Madam Speaker, in regard to the proposed construction of Belle Rose Market Fair in Quatre Bornes, I am informed by the Municipal Council of Quatre Bornes that a plot of state land of an extent of 6548 m2 at Victoria Avenue Belle Rose, previously leased to the State Investment Corporation Ltd and sublet to Mauritius Jute & Textiles Industry Properties Company Ltd, has been identified for the implementation of this project. Following the cancellation of the lease, financial clearance was conveyed on 27 October 2023 for the payment of the compensation amounting to Rs5, 293,393.56 to the Mauritius Jute & Textiles Industry Properties Company Ltd for added value to the site. The deed of cancellation was subsequently transcribed on 27 December 2024 and the plot of state land was vested in my Ministry for the construction of the marker fair. However, I am informed that the transfer to certificate for the plot of land is still pending signature before a notary public and despite several requests made by my Ministry to expedite the matter, the formalisation of the transfer has not yet been completed. As a result, the site has not yet been formally handed over for the start of the construction works. In the meantime, preparatory works have been initiated by the council. Bids were invited on 28 January 2026 for the demolition of abandoned buildings and the clearing of land at Avenue Victoria with the bid closing deed set for 12 February 2026 and the three bids were received. The bid evaluation exercise is currently in progress and the contract is expected to be awarded by the end of this month with demolition and clearance works scheduled to be completed by 13 May 2026.

Okay. Yes, very short and sweet.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I have got only one supplementary. Will the hon. Minister state the facilities that will be provided in the new Belle-Rose market? Thank you.

Madam Speaker, the project will provide market stalls, washroom facilities and space for bus holding area and a large parking space for avoiding traffic jams.

Thank you.

Okay. Now, time is up. I have to also tell you that several PQs, of course, have been withdrawn: B/57, B/58, B/59, B/60, B/62, B/63, B/66, B/68, B/69, B70, B/71, B/73, B/74. Thank you. Hon. Prime Minister, motion. MOTION SUSPENSION OF S.O. 10(2)

Madam Speaker, I beg to move that all the business on today’s Order Paper be exempted from the provisions of paragraph (2) of Standing Order 10. Mr Mohamed rose and seconded. Question put and agreed to.

Hon. Prime Minister! STATEMENT BY MINISTER IMF SPECIAL DATA DISSEMINATION STANDARD PLUS –ADHERENCE OF MAURITIUS (4.40 p.m.)

Madam Speaker, with your permission, I would like to make a statement on the adherence of Mauritius to the IMF Special Data Dissemination Standard Plus, the SDDS Plus, as from today. Madam Speaker, as the House is aware, the independence of institutions, such as Statistics Mauritius and the Bank of Mauritius, were grossly undermined before November 2024. Pressure was exerted on the Statistics Mauritius and the Bank of Mauritius to dress up official statistics, thereby giving a false impression of progress and weakening their independence at the same time. We pledged when we took office to reverse this. We have done so. These institutions now work with restored autonomy and professionalism, and the credibility of our national statistics has been rebuilt. But we are not stopping there. We are making further strides in our endeavour to secure the highest standards of transparency and accountability in the production and dissemination of statistics. Today, Madam Speaker, I am glad to announce to the House, and to Mauritians in general, that Mauritius is adhering to the SDDS Plus, which is the highest tier IMF data dissemination standards, which is the most advanced and demanding of all international data standards. I would here like to add that, as a result of my Government’s efforts, Mauritius subscribed to the first level of international standards, the General Data Dissemination System (GDDS) in September 2000. It was under my Government that Mauritius graduated to the SDDS in February 2012. Madam Speaker, we wanted to send a powerful signal to the world that Mauritius strictly adheres to the principles of transparency and accountability with respect to the production and dissemination of data. In 2013, during an IMF Technical Assistance mission, we, through the then Statistics Board, seized the opportunity to request the IMF’s assistance in identifying the new requirements of SDDS Plus and the steps needed towards meeting them. Unfortunately, this was followed by, I must say, inaction for the following 10 years – 10 lost years! Last year, I decided to revive this important endeavour. I set up a Steering Committee under my Office to speed up its implementation. Today, Madam Speaker, I am glad to announce that we have reached the highest level, which is the SDDS Plus.

Bravo! Bravo!

