Review from 01 January 2004.

For personal tax payers, provision is made for new rules to identify in value Benefits in Kind that are subject to tax.

Please note that clause 3 of the Bill will need to be amended slightly at the Committee Stage to enable the new rules approved by Executive Council yesterday and by this House today with the understanding that the Attorney General reported to be made by the Governor so they can come into effect from 01 January 2004.

The rates of income tax are changed from a three-tier system to a two-tier system. The first £12,000.00 of chargeable income will be taxed at 20% and the remainder at 25%. At present, the rates are 20% on the first £22,000.00 of chargeable income, 25% on the next £13,000.00 and 40% on the remainder. Most of the existing income tax reductions are removed. These allowances are: Earned Income Relief, Maintenance Payments, Mortgage Interest Relief, Dependant Relatives Allowance, Married Man’s Allowance, Age Allowance, Additional Allowance for Children and Life Assurance Premium Relief. The deductions allowed for Pensions Contributions are maintained.

The personal Allowance is increased by £5500.00 from £6500.00 to £12,000.00. This reflects one of the main simplification measures to replace all those allowances removed with one higher allowance. For Corporate taxpayers, there are changes in the Corporation Tax Rates. In future, there will be two rates. The first million pounds of chargeable income will be taxed at 20% and the remainder at 25%.

All the chargeable incomes of ring fence trades will attract tax of 25%

At present, the Corporation tax rates are 25% up to £1Million of chargeable income and 32.5% on chargeable income of £3Million and over with a system of marginal relief in between.

Advance Corporation Tax, known as ACT, is being abolished. This will apply in relation to dividends paid on or after 01 January 2004. But ACT accumulated and not used before that date can be set off against Corporation tax liability after that date. Tax credits will no longer be available to Companies, although they remain for individuals and will, for the future, be equal to the amount of income tax at the basic rate due in respect to the gross value of the dividend. Unit provision is made for group relief to allow it to be claimed even where the group has a non-Falkland Islands resident company as one of its members.

For both un-incorporated and incorporated businesses, the rules for determining when expenditure is incurred. The purposes of depreciation allowances has been clarified. The rule states, that in general, expenditure will be treated as incurred as soon as there is an unconditional obligation to pay it. Initial Depreciation Allowances are abolished and Writing-down Allowances are changed.

New provision is made in relation to loss relief and the carry-back of losses. The current tax exemption for Defence Contractors is withdrawn but employees of those Contractors will continue to enjoy exemption from Income Tax for the time being.

The opportunity has been taken in this Bill to amend the ordinance to deal with matters which were not part of the review. These include clarifying the taxation of excess pension lump sums, providing the authority for the improvisation of Civil Penalties by the Pull-up Regulations and expanding the definition of Earned Income.

Please note that Family Allowances are not brought into the tax net by this Bill. The first version of the Bill did remove the exemption for Family Allowances in accordance with a recommendation in the Review. But on reconsideration, Executive Council agreed that Family Allowances should remain exempt from Tax.

In response to concerns raised during the consultation phase of the Review, the Executive Council also agreed that, to ease the situation for pensioners, married couples receiving pension income of any type may elect jointly, in their tax returns for this to be treated as having been received equally between them. In this way, their individual personal allowances may be used to reduce their joint tax liability in any year.

It will be noted that no provision is included in the Bill to cover this pension sharing. Instead, this is covered by one of five extra statutory concessions approved by Executive Council yesterday. An Extra Statutory Concession is the relaxation in practice, which gives taxpayers a reduction in Tax Liability to which they are not entitled under the strict letter of the law. All these concessions together with explanations will be published in the Gazette.

Disregarding any additional revenue to be gained from the taxation of Defence Contractors, one of the objectives of the review was to be revenue neutral. A model loss of £240,000.00 based on 1999 personal income and representing around 10% of income tax revenue was reported in the context of the Review and was accepted by Executive Council as a reasonable margin.

As expected, such major changes to the tax structure, combined with the aim to be revenue-neutral, will result in winners and losers. However, I am pleased to report that around 56% of taxpayers will be better off, with around 20% who will pay more tax. The fact that more tax payers will be better off is why a modelled loss is apparent. All this information and more was provided during the public consultation phase of the Review.

