 Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, we are still preoccupied with our celebration of independence after 44 years. Mr. Speaker, we have over the past 44 years celebrated year-in-year out without seizing with pump and pageantry independence from alien rule. But independence from alien rule comes with responsibility and imposes certain obligations, including evolving new economic instruments and building new institutions. And so, Mr. Speaker, in the words of President Obama, we must cut loose the shackles of the past and in this present circumstance pivot towards our own CCJ. It is in this spirit, Mr. Speaker, that I rise in this parliament at this juncture in support of the Constitution of St. Lucia Men-Men Bill. This bill seeks to replace the previous council as the final appellate court with the Caribbean court of justice. Mr. Speaker, this is a matter that prior to the general election in 2021, the St. Lucia Labour Party had signal its intention to replace the previous council with the CCJ. This is not a sudden discovery. It is not a product of spontaneous combustion. This is reflected in the manifesto of the St. Lucia Labour Party, which is contained in the section good governance, anti-corruption and constitutional matters. I wish to, even though the Prime Minister read this particular section, I believe it is sufficiently important for us to revisit it. And this section reads, Mr. Speaker, and I quote, to return our country to a system that respects our democratic norms and the rights of our people. A St. Lucia Labour Party Government will, and paragraph 4 in that section reads, commence the process for the accession to the Caribbean court of justice CCJ as St. Lucia's final appellate court as the replacement to the previous council. Mr. Speaker, this is a matter that this government was fully transparent in, articulating its position on this very important matter in its 2021 election manifesto. We note that the leader of the opposition has been in the forefront of clamoring for a referendum on the issue of replacing the previous council with the CCJ. This argument has been destroyed by self-combustion, Mr. Speaker, as he is well aware that as far back as 2014 the OECS Supreme Court of Appeal ruled that St. Lucia does not require a referendum before becoming a full member of the CCJ, which was established in 2001 to replace the previous council. According to the Court of Appeal, the government of St. Lucia could simply obtain an amendment to the constitution which requires a two-thirds majority in parliament. Mr. Speaker, I have heard the argument for putting this matter before the public for a vote rather than proceeding with replacing the previous council with the CCJ through the constitutionally correct process of amending the constitution. These arguments are, Mr. Speaker, politically driven in an attempt to make political mileage, Mr. Speaker. I wish to again state that we clearly indicated our intention to proceed with the process for accession to the CCJ and therefore the public was well aware of our position on this matter. And I did say the referendum provided to the St. Lucia Labour Party was an overwhelming 14-to-2 margin with two independent also winning the seats, Mr. Speaker. This in itself, Mr. Speaker, provided overwhelming support for the policies that we publicly indicated that we will be implementing during our term in office. It is rather ironic, Mr. Speaker, that some people are asking that the previous council which was imposed on us as former colonies and remains a vestige of our colonial past and now asking that we need a referendum to remove the previous council as our appellate court. Mr. Speaker, the public did not vote on the referendum to make the previous council to be our appellate court. And why we now asking them to vote to remove this remnant of our colonial past. Moreover, Mr. Speaker, we are all aware that referendums do not provide the best outcomes for countries. In fact, the recent referendum in the United Kingdom, the country in which the previous council is based, was mapped by major campaigns of misinformation and xenophobia to entice voters to vote for them. And to leave in the Brexit referendum. More recent polling data suggest that many people in the United Kingdom have realized that they have been hoodwing and that the promises made by those who encouraged it were false and have not materialized. Many of these people have now regretted the decision to vote for Brexit. The United Kingdom is still grappling with the implementation of Brexit close to seven years after the referendum. Mr. Speaker, our government has undertaken a comprehensive process leading to the replacement of the previous council with the CCJ as the final appellate court as early as April of 2022. The government of the United Kingdom was informed of St. Lucia's intention to leave the previous council. This was required by virtue of section 41 of the constitution of St. Lucia. The government of the United Kingdom has responded and given its no objection to the government of St. Lucia. Thus commencing the legal process to terminate appeals to the previous council. A CCJ accession committee was also established led by the eminent legal scholar Sir Dennis Byron, former chief justice of the Caribbean Supreme Court. And I believe former president of the CCJ, this committee embarked on a public relations campaign aimed at sensitizing the general public on this matter. We have now reached the stage, Mr. Speaker, today, which will allow us to pass this bill, to allow us to proceed to join the jurisdiction of the CCJ. Mr. Speaker, as far back as 1970, the Caribbean court of justice was proposed by a political delegation from Jamaica at the six Caribbean heads of government in Jamaica. In 1974, the Caribbean task force reaffirmed the message of the Jamaican delegation, arguing that the Caribbean court of appeal represented the final step in the independence process. Independence imposes an obligation and sovereign nations to be the architects of their own destiny. To fulfill this obligation, the people must in turn create their own institutions. The framing of the arguments for the CCJ is over fifty-three years, Mr. Speaker. Do we wish to debate this matter for another fifty-three years, Mr. Speaker? Is that what we want to do? There was a great African who once said that thought without practice is empty, but practice without thought is blind. For fifty-three years, we have been discussing a simple matter. And up to now, there