 I'm going to be very, very brief and my comments are more by way of notice of troubling issues when it comes to this kind of legislation. And I fully understand what the member for Kastrizi's premises is saying, that we have been compelled to enact such legislation to avoid of course being blacklisted. Let me say at the outset, I welcome the fact that there's a categorical undertaking that persons who are depositing funds up to 10,000 US, that they will be immune from the usual scrutiny and that they will be allowed to deposit their funds without letter hindrance. I think this is certainly very welcome and will certainly help business activity as a whole. But my two troubling areas, the first is that we continue to allow this concept of politically exposed persons to go unchallenged. I have long resisted the suggestion that the legislation singling out politically so-called politically exposed persons is justified legislation is reasonably required legislation. My instinct tells me that this legislation is highly discriminatory and at some point it has to be challenged. The absurdity that we are going to in respect of politically exposed persons really tells us how easily abused that these provisions can be. I want to give honourable members a simple example which I have quoted before, not necessary in this house, but in the public. I had a niece who went to insurer vehicle with Massey insurance some months back and lo and behold she went to Massey with her money cash to pay for her insurance and was told by the agent working for Massey that she must fill out a declaration to say where she got the money for her vehicle insurance because her uncle meaning me is in politics and she is a politically exposed person. Now any of you around the table, how can you justify that she has been denying insurance for her vehicle because she doesn't work and sign a document to say where she got money to pay insurance for her vehicle and I don't know how many other persons have had that kind of experience. When she called me on a matter I said you go and tell Massey go to hell go and get another insurance company and go and insure your vehicle and that the official of the employee of Massey was misguided as to what the requirements are, but I just want to alert honourable members how easy it is for this legislation in the hands of the wrong persons to be abused and that this notion that all politicians are correct and therefore should be swept as a whole in legislation like that, I reject it and I resent it and I repudiated our politicians who are corrupt. You can't take, you can't paint all politicians in the same way by using such a broad brush. Now Mr Speaker, it is for this reason that I just want to say to the House that the time is fast approaching when the financial action task force and others can't have their way in just telling these governments what they must enact and these governments must blindly follow whatever they say that has to be done because I resent the fact that I'm discriminated against. I resent the fact that I have to go to a bank and when I go to a bank I'm told I must do X, Y and Z because I happen to be a politician, I resent it and for reasons like that I frankly feel that this form of legislation ought to receive greater scrutiny. The second point I want to make Mr Speaker, Mr Speaker, this House enacted legislation to create a financial authority in the institution and the time, and I still do, I supported the legislation, I think it's necessary, necessary that we acquire financial intelligence and what is happening where who is moving millions of dollars or thousands of dollars from one account to the next, but I tell you what Mr Speaker, I don't see them going after the big people in this country, you know Mr Speaker, I don't see them going after the big people, you know who they go after, those whom they believe are in the drug trade and those whom ordinary fishermen, ordinary sent lutions flying up and down the place, these are the people they're going after. And I see it in my practice because my form has had to be representing individuals. My problem Mr Speaker is this, that if we are going to give these authorities the immense powers that they have, we then have to strengthen the remedies to protect citizens from abuse by these individuals. And that is why I think you will find Mr Speaker increasing challenges to how these authorities utilize the powers that have been made available to them through acts of parliament. Now don't get me wrong Mr Speaker, please don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting that there aren't individuals who are applying their trade, they're applying business connected to the drug trade using fishing boats in this business and I'm not denying that I accept that, but what I'm saying is that it seems to me that what is happening is that the powers that have been entrusted have been used to harass individuals like that and those who are really guilty of committing the offences for some how, they seem to be immune from prosecution under this legislation, this is kind of it. But have also seen a situation where the remedies that are available to individuals to contest these acts seem to be rather inadequate, seem almost nonexistence. So lawyers then have to resort to finding sanctuary and that's the importance of constitution under the provisions of the constitution, that should not be, that really should not be. And I accept that perhaps we need to rethink and ensure that when we enact such legislation with such drastic and such immense powers that we also consider what remedies are available to persons who are aggrieved. You cannot tell me that a citizen of St. Lucia for what reason or the other happened to be traveling some country and has in his pocket over $10,000 or whatever the case is, you seize the $10,000 but then you don't give him sufficient opportunity to contest the seizure, to determine whether he is guilty or not, those things can't be right. Those things can never ever be right. And these are things Mr. Speaker, I'm just saying at this stage and I'm not opposing this legislation, I support the amendment, I'm just saying that we need to put on notice that these are things we need to have a look at to ensure that we also protect the rights of the citizens of our country and the law is applied fairly. That's all I'm saying. I thank you very much.