I take this opportunity to thank the members of the Review Working Group and our advisors for all their hard work leading up to the drafting of this and the previous bill. In particular, I pay tribute to Andy Finch, former Acting Commissioner of Taxation, who so ably and professionally managed the process on my behalf, and to Taxation Officer, Ken Eccles, for his expert assistance.

Finally, I must declare my interest in getting this Bill passed. My interest is that if I fail, I will need to sweeten our Tax Officer’s disappointment by the provision of Mince Pies and other treats. And, this would be a personal expense – not one, which I would be able to claim as a tax deduction.

Mr. Speaker, Honourable Members, I beg to move the second reading of the Bill.

CS: Mr. Speaker, Honourable Members, I wish to second the motion.

TB: Honourable Members, the Motion is that the Taxes Ordinance 2000 Amendment Ordinance 2003 be passed. Does anybody wish to speak to the Motion?

JB: Mr. Speaker, If I may speak to this Motion and just make a couple of points and that is I, along with many other taxpayers – happy tax payers I might add – would expect that the largest employer in the Falkland Islands – that being the Falkland Islands Government – will comply with all the rules and regulations and time-scales that individual employers will have to comply with. I would just like to make that point for the minutes.

RC: Mr. Speaker, Honourable Members, I would just like to rise to support the motion but also point out that, I believe we will find, that in 12 months’ time we may have to modify certain things in the lack of experience. However, the concept of this Bill and the way to simplify tax, we have to make sure that any alterations, which may come in the future, still stay within the concept that we have now, of a much simplified and understandable tax system.

I beg to support the Motion.

RE: Mr. Speaker, I support the Bill. One particular item was mentioned by the Financial Secretary was that pensioners were exempt and may split their pension between two. I might point out – I know this was introduced in the previous practice ordinance change but the family man whose wife decides to stay home and look after the children doesn’t get that benefit. She has to go back to work and be an earner before she can claim to split the income with her husband. So you are actually forcing young mothers out to work so they can make best use of the tax benefit. The Financial Secretary shakes his head.

JB: He’s ashamed.

RE: I know he will correct me if I am wrong. The other thing is I nearly got 56% of the people better off, as I understand it. The model shows the worse off 10% are probably in the middle wage earner bracket. And, the very best off are those in the very high earning bracket. And, I find that very strange. But having an IQ lower than a worm’s knee, I cannot think of any amendment to the Bill presently to correct that anomaly. I believe those who earn most should pay most. But, as I say, I cannot think of a way of doing it without changing and rejecting the whole Bill.

TB: Councillor Edwards, I think you are wriggling.

MS: Mr. Speaker, Honourable Members, this has been a huge amount of work for those people involved in putting this together. And, it’s been, on many occasions, a struggle to stick with the basic principles because, as I was saying earlier in respect of the Benefits in Kind Rules, the same sorts of things happen with the new Taxes Bill. Whenever you make a new set of rules, you will find a whole new set of issues rising out of them. And, you only tend to hear about people paying more tax. You very often don’t hear about the ones that result in people paying less.

So, there may be occasions arising from this Bill where we find that a group of people – a sector of the community – is significantly worse off. I think, if that occurs, then we should have a look at it but we have been through very substantial public consultation in trying to identify all of those areas. What we are not interested in is individuals who think they might be worse off and presumably won’t come and complain if they are better off. You can’t make a set of tax rules that deal with absolutely every individual case.

In respect of Cllr. Edwards’ observation about where the benefits fall – it’s a populist view that the very best are better off. I don’t think, actually that the evidence bears that out. The concept of the better off paying more is, in fact, supported by this Bill because the better off still only get £12,000.00 worth of exemptions and not the many, many thousands more that they were previously able to get through earned income relief and the use of life assurance funds and pension funds and the like. So, many of the very much better off will, in fact, find that they are paying just as much as they were before or even a little bit more. And, to deal with the reprehensible letter that appeared last week in the newspaper, accusing the Review Committee of feathering their own nests. I happen to know that Andy Finch, who the Financial Secretary has mentioned, didn’t pay Falkland Islands Tax as he was a secondee and had no interest whatsoever in the outcome in personal terms. I know that at least two, including myself and the other people on the committee will end up paying more tax. So it is an absurd accusation to make and it simply isn’t true. In terms of this sort of populist view that only the better off are better off from this. It isn’t true that the large majority of people who fall out of the tax net are, in fact that group of people who earn around about £10,000.00 to £14,000.00 a year. They will fall out of the tax net in the biggest reduction in numbers falls at the bottom end of the wage scale. And, from the community point of view, that has to be right.

