By Kurt Reynolds

During the last budget debate, the issue of time came up on several occasions, when the members of parliament felt their allotted hour was insufficient and requested an extension. Though it is often granted, the amount of extra time given became a point of discussion between the leader of the opposition and the prime minister.

In fact, many were wondering why Stephenson King offered an apology to the opposition leader at the start of his rebuttal. King explained that he thought he would have given Dr Anthony an extra half hour, then another half hour, if Anthony needed it.

Clearly displeased with the final outcome, Dr Kenny Anthony told the STAR what happened when, as he put it, he was "denied additional time to speak." He said the usual convention is that on the occasion of the budget debate, the leader of the opposition, if he is also the spokesman on matters of finance, will be allowed as much time as he needs for his rebuttal. At the least, said Anthony, the opposition’s finance spokesman would be allowed as much time as the prime minister or minister of finance took for the delivery of the budget.

"Last year when I was denied additional time, I interpreted that to mean that the then government wanted to put me in my place, to humiliate me, to emphasize who was in power and who was in control. I accepted that as the normal post-electoral behaviour and did not engage in any post confrontation with the then government. I knew it was wrong but I nevertheless decided to endure the treatment I received," said the St Lucia Labour party leader.

"This year I had not expected the government to behave in the same manner. On the Friday prior to the budget, the office of parliament sent me a list of speakers that was based on the list for the budget in the previous year. Within an hour and a half I received a call from the Clerk of parliament indicating to me that the cabinet of ministers had other ideas and they had submitted another list.

"I was told that if I had comments about that list of speakers and the order that speakers had been ranked I needed to put it in writing. I replied and indicated that the question of order of speakers is a matter for discussion between the leader of the government business and the opposition leader and that it would have to be resolved by dialogue between both parties," he said.

Anthony explained that on the morning of the budget presentation he beckoned to the prime minister and indicated to him that the pair needed to discuss the order of speakers."He came across to where I sat and in the presence of Philip Pierre, I pointed out that we had problems with the list that they had prepared and some adjustments were made.

I then asked the prime minister what amount of time would be made available to me. He said the idea was that everybody would speak for an hour. I responded that that kind of approach is unprecedented. Nowhere in the Caribbean is the leader of the opposition, when he is the spokesman for finance, given so little time to respond to a budget address. I said for a matter of fact, convention is that if the minister of finance spoke for three hours then the leader of the opposition is on principle, entitled to speak for a similar amount of time.

"The prime minster then asked me how much time I needed, I said I would need between an hour and a half to two hours. He said to me why not an hour and a half. I said no, I would prefer two hours. If I happen to finish in an hour an a half fine. If I happen to finish in an hour and 45 minutes fine, but I would go for two hours," Anthony said.According to the opposition leader, the prime minister then turned to Philip Pierre, who asked how much time he would be given and "the prime minister said to him, he is only giving him one hour and 15 minutes."

"We left on that note and it was my clear understanding that at least two hours would be made available to me," Anthony continued. "When the speaker indicated during the debate that my hour was up and the time had come to request an extension, the prime minister stood up and just before he spoke I said to him you promised me two hours. The prime minister then said an hour and a half and I repeated that the promise was two hours not an hour and a half."

Dr Anthony went on: "If the prime minister had really intended to make available two hours, then he could have taken the opportunity especially after I said to him that the agreement was two hours, to correct his motion and in fact recommend that the period was two hours, which I had earlier requested.

"Of course the prime minister never did so," said Anthony. "I understood he had a personal conversation with Pierre who came with a note to say that the prime minister had given an additional hour, by then of course it was too late I had already adjusted what I was saying and in any event I would not have accepted that kind of behaviour.

"I believe that this is a very serious matter. it is the second time that this has occurred and I intend to approach the heads of government on this issue because it is high time that prime minister Stephenson King learns and understands what are parliamentary conventions and the appropriate parliamentary behaviour," said Anthony."I want to emphasize that the SLP never denied a member of the opposition a full night to speak, for whatever length of time that that individual required. I recall that even

in the worst days of the party, the days when the speaker herself was the parliamentary representative for Castries Central, despite her then assaults on the SLP, she was given the time she requested to speak. We have never engaged in this kind of behaviour. I do not know what prime minister King is afraid of. They are behaving more and more like a government under siege, but I hope that the public has a better understanding of the persons who are now elected to govern the business of the country," he said.