Controversial changes to the National Conservation Act were dramatically ditched at the last minute today as MPs voted to withdraw the National Conservation (Amendment) Bill, 2024.
The bill had been a source of contention over many months and was cited as one of the main reasons which prompted four MPs to resign from government late last year.
The proposed changes would have effectively removed the power of the National Conservation Council to make the final call on planning decisions which impact protected species or areas, including marine parks.
In spite of no longer commanding a majority in Parliament, the UPM government had seemed determined to press ahead with the contentious legislation. The bill was officially published on New Year’s Eve last year and was due to be debated in full during the current session of Parliament.
However, that all changed on the first day of the current parliamentary session when, during the first reading of the National Conservation (Amendment) Bill, 2024, Minister for Sustainability and Climate Resiliency Dwayne Seymour rose to move that the House withdraw the bill.
Speaker of the House Sir Alden McLaughlin then had to prevent the clerk of the Parliament from automatically moving onto the next item on the agenda. McLaughlin gave himself a moment to check the title of the bill, saying, “I want to make sure I get the name absolutely correct, given the significance of this.”
He then put to the House: “The question is that the National Conservation (Amendment) Bill, 2024 be withdrawn.”
After MPs signalled their support for the question, the speaker announced, “I believe the ayes have it – the National Conservation (Amendment) Bill, 2024 is withdrawn.”
Statement to the House
Just moments before, Seymour had risen to make a statement to the House, saying, “The undeniable fact is that there are several provisions in the National Conservation Act that have given rise to difficulties and therefore require amendments to address those difficulties.”
He said that some of those difficulties were highlighted in the Court of Appeal judgment in the case of Central Planning Authority vs. National Conservation Council, and that there needed to be a balance struck between the powers given to the NCC to override decisions of public bodies and the ability of statutory bodies to carry out their functions.
“There is no denying that the extent to which it is desirable to change that balance, is ultimately a political question, that can only be constitutionally affirmed by the Parliament which originally enacted the NCA,” he said. “Therefore the proposed amendments would seek to make the legislation more workable without fundamentally undermining the ultimate policy intention underlying the NCC.”
The landmark National Conservation Act (2013) was one of the first significant pieces of legislation passed by the previous Progressives-led government but in the following administration, then-Premier McLaughlin said that removing some of its more controversial elements would be among the first actions of his new coalition.
On Friday morning, before the Parliamentary session for the day got under way, campaigners from Sustainable Cayman met with The Cayman Community Party (TCCP) MPs André Ebanks, Wayne Panton, Katherine Ebanks-Wilks, Sabrina Turner and Heather Bodden to present a petition with more than 500 signatures saying that they had concerns about the proposed amendments.
One of the points made by Sustainable Cayman was the potential for “irreversible environmental impact,” saying, “Granting the Cabinet the power to override environmental expert recommendations and proceed without thorough scientific scrutiny represents a significant regression in our environmental policy. This could lead to decisions that favor short-term gains over long-term sustainability.”
After the bill was withdrawn, Sustainable Cayman’s Dani Seales said, “We’re so happy to hear the NCA amendment bill got withdrawn; this is great news. When we all come together for the cause we can make the difference. Thank you to everyone who signed and shared their thoughts.”
Opposition response
The Progressives issued a statement on Friday afternoon welcoming the withdrawal of the bill, saying, “Our approach was not about scoring political points through distractions and PR activities, but about finding practical solutions that uphold the Constitution and ensure a proper balance of power.”
Opposition leader Joey Hew, who is celebrating his birthday today, thanked Seymour for “putting the country first and engaging in constructive dialogue”.
The Cayman Community Party released a statement on social media which read, “We thank all who stood with TCCP in opposition to this Bill. It is a just outcome that would not have occurred without your support and encouragement.
“This is a vindication of our 31 October 2024 resignations. Had Andre Ebanks, Katherine Ebanks-Wilks, Heather Bodden and Sabrina Turner not resigned, we would have been bound to pass this far reaching and harmful Bill which would undermine the quality of life for this and future generations. Peaceful democratic opposition works.”
The NCA Amendment Bill was one of two controversial bills on the Order Paper for this parliamentary session. The stage is now set for an intense day of debating on Monday as the Referendum (Cruise Berthing Infrastructure, Gambling and Cannabis) Bill, 2024 is scheduled to be discussed, with premier already allowing Parliament to run until late that evening.
Related Videos
Caymanians are not going to get the Cayman they want leaving those most opposed to development as the final arbiters of good or bad.
It’s wrong to assume that you have a planning department or cabinet who completely discounts our environment and only the National Conservation Council can save the day and know best on development decisions. That is not so. Everyone wants well for Cayman and its environment because our Country is small, and we all live here. There are lots of checks and balances along the road to make sure things that are truly bad don’t go forward.
An unreasonable and inflexible NCC has shown it can block roads and infrastructure and other development, and there just isn’t good balance there. I believe that’s the reason this bill was floated in the first place. You have too much power and bureaucracy in the hands of people who’s first bias is to say “no” at the expense of Caymanian People using a law crafted by elites to get in the way of the people.
It may be politically expedient in advance of an election to to withdraw the bill and the bill itself may not be perfect, but the problems that gave rise to it are still there, and it will be back as those in power once again show that they can’t act reasonably or with balance to advance projects that put Caymanian people ahead of the an environmental overlay that is often arbitrary and wrong.
A good step in the right direction. Now stop that east west road development that is going to bankrupt this country and destroy the environment. Implement better and cheaper alternatives. For example there’s no traffic on weekends…why is this? Good, you just found your alternatives.