The adherence to SDDS Plus means that we are now agreeing to publish more data, faster, and with tighter guarantees on quality, integrity and openness, especially for government finance, the financial system, and external exposures. In practice, the SDDS Plus requires Mauritius to meet detailed IMF benchmarks on the coverage, the frequency and timeliness of a set of core and additional datasets that are considered essential to monitor vulnerabilities and risks in modern economies. This is, Madam Speaker, a demanding standard, but meeting it sends a powerful message to investors, to rating agencies, and also to international partners that they can rely on our statistics when taking decisions about Mauritius. This graduation is, therefore, not just symbolic; it has concrete implications for our economy. The strategic benefits for Mauritius are multi-fold – (a) Reinforced International Credibility. This is especially valuable for safeguarding Mauritius’ reputation and increasing global scrutiny of international financial centres. (b) Stronger Investment and Rating Agency Confidence. For a small open economy reliant on capital flows, this credibility premium is strategically important and for Moody’s, it will be credit positive. (c) Enhanced Financial Stability Oversight. For Mauritius, where financial services represent quite a high percentage of our GDP, as we know, at one point it was even 15%. But this now is a significant share of GDP. Therefore, this risk monitoring capacity is critical. (d) Alignment with Financial Centre Ambitions. It would serve, Madam Speaker, as a reputational anchor consistent with global financial stability standards. (e) Institutional and Governance Strengthening. These improvements will have lasting benefits well beyond compliance. (f) Efficient Access to International Markets. For a small open economy like us, adherence will facilitate access to markets for both sovereign and the private sector at a lower borrowing cost. Madam Speaker, for all these reasons, SDDS Plus is not merely a statistical benchmark, it is a strategic instrument for Mauritius. I would like to reiterate that our adherence will, inter alia, reinforce credibility as a transparent international financial centre, strengthen financial stability oversight, enhance investor confidence and support long-term economic resilience. In a global environment of heightened scrutiny and interconnected risks, SDDS Plus will provide Mauritius with a strong institutional signal of commitment to the highest standards of macro-financial transparency. Madam Speaker, I would like to highlight here that the graduation to SDDS Plus is indeed a major achievement. Only 31 countries in the world have met this standard, most of which are OECD or High-Income countries. Furthermore, I should add that Mauritius is the only, only African country to adhere to the SDDS Plus. Through this achievement, we now stand alongside advanced countries, particularly in terms of transparency, credibility and integrity of our official statistics. Let me also highlight that adherence to the SDDS Plus will make it extremely difficult for any government to try to manipulate data. Let me end by thanking the IMF for their generous and dedicated support. They responded quickly to field several missions to assist us. In particular, the Report on the Observance of Standards and Codes (ROSC), it was a mission which, Madam Speaker, did a full audit of our overall statistical system and framework, and this was instrumental for us to reach the SDDS Plus. I also wish to thank all those who have worked diligently to achieve our goal, including officials from my Office, the Ministry of Finance, Statistics Mauritius and the Bank of Mauritius. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Bravo PM!

Thank you, hon. Prime Minister. Do you mind, all of you, if we have a short break? Okay, let us go for tea! At 4.48 p.m., the Sitting was suspended. On resuming at 5.17 p.m., with Madam Speaker in the Chair.

You may be seated! PUBLIC BILLS First Reading On motion made and seconded, the Optical Council (Amendment) Bill (No. I of 2026) was read a first time. Second Reading THE LAW REFORM COMMISSION BILL (No. XXXI of 2025) Order for Second Reading read.

