The Tribune

NATIONAL Insurance Board Minister Alfred Sears stood up in Parliament and announced a plan to save NIB that within hours his own Prime Minister’s office had disowned.

There are two alternatives here – either he was right in what he said and the government backtracked after his speech, or he was wrong in what he said.

The uncertainty centres around the announcement that there would be not just the 1.5 percent rise to come in July 1 this year, but equal subsequent raises every two years afterwards.

The Office of the Prime Minister hastened to say that no decision had been made about future years – although yesterday a release from Bahamas Information Services on the speech promptly reiterated the stated plan.

The FNM has said Mr Sears should resign or be fired – although that really only applies if Mr Sears misled Parliament.

If what he said was true at the time, then frankly the blame lies elsewhere, and further up the chain.

If indeed he did mislead Parliament as to the nature of the plan to rescue NIB – and it should be noted that a one-off rise this year will raise nowhere near the amount needed to do that – then Mr Sears needs to raise the record.

Under our Westminster traditions, a falsehood uttered in Parliament should not be allowed to stand. The minister should correct that, in Parliament.

If Mr Sears does not do that – and if he spoke without authority when committing the country to 20 years of NIB contribution increases – then yes, he should be fired or asked to resign.

That “if” is a big one, though.

If he did nothing wrong, and was speaking to what he understood the plan for NIB was, then it would not be surprising if Mr Sears was expected to carry the can for government indecision.

So far, Mr Sears has kept his silence on the matter. He should not. He should give an explanation. If he is not being required to, it raises questions as to why not.

Either way, we have been left with a plan to rescue NIB that will not rescue NIB if we only take the first step.

What is the real plan, if not the one announced by Mr Sears?

There has been some talk of trying to ensure there are future cost savings to avoid the decision to increase every two years – but it seems unlikely that cost savings will be found of such significance as to substantially reduce the increase required.

Indeed, this announcement has been such a long time coming – to the extent that businesses have been calling on the government for clarity on what the rise would be – that surely some of those cost savings would have been identified already if that was the government’s focus.

Mr Sears seems to find himself in the middle of a maelstrom, one that may or may not be of his own making.

This NIB announcement has been delayed, further delayed and now bungled, and we still do not know what the real outcome will be.

The government may be leaving the blame to Mr Sears – but this is a mess every way up.