By Sue-Ann Wayow

THE Virtual Assets and Virtual Assets Service Providers Bill 2025 has been passed in the House of Representatives.

Piloted by Minister of Finance Davendranath Tancoo on Friday, the Bill received 25 members voting in favour and 11 against with no abstentions.

The bill seeks to regulate the administration and trading of virtual assets focusing on five main activities: exchanging virtual assets for traditional currencies; exchanging between different virtual assets; transferring virtual assets, safekeeping or administering virtual assets, and providing financial services related to virtual asset sales.

However, while the bill was debated and pass in the Lower House, the Opposition was not pleased with how it was handled.

In a press release on Friday evening, the People’s National Movement (PNM) expressed their discontent with the parliamentary proceedings.

The party stated the Opposition was formally notified on Tuesday that the parliament would convene on Friday to debate the Bill, which has been on the Order Paper since September 19.

The release stated, “What transpired in the Chamber represents yet another dangerous development in our parliamentary democracy and practice as well as a continuing pattern of disrespect by the UNC government towards the Standing Orders and the elected representatives of the people.”

The PNM said during the presentation of the bill, the Minister of Finance made repeated references to clauses that were not contained in the version of the bill before the House.

When the Opposition raised legitimate objections, Speaker of the House Jagdeo Singh suspended the proceedings for ten minutes to allow the government to circulate amendments.

Upon the resumption of the sitting, members were handed a document containing 48 pages of amendments which “fundamentally altered the very bill that the Opposition had come to parliament prepared to debate,” the release stated.

The PNM said, “The scale and scope of these late amendments made it impossible for any responsible MP to review, analyse and meaningfully participate in a clause by clause examination of the legislation.”

This showed disrespect for the parliamentary Standing Orders, the party said.

During the parliamentary session when the bill was moved to be considered in the committee stage “clause by clause,” and Attorney General John Jeremie started with Clause 1, former finance minister and Member of Parliament for Diego North East Colm Imbert told Singh that his side will not participate in what was a “pappyshow.”

“We cannot realistically comment on 48 pages of amendments thrown at us at the last minute. That is impossible,” he said.

As Singh continued with the clauses, reaching Clause 2, he was interrupted again by Imbert who repeated that the Opposition was not participating in the “pappyshow.”

“Go through with all your clauses Attorney General,” Imbert said.

Singh asked the House then if all the clauses can be dealt with as a whole to which Jeremie said he was prepared to go through all clauses, “clause by clause”

Singh took a few minutes to decide “the best way forward.”

After his deliberations, he read Standing Order 126 and said, “We can come to an agreement and simply say that the bill is amended as circulated.”

But Imbert said, “Mr Speaker, we are not agreeing to anything. Then you are simply telling the government to go ahead and pass all.”

Singh said, “Well then we will have to go through it…”

Imbert interjected, “We don’t have to go through it clause by clause. You can go in sections.”

Singh said, “Well that is what we intend to do.”

The proceedings then continued.

When the vote was taking place and members vocally voiced either “yes” or “no” Imbert’s response was “No! To oppression and dictatorship.”

Member of Parliament for Laventille East/Morvant Christian Birchwood “negative” response was rejected twice until he said “no.”