Yes, hon. Attorney-General! (5.18 p.m.) The Attorney-General (Mr G. P. C. Glover, SC): I beg to move that the Law Reform Commission Bill (No. XXXI of 2025) be read a second time. This Bill, Madam Speaker, is at its core about strengthening one of the quiet, but essential institutions of our legal system. The Law Reform Commission seldom catches headlines. Yet, it is only through sustained methodical and principal review that the law can remain intelligible, relevant and just. The Law Reform Commission of Mauritius was first established in 1993 through the Law Reform Commission Act 1992 which itself was repealed in 2006 with the enactment of the Law Reform Commission Act 2005. Since then, no improvement has been brought. It is now time to bring about sweeping reforms to set up a new framework fit for the demands of the present. The stark reality, Madam Speaker, is that the LRC has, over the last 20 years, published no less than 195 papers. Yet, few, too few, may I add, recommendations have found their way to legislation. To quote the opinion paper of the LRC in support of this fundamental change in the legislation, I quote – “This persistent gap between research and enactment is symptomatic of a deeper structural weakness. The Commission has been tasked with a mission, but not endowed with the legal instruments necessary to make its work effective.” The purpose of the Bill is, therefore, simple enough – to repeal the existing Law Reform Commission Act to replace it with a legislative framework more suited to the needs of our country today. Laws, Madam Speaker, do not stand still. They must evolve with society, with economic realities, with technological change and with our collective aspirations as a democratic state governed by the rule of law. The Law Reform Commission has, over the past years, contributed meaningfully to this process. Experience has shown however, that its existing statutory framework has become too narrow, and at times, administratively constraining. This Bill seeks to give the institution the tools it needs to discharge its mandate more fully. I must immediately point out, Madam Speaker, that the impetus for this reform came from the Commission itself. It was the Commission, which having worked within the constraints of the existing Act for a number of years, identified the areas in which the legislative framework fell short and formulated proposals for its modernisation. That is as it should be. No institution is better placed to assess the adequacy of its own governing statute than the one which must operate it daily. I was happy to examine those proposals carefully with members of my office. Having satisfied myself that they were well-founded and in the public interest, I have deemed it fit to carry them forward in the form of this Bill. Madam Speaker, I shall now delve brief into the principal provisions of the new law and the reasons which have prompted them. Clause 3(1) of the Bill establishes the Commission, defines its core responsibility, that is, to keep the laws of Mauritius under review and to propose reforms aimed at simplifying, modernising and consolidating those laws. Importantly, clause 3(2) of the Bill provides that “the Commission shall, in the discharge of its functions and exercise of its powers, act independently and impartially and shall not be under the direction or control of any person or authority.” The Commission is also constituted as a body corporate under subclause (3), and these provisions give the institution a clear statutory identity and the autonomy necessary to carry out serious reform work. Clause 4(1) of the Bill redefines and expands the functions of the Commission. It expressly empowers the Commission to engage in research and studies to ensure that the laws of Mauritius evolve to meet the contemporary needs and challenges of society and the legal community. This reflects that a deliberate shift in philosophy. Law reform should not be purely reactive. It should be anticipatory. It should identify emerging issues before they harden into systemic conditions and problems. Clause 4(1) of the Bill also provides that the Commission may consider proposals for reform made to it by the Attorney-General or by any Ministry. Under the previous Act, only the Attorney-General could direct the Commission to examine any aspect of the law. The extension to Ministries is an important development. In practice, Ministries are closest to the operational realities of legislation within their respective sectors. By enabling the Ministries to make formal proposals, this Bill fosters a more collaborative and informed reform process across Government. The same clause confirms the Commission’s power to make recommendations to the Attorney-General and any Ministry on its own initiative. This is not an incidental point. It underscores the intellectual independence of the Commission and its role as a body capable of generating reform ideas grounded in research, consultation and comparative analysis. Clause 4(1) of the Bill further provides for the Commission to request information from any Ministry, organisation or individual in relation to the law reform process, and to engage public involvement by publicising its work and conducting public hearings. Law reform, Madam Speaker, must not be an insular exercise. It must be informed by public participation and professional expertise. Clause 4(2) of the Bill adds a practical requirement: where the Commission makes recommendations to the Attorney-General or any Ministry, it shall, as far as practicable, attach a draft Bill to those recommendations. This ensures that reform proposals are not merely conceptual but are carried through to the level of initial legislative drafting. Clause 4(3) of the Bill requires the Commission to be proactive and submit to the Attorney-General, at least once every year, a programme for the review of