is debate as to whether we should declare independence from that particular colonial past. And we are doing so today, Mr. Speaker. We are taking a patriotic leap of faith today. We need to be bold and decisive and take the step to abolish appeals to the Privy Council and replace it with the CCJ to thereby complete the cycle of independence of our countries, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I have heard the unfortunate argument advanced by the leader of the opposition that only four countries have joined the CCJ and therefore we should wait for other countries to join before St. Lucia makes a decision to join. Mr. Speaker, we did not wait for the rest of the Caribbean to produce two Nobel Prize winners. We did not wait, Mr. Speaker, at one time you put the rest of the Caribbean together, they couldn't come up with one. We did not wait, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, if all countries adopted this thinking, then no country will join the CCJ. The four countries, namely Barbados, Guyana, Belize and Dominic, are leaders in this matter. And I am extremely pleased and proud that St. Lucia will, by approving this constitutional amendment, join those leaders and signal to the rest of the Caribbean community that they also need to join. It is to be noted, Mr. Speaker, that the Caribbean countries are among the only independent countries that rely on the United Kingdom Privy Council as the final appellate court. I have heard the argument against replacing the Privy Council with the CCJ as the appellate court. And I believe that many of these arguments are specious. One of the main arguments put forward is that relating to a lack of trust and confidence in the CCJ. It has been stated that in the small societies in Caricom, some judges may be reluctant to offend politicians who hold the reins of government of the day. Storybook, Mr. Speaker, science fiction. There is also the argument that CCJ judges could exhibit some bias if cases coming before them involve people who they know or have a friendship with. Perhaps they were friends at university. Mr. Speaker, this argument is one which has no basis in fact. The Eastern Caribbean Court of Appeal has been an exemplar in this regard and has established an impressive track record in terms of the quality of his decisions. It is also the case, Mr. Speaker, that the trust fund of US $100 million to finance the operations of the CCJ thereby giving it financial independence from the member governments and member governments are not responsible for the appointment of judges as accentuated by the prime minister. We have already made the investment in the CCJ and that investment needs to be realized through our use of the CCJ as the final appellate court. According to Byron Blake, a former assistant secretary of the Caricom Secretariat, I believe, if I take my journey through the corridors of time correctly, the CCJ is significantly insulated from capricious action by any government using the power of the purse. The trust fund management independent board chaired by a member of the private sector is charged to ensure that there are resources to finance the operation of the court. It is perhaps the only court in the world with that level of financial independence. So Mr. Speaker, like I said, the arguments have been destroyed by self-conversion. Byron Blake further states that the judges of the court are insulated against the action by a state or states. They are appointed by an independent judicial services commission and once appointed they have tenure to retirement. The president of the court is the only member whose appointment to that position is sanctioned by the heads of government. But listen to this, the governments can object to a recommendation by the commission but they cannot recommend another person for the office. That is in the sole responsibility of the commission. The counter argument is that the private council is so far removed from our customs. That is the real argument. Culture and tradition are therefore insensitive to Caribbean conditions. Many of the private council judges know very little about the Caribbean as indicated previously. It is to be noted Mr. Speaker that Lord Hoffman, judge of the private council, is in favour of abolishing the private council as the final appellate court. As he stated that he is not qualified to deal with such cases because he does not understand our culture. In fact Lord Hoffman told attorneys in Trinidad and Tobago as far back as 2003 that a court of your own is necessary if you are going to have the full benefit of what a final court can do to transform society in partnership with the other two branches of government. It is also the case Mr. Speaker that the intellectual capacity of judges in the Caribbean can be compared favourably with any group of judges in any jurisdiction in the world. Mr. Speaker, the ability to analyse legal issues and write carefully crafted and reason judgments is not a matter in dispute. It is within the sphere of competence of ours to rise to any level attainable by any other people. Another compelling case for joining the CCJ is that it will provide Caribbean and St. Lucian citizens greater access to justice. St. Lucian citizens will be able to take the matters to the final court of appeal at much reduced cost. Mr. Speaker, we have seen many instances in this country where land etc have been left to certain families and because they do not have the resources to fight it. Sometimes somebody with the financial resources can grab it because if they have ten thousand dollars to take care of the kids or to spend it going and fighting the courts, most times they would take care of the children instead of fighting it. Far less to go to the Privy Council, but if it is within reach Mr. Speaker, then there is an improved framework for them to find justice. It is also to be noted Mr. Speaker that appeals to the Privy Council are extremely costly and this act as a severe deterrent in prosecuting unappeal before that body. Mr. Speaker, it is likely that if the appeals were to be prosecuted in Potter Spain at the headquarters of the CCJ, then many more persons who may be aggrieved by court of appeal decisions in the Caribbean would be in a financial position to approach the CCJ. In conclusion Mr. Speaker, I hold the very strong view that we need to move swiftly in replacing the Privy Council with the CCJ so that we can, according to Justice Diook Polat, close the circle of independence. Mr. Speaker, I thank you.