A heated legislative debate has unfolded in the Barbadian Senate over the proposed Protection of Older Persons Bill, with opposition Senator Karina Goodridge launching a detailed critique of what she describes as dangerously vague drafting and overconcentration of power in the hands of government ministers.
While Goodridge openly praised the administration for responding to public calls to protect vulnerable adults aged 65 and over, she emphasized that the current iteration of the legislation is too open to subjective interpretation, a flaw that could lead to legal chaos and wrongful targeting of ordinary citizens. Her criticism focused heavily on Section 2, the bill’s clause defining elder abuse. According to Goodridge, the existing wording casts an overly broad “net” that fails to include a clear, objective legal standard, specifically the widely accepted reasonable person’s test that would guide consistent application of the law.
Beyond the definition of abuse, Goodridge raised pointed questions about the bill’s framework for approving caregivers for older adults. The legislation grants the responsible minister sole authority to designate “fit persons” to provide care, but it does not outline explicit qualification criteria for either the caregivers or the standards the minister must use to make these decisions. She argued that leaving this determination open to subjective judgment rather than clear, written rules creates unnecessary risk of future disputes and unfair outcomes. “Why is this power given to the minister, and what qualifies the minister now to make that decision?” Goodridge asked, noting that clear guidelines would avoid preventable problems down the line.
Goodridge also turned scrutiny to Section 10, which sets harsh penalties for violations: a fine of up to $100,000 and a five-year prison sentence. She warned that without explicit definitions of specific offenses, the bill could inadvertently criminalize accidental or unintentional actions that cause no harm to older people. “If the punishments are to become onerous, then the crime must be explicitly defined with no room for misinterpretation,” Goodridge said. “We really don’t want to set that kind of precedent as a country.”
One of the most controversial points of her critique targeted Section 34, which imposes legal liability on publication distributors for content they distribute that relates to elder care and protection. Goodridge questioned why third-party distributors, who do not edit or curate the content they deliver, should be held legally responsible for material they carry, arguing the provision effectively forces distributors to take on the role of editorial oversight that does not align with their job function. “If I’m distributing a paper, then I could be liable. That didn’t make no sense to me in Bajan terms. It is asking the distributor to also have editor responsibilities,” she said.
Goodridge’s line-by-line analysis drew immediate pushback from government lawmakers. Leader of Government Business Senator Lisa Cummins rejected Goodridge’s concerns about excessive ministerial power, noting that references to the “minister” in Barbadian legislation conventionally refer to the office and its team of professional technical staff, not unilateral decision-making by a single individual. Senate Deputy President Liz Thompson joined Cummins in pushing back, reminding Goodridge that clause-by-clause review is reserved for the committee stage of legislative debate, not the first reading of the bill.
Critics also questioned Goodridge’s experience with legislative drafting, but the opposition senator stood firmly by her analysis. She argued that all senators have a duty to flag drafting flaws regardless of procedural conventions, noting that legal opinions often vary among attorneys and that the body has a responsibility to pass clear, well-crafted law. “I will give my opinion on the sections fairly in accordance with the knowledge that I have,” Goodridge responded. “Many times attorneys will say one thing and the next attorney will say the other… we have to ensure any bill we are passing is properly drafted for us senators to accept.”
Closing her remarks, Goodridge urged the full Senate to revise the bill to clarify ambiguous language before advancing it, warning that failing to fix the issues now would force the country’s judicial system to resolve costly and time-consuming legal disputes over ambiguities later. “We care about the elderly,” she emphasized. “But we have to ensure the legislation is properly defined and every section is clear so that we can avoid misinterpretation.”