specific aspects of the laws of Mauritius with a view to their development or improvement. This introduces discipline of forward planning that was absent from the previous framework. A further innovation, Madam Speaker, lies in the introduction of structured post- legislative analysis. This is new. Clause 5 of the Bill provides that where legislation has been enacted wholly or partly on the basis of the Commission’s recommendations, the Commission may subsequently monitor its operation, assess whether the objectives set out in its report or recommendations have been achieved, identify any unintended consequences or deficiencies arising from the enactment, and, where necessary, make further recommendations for reform. This is a significant step forward. Too often legislation is passed and thereafter assumed to function as intended – and more often than we would like to admit, it does not! A mature legal system, Madam Speaker, must be willing to review itself. Post- legislative scrutiny allows to refine the law in the light of experience rather than theory alone. Clause 6 preserves the Attorney-General’s power to direct the Commission to examine any aspect of the laws of Mauritius at any time. The Commission is required to report to the Attorney-General on the results of any such review, including recommendations as it deems necessary. Recently, Madam Speaker, I have asked the LRC to review the functions of the Judicial and Legal Service Commission and to report on what obtains in other Commonwealth jurisdictions, especially where there is now a need to separate the functions of that Commission in a Judicial Service Commission on the one hand, and a Legal Service Commission, on the other. The LRC’s recommendations are eagerly awaited. Clause 7 of the Bill addresses a practical difficulty which has arisen in the past. The Bill designates the Attorney-General’s Office as the liaison authority were the Commission requests information from any Ministry. The Solicitor-General shall appoint an officer of the AGO to act as the liaison authority’s representative. In reality, delays or reluctance in providing information have sometimes impeded reform initiatives. By formalising this liaison mechanism, the Bill seeks to ensure that work is not stalled by administrative obstacles. Part III of the Bill deals with the Administration and Management of the Commission. The Commission is to be administered by Law Reform Board constituted under Clauses 8 and 9 with such broad representations brought from the Judiciary, the Office of Attorney- General, the Office of the DPP, the private legal profession, the University of Mauritius and 2 representatives of civil society – and now, and that is the novelty, the Director of the Institute for Judicial and Legal Studies. This recommendation of the LRC was grounded in commonsense but was also a legal imperative. The presence of a Director-General of the IJLS will add another perspective and will ensure that the Commission has at its disposal the specialised experience of an institution dedicated to advanced legal education, research and training. The Board is empowered to set up Advisory Committees under Clause 11 to assist in the discharge of its functions. Now, Clauses 12 to 14 provide for the staffing of the Commission, including the appointment of a Chief Executive Officer qualified in law and experienced in legal research, a Secretary, and such other officers and consultants as the Commission considers necessary. Part IV provides for the financial governance of the Commission, including a General Fund, annual estimates of income and expenditure to be submitted to the AGO and an annual report and audited accounts to be laid before the Assembly by the Attorney General. The House will note, in particular, the savings and transitional provisions under clause 24 which ensure continuity by preserving the position and terms of appointment of existing staff and Board members. All rights, obligations and liabilities subsisting in favour of or against the Commission under the repealed Law Reform Commission Act shall, obviously, continue to exist under the new legislation, and all assets and funds shall vest accordingly. This is both fair and pragmatic. Institutional reform, Madam Speaker, should not unnecessarily disrupt the human and operational foundations upon which effective public bodies depend. Madam Speaker, beyond these specific provisions lies a broader a vision. The strengthening of the Law Reform Commission is part of the wider commitment to the quality of our legislation. Good governance requires not only the enactment of laws, but their constant refinement. It requires a willingness to simplify where complexity has accumulated, to modernise where provisions has become obsolete, and to consolidate where fragmentation has impaired coherence. This new term, Madam Speaker, will thus see landmark legislation being introduced in this House, to enact profound change in the investigation of the serious crime, a new approach to certificates of character, the revamping of the organisation of sports in this country, the setting up of a modern child adoption framework, a review of sexual offences, a new Domestic Abuse Bill and much awaited amendments to the Criminal Code, including, inter alia, the addition of feminicide to the list of offences against the person. After that even more legislative improvement will be coming, and having a fully empowered Law Reform Commission will only make it faster and more potent. In supporting this Bill, Madam Speaker, hon. Members are adjusting the machinery of the statutory body, but they also reaffirming the principle that the law must remain a living instrument, one that truly serves the people of Mauritius. And with these words, Madam Speaker, I commend this Bill to the House. Mr Mohamed rose and seconded. Question put and agreed to. (5.32 p.m.)

