Parliament will pay tribute to outgoing prime minister, P J Patterson, on Tuesday, March 28. The sitting will be a meeting of the House of Representatives, but will also be attended by members of the Senate, minister of information, Senator Burchell Whiteman, said Friday.

It will be the final time that Patterson attends Gordon House as prime minister. As a parting shot, the House is expected to pass a resolution on Tuesday fulfilling a promise Patterson made in December in Montego Bay to give arriving visitors the option of duty-free shopping before clearing Customs.

A Bill to that effect was tabled last week by minister of finance and planning, Dr Omar Davies, and is scheduled to be debated on Tuesday.

. After House Speaker Michael Peart turned down a request from the Opposition in his chamber to allow a debate on the current cement crisis on Tuesday’s Motion for the Adjournment, the Opposition turned the usually sedate discourse on the Vote-on-Account into a very heated debate about cement.

The Vote-on-Account motion normally deals with the provisions for carrying on government business from the start of the new financial year until the budget is passed, or by the end of July.

The Constitution and the Financial Administration and Audit Act (FAAA) require the approval of the carrying on sums, with the stipulation that these sums should exclude any service for which no provision was made during the financial year unless the House, by resolution, specifically authorises such expenditure.

But Opposition spokesman on finance and the public service, Audley Shaw, skilfully changed the focus of the debate from the interim funding to the $1-billion included for schools’ construction, and the possibility that the projects may have used some of the bad cement sold by the Caribbean Cement Company.

According to Shaw, there is a serious crisis now existing in the building and construction industry and there is a possibility of that crisis impacting on the construction programme for schools.

“The Opposition would like to know from government what has happened beyond the announcement made by the minister of commerce and technology of the reduction in the duties on imported cement?” he asked.

Commerce Minister Phillip Paulwell responded immediately, in a bid to control the damage.

Paulwell said that he had expected that the matter would have been raised at the adjournment, and sought to allay the fears of the Opposition.

He suggested that the current tremendous demand for cement, “led largely by the tremendous amount of investment taking place in the construction industry, primarily in the area of hotel and road construction”, had created a situation where the demand for cement was expanding against the background of an international shortage.

He reiterated that the government had instructed the cement company to withdraw all of the production between February 23 and February 25 (this was later extended to February 19 to 25 in a release from the ministry).

“We are endeavouring to ensure that all steps are taken to protect consumers, to protect the construction industry and to say to you that every step of the way, the Bureau (of Standards) has been involved in the supervision,” Paulwell stated.

That wasn’t enough, and when Opposition MP Clive Mullings rose to speak, the Speaker, suggested that he would be the last one to speak on the isssue.

But Leader of Opposition Business Derrick Smith asked whether the Speaker was seeking to restrict the debate.

The Speaker explained that there was a substantive motion on the floor, Dr Davies’ motion, but since Shaw had raised the issue of cement, which was not directly related to the motion, he had allowed some room for discussion, including for Paulwell to make clarifications.

“I don’t believe it will serve us much to have members elaborating on the same matter,” the Speaker said.

Shaw: But, it is a matter of public interest.

The Speaker: The minister has spoken and he has no opportunity to speak again today. So whatever concerns that might be raised on that matter, if it is so urgent then there is an appropriate way to deal with it as a substantive motion.

Smith: We do not accept that there ought to be any restriction on any member of the Opposition to speak on any resolution in this House. I don’t accept the argument about the minister having spoken.

The Speaker: What you have said is correct. There is no restriction on any member speaking on the substantive motion.

Smith said the Opposition had at least two other speakers who had particular interest in the resolution and there could still be unanswered questions on the cement issue.

The Speaker: Let me amend what I said earlier. I said I was only going to allow Mr Mullings on this matter that is not directly related to the motion. Whoever wishes to speak on the motion is free to do so, but I don’t want the parade of. you understand me.

The Opposition was allowed to continue its criticism of the government’s handling of the cement issue with contributions from Mullings, Delroy Chuck, Karl Samuda and Pearnel Charles.