Sir, I support the motion.

DH: Mr. Speaker, Honourable Members, I would just like to confirm what Cllr. Summers commented in relation to the fact that the middle and the higher earners will generally pay more tax. But the more you earn, the more you pay, but it still pays and that it will benefit the low earners because the personal allowance is increased from £6500.00 to £12,000.00. That immediately will take a lot of the low paid people out of the tax net all together. Where they were paying income tax on excess of £6500.00 before, they will not start to pay tax until they earn in excess of £12,000.00. That’s one of the points.

The other point that Cllr. Edwards raised was where one spouse stays at home and the other goes out to work and the tax situation in those cases. That is no different from the case today except that the allowance is greater. The current married man’s allowance is £2450.00 which, at the moment, he can add to the £6500.00 and that totals less than £12,000.00. So, in those cases, they will be better off also.

CS: I wish to give notice that I will have some minor corrections to make at the Committee stage.

The Infectious Diseases Bill is based on some of the provisions of the UK Public Health Control of Disease Act 1984. If enacted, it would modernise the powers available to the Government to deal with diseases, which are notifiable as defined by the bill and with other infectious diseases. It will provide a reporting process in an effort to ensure that the Chief Medical Officer is informed of patients suspected of suffering from a notifiable disease and powers to enable detention in hospital in certain circumstances.

The Bill also makes provision for the isolation of bodies of persons dying from specified infectious diseases and various miscellaneous provisions regarding, for example, the prevention of spread of disease, disinfection of certain premises and a delegation of powers invested in the Chief Medical Officer to other persons employed in the Department of Health and Medical Services.

Mr. Speaker, provisions of this Bill are designed to provide the protection from infectious diseases, which a modern society is entitled to expect.

I beg to move the second reading of the Bill.

NE: Mr. Speaker, I support this Bill, of course, but I do feel it’s odd, to say the least, that diseases such as AIDS, HIV and Syphilis, in particular, are not notifiable diseases. I have listened to the Attorney General and understand perfectly well this is not the case in the UK. And, there is provision within the Bill for the Attorney General to make exceptions and to take it on a case by case basis. However, I think it is wrong that they are not notifiable diseases, bearing in mind, for us in particular, where we live and the Continent that we live next to. And, we have very friendly relations to some people from that Continent and they have a very high incidence of AIDS, in Chile, for instance, and also a very reluctant strain, to cure, of Syphilis. And, I feel that those diseases should be notifiable in the Falkland Islands, whether they are or not in the UK. And, I know from personal experience, not my own personal experience, I add. I do know of a case in the UK where a person was admitted to have a child. I delivered the child and she had active Syphilis. We admitted her to Hospital to the infectious diseases part of the hospital and two days later, still highly infectious, she discharged herself and there was no comeback on that. Now, with all the comings and goings in the Falklands, I would like to see those two particular diseases, which I have mentioned, added to the list which is notifiable.

Thank you Mr Speaker.

DL: There is no amendment specifically to any clause put by the Honourable Member. There is power in the Bill by regulations to add diseases, which are notifiable diseases. But my understanding on the Medical Department is that they would not, on Medical Grounds, and the treatment of these diseases wish to see them as notifiable diseases. If they should advise to the contrary then the matter can be done by regulations which add to the notifiable diseases in the Bill.

At the moment, I would be reluctant to ask members to accept the proposition of the Honourable Member and the Bill would have to be withdrawn today because the amendments are not the sort of amendments which could be incorporated in the Bill on the hoof. And, it would have to come before the House at another time. But my understanding is that the Medical people here are not advocating that these venereal diseases should be notifiable diseases and they are not so advocating for good medical reasons.

NE: Thank you Mr. Speaker. I will check with the Medical Department what those good reasons are because I can’t see any.

JB: Mr. Speaker, Honourable Members, would the Hon. Norma Edwards be content by, as one of the members of the Medical Committee, suggesting at the next meeting that it is brought up and I will report back to her?

NE: Yes. I will be very pleased with that. Thank you.

TB: In that case, the motion is that the Bill be read a second time.

(100X Transcription Service)