Is the no smoking ban regulation lawful Mr Attorney General ?

I can only describe what I just heard/read as shocking and incredulous . One week after the no smoking ban was implemented, a Government senator indicated that there were major issues with the ban and aspect of the law appeared to have been infringing on our human rights.

The Gleaner just reported the following :

Smoking Ban Regulations To Be Tabled In Parliament Next Week

The Government has indicated that the controversial Public Health (Tobacco Control) Regulations governing the July 15 ban on smoking in public spaces will be tabled in Parliament next week.

http://jamaica-gleaner.com/latest/article.php?id=46704

I am not a legal person neither a historian but I would want to believe that given this new development, the recently introduced regulation is unlawful and the move to debate the law after the law has been enacted may be  unprecedented.

I would like an historian to indicate if this kind of mess has ever occurred before in our history and if so which law did it affect.

I would like the Attorney General Mr Patrick Atkinson in the “skin” as Attorney General and not PNP member to tell the nation if the law is indeed lawful, given this recent development.

To the general public I say, pay attention and take notes on all these recent developments, which are indeed worrying and have serious implications for good governance.

We also hear of rumblings in the Finance Ministry about the impact the new regulations will have for the government finances in terms of takes collected from the industry.

This is a clear sign of Government Ministers running off and doing what they please, without proper consultation and direction from the leadership of the party and a lack of understanding and/or  appreciation of how the sums of the various sections equate to the whole.

• Good intention by the Minister
• Very poor oversight by the Prime Minister
• Extremely poor and shoddy implementation.

Pass the law, then debate the law .. Ops how did I get that wrong.

How a Bill Becomes Law
A Bill is an act of Parliament in draft, and no Bill can become law until it is approved by the
Houses of Parliament and receives the formal assent of the Governor-General.
Bills may be introduced in either the House of Representatives or the Senate , but no Bill
involving finance can be first introduced in the Senate.
“Public Bills”, designed to give effect to Government policy, are introduced by Ministers or other officers of the Government. “Private Members’ Bills” are introduced by any other member of the House, whether of the governing party or the Opposition.
After a Bill has been introduced in the House it must pass through several stages, known as
“readings”.
First Reading
At “first reading” no debate on the Bill is allowed. The “short title” of the Bill is read by the Clerk of the House, the Bill is ordered to be printed and a day is appointed by the member in charge of the Bill for second reading.
Second Reading
The Bill is debated fully at the “second reading”. At the end of the debate a vote is taken.
Committee Stage

If the Bill passes its second reading it moves on to the “committee stage”. This committee
comprises the whole House unless the House refers the Bill to a “Select Committee”. At this
point, the Bill is considered in very close detail. Every clause is carefully examined, and
amendments to the Bill may then be moved and voted upon.
A Bill may not be rejected during the committee stage, as this power is reserved for the House.
Report Stage

After the committee stage, there is the “report stage”, when the Speaker reports what has
happened to the Bill in committee, whether there have been amendments or not.
Third Reading

No amendments of a substantial nature may be made at the “third reading”; a Bill may be
accepted or rejected by means of a vote.
When a Bill is first passed by the House of Representatives, it is sent to the Senate, where it goes
through the same procedure as one which originated in the “Lower House”.
If the Senate disagrees with any aspect of the Bill and makes an amendment, the Bill is sent back to the House of Representatives for consideration. If the House disagrees with the Senate’s
amendment, it informs the Senate, which is then asked to reconsider the Bill.
When an agreement is reached and the Bill has been passed through all its stages in both
Houses, it requires only the Royal Assent to make it law. The Royal Assent is given by the
Governor-General

http://www.jis.gov.jm/pdf/GovernmentOfJamaica.pdf

Did the no smoking bill go through all the above stages ?

If not, are the regulations lawful ?

Can we have a lawyer post a comment on this one, it would be interesting to hear the views of someone not associated with the political process commenting, so we can all be better informed.