Madam Speaker, I have listened with a lot of attention and interest to the hon. Attorney General and he has been very explicit and in a very detailed manner, explained the purpose and the reasoning behind this piece of legislation. So, let me at the outset congratulate the hon. Attorney General and the officers of his Office who have done once again a formidable job in preparing this piece of legislation. It is in my view very important to set the scene in order to show what his intent is but let me very briefly comment on an aspect of the law which I find very interesting and it is new. It is at clause 3(2) which talks about the independence, impartiality of this commission. Now, this is a very important part. Cela peut passer inaperçu but so important. That shows that this is an institution that has a lot of value to this Government. An institution, because it has its value, it is being put in the law that it will operate independently and impartially. And not only that, it goes as far as to say that it shall not be under the direction or control of any person or authority. And for that matter, it also means not under the control of Government or any other entity whatsoever. When you look at the old law – well, the actual law before it is repealed – this element of impartiality and independence was not there. Not to say that they, in any way, acted under the control of any authority but to underline that part in the law, is what makes this piece of legislation, this Bill that is proposed, very modern and in line with all the legislations that exist in other Commonwealth jurisdictions such as Australia, United Kingdom and New Zealand. The other element that I find of utmost interest is the post-legislative analysis. Very often, we are to ponder why is it important to have the possibility to have a post-legislative analysis of a piece of legislation and I connect this with the public involvement in law reform, hearings that can be conducted by the Law Reform Commission. Imagine the scenario that you have a piece of legislation that is passed and you do not have, as a matter of statute, the power for an analysis post the legislation being passed in Parliament. Then, you will have to wait for the Cabinet of Ministers, the Ministers concerned by certain pieces of legislation, to go to Cabinet, give instructions to the Attorney General’s office, and then have a new proposal for changes to the law whereas, if you have a Law Reform Commission that will monitor the operation of an enactment as it is proposed here, where it has been wholly or partly based on its recommendations; if you are going to have a commission that is going to monitor the operation, assess – as the Bill says – the extent to which the enactment has achieved its objectives or not, propose changes, corrective measures and at the same time, if you have that very same commission that will hold hearings, listen to people, listen to experts who will say exactly where you have to bring corrective measures. This is a very important element within this legislation. And when I have, Madam Speaker, read the other law reform bodies that exist in the Commonwealth, it is clear that it is now in line with many other jurisdictions and this is why I once again would like to congratulate the Attorney General. With that piece of legislation as proposed, what do I surmise? That clearly, there is better governance. With this piece of legislation as proposed, there will be better governance. It is more effective reform – I have just spoken about the post-legislative analysis – there will clearly be greater transparency in the way that things will run from thereafter with public hearings and formal reporting that will improve trust because at the end, we have to improve trust with members of the public at large. Faster reform, this is another element that is brought forward. The Bills then will be drafted with recommendations, will speed up parliamentary consideration. There is no doubt about that. And I end on that responsible stewardship. When you take note of the provisions in the Bill for explicit budgeting, auditing and transition safeguards to protect resources and personnel, this is responsible stewardship. So, for all those reasons – I say it again – better governance, more effective reform, greater transparency, faster reform and responsible stewardship, I congratulate the hon. Attorney General once again. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you. Your winding-up speech! (5.38 p.m.)

Madam Speaker, may I now present my summing-up which obviously will be short and sweet given the fact that we have not had much objection to this Bill and to add to the words of hon. Mohamed on the Bill, it is indeed an institution which has a lot of value for this Government. And what I want to add at this stage is, in fact, this Bill came to the AGO as an appendix to the paper issued by the LRC after its opinion came of its own volition on the amendments which the LRC thought had to be brought to the Act in order for them to do better work. And today, the Chief Executive Officer of the LRC is present to witness the passing of this new legislation, which will give, of course, a serious impetus to the legislative process. And, I do not think that there is much to add except to confirm what my learned friend has just stated, that it is now in line with most of the other Commonwealth jurisdictions which are of the same democratic system.

Thank you. You have to commend the Bill again.

I commend the Bill to the House. Question put and agreed to. Bill read a second time and committed. COMMITTEE STAGE (Madam Speaker in the Chair) The Law Reform Commission Bill (No. XXXI of 2025) was considered and agreed to. On the Assembly resuming with Madam Speaker in the Chair, Madam Speaker reported accordingly. Third Reading On motion made and seconded, the Law Reform Commission Bill (No. XXXI of 2025) was read a third time and passed.

Adjournment! Hon. Prime Minister! ADJOURNMENT

Madam Speaker, I beg to move that this Assembly do now adjourn to Tuesday 24 March 2026 at 11.30 a.m. Mr Mohamed rose and seconded. Question put and agreed to.

The House stands adjourned! Adjournment matters! Yes, hon. François! MATTERS RAISED RODRIGUES – 15 MARCH 2026 TORRENTIAL RAIN – DAMAGES & REMEDIAL ACTIONS (5.43 p.m.) Mr J. F. François (Second Member for Rodrigues): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, with your permission, I will raise two matters this evening. The first one is addressed to both the hon. Prime Minister, in his capacity as Minister responsible for Rodrigues and Minister of Finance, and also to the hon. Minister of National Infrastructure and NDU, highlighting the recent torrential rain, causing severe flooding, which hit Rodrigues on Sunday 15 March. The northern road traffic movement was affected. All radiers, of course, around Rodrigues became impracticable. Worryingly, the ICU at Queen Elizabeth Hospital was inundated and evacuated. Agricultural valleys were inundated and there were landslides around a few residential properties. The problem is not anew, but the urgency to address it is now greater than ever, and some require immediate remedial measures. Madam Speaker, I will urge, in particular, the hon. Minister of National Infrastructure and the NDU, together with engineers and expert staff, to travel to Rodrigues at the earliest opportunity. A site visit is essential to see the situation at first-hand, to assess the scale and the damage, and to work closely with the Regional Assembly to determine the necessary remedial actions. Such a visit would also accelerate the implementation of the NDU, LDA and RRA identified and approved drainage projects, which I rightly proposed during my tenure as former PPS for Rodrigues. The projects were due to start by year 2022-2023 and completed by year 2024-2025 for earmarked funds of around Rs3 billion, but were, unfortunately, delayed and cancelled by the whims and caprices of people. The project comprises, amongst others, drains, Port Mathurin Phase III, including networks from Fond La Digue, Pointe Canon, Montagne Fanal and Camp du Roi, Grand Baie, Anse aux Anglais and Accacia. They also include the raising of several radiers at Diamant, Anse Pansia, Baie du Nord, Rivière Coco and Mourouk. Madam Speaker, over and above the list mentioned, emergency attention must now be given to the road and drain behind the Queen Elizabeth Hospital at Crève Coeur, and the construction of a bigger culvert at Baie Lascar junction serving Queen Elizabeth Hospital, and drain bridges at Port Mathurin Phase III. So, I respectfully call upon the hon. Prime Minister to consider the authorisation of a one-off allocation or reallocation of funds so that urgent repairs, maintenance, desilting, rehabilitation and infrastructural works can be undertaken without delay. Attention must also be given to the radiers along the Songes-Anse Raffin Coastal Road as well as those located on the link coastal road from Anse Fémie, Gravier to Var Brûlé. Madam Speaker, the recent flooding has, once again, highlighted a reality, that the drainage and flood mitigation challenges in Rodrigues can no longer be delayed and postponed. The NDU must reprioritise needs, particularly in the context of the forthcoming budget proposals, in consultation with the RRA. Madam Speaker, despite the people of Rodrigues’ resilience…

Not too…

This is very important. Yes, I know. I am within…

This is adjournment matters. Don’t make a long statement!

I just want to complete the information for the benefit of House and the people of Rodrigues, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, there is also a human impact. To conclude on this matter, whenever disaster events hit Rodrigues, people need to hear that their concerns are timely heard and supported. I, therefore, appeal and trust that the Central Government and the RRA will consider long-term and short-term relief measures or temporary hardship relief mechanisms or support to assist affected public in coping with the loses, and to address in a sustainable manner any flooding challenges facing Rodrigues. I thank you.

Yes, thank you for your first adjournment matter. Yes!

First of all, I express our sympathies to the people of Rodrigues. I must tell hon. François that I spoke to the Chief Commissioner the other day, yesterday, I think, or the day before. I expressed my sympathy. He explained to me exactly what you were saying. I have asked hon. Gunness, who is the Minister responsible for NDU, to go to Rodrigues to see, as you said, on site what needs to be done. I think he is going to leave, probably early next week or by the end of the week. Thank you.

Okay, your second matter! An hon. Member: Huh?

C’est la démocratie ! C’est la démocratie ! (5.48 p.m.) RODRIGUES – GYNAECOