By Deon Rose, Staff Reporter

Phillips, Smith and Shaw

THE DEBATE on amendments to the Corruption Prevention Bill was suspended in the House of Representatives last week Tuesday after the Opposition rejected some provisions of the bill on the grounds that the government was misleading the House.

The bill, which was piloted in the house by Dr. Peter Phillips, leader of government business, is seeking to give additional powers to the commission. According to Dr. Phillips, the commission in its March 31 annual report last year, recommended that it be empowered to probe civil servants' personal accounts.

He explained that under Clause 4 of the proposed bill, amendments would be made to Section 5 of the act to allow the commission to carry out its investigations by enabling it to request information from the Revenue Commission, any financial institution or building society.

"I should point out, Mr. Speaker, (this) has also arisen from recommendations of the Corruption Prevention Commis-sion," argued Dr. Phillips. "They thought it would facilitate the work of the Commission and was necessary for the Commission to conduct enquiries into cases that appear suspiciously after further investigation."

But Opposition spokesman on Finance, Audley Shaw, strongly objected to this provision of the bill and said that the commission did not ask for such powers in its report. Mr. Shaw said "It is clear that this honourable House is being misled by Dr. Phillips."

With the backing of his colleagues, Mr. Shaw said, "The addition that has been put in the Memorandum of Objects raises very serious concerns and has very grave implications for the potential unwarranted invasion of privacy of civil servants."

But, he did not stop there. He, instead, harshly criticised the government for imposing a 'draconian' piece of legislation upon civil servants, which he said parliamentarians were not subjected to.

This latest attack was not ignored by government members, who shouted that Mr. Shaw was playing, 'cheap politics'.

Derrick Smith, leader of opposition business, then asked that the bill be withdrawn as it was being promulgated under false premise. Dr. Phillips was, however, defiant and insisted that there was no need for the bill to be withdrawn. He explained that representatives of the commission were aware of the amendment in the bill and had raised no objections to the provision of the bill.

The opposition was still not satisfied by Dr. Phillips' explanation, and demanded that the bill be withdrawn. But House Leader Michael Peart did not concede to the request. He, instead , called for a five-minute recess of the House. When the House resumed, Mr. Peart ruled that the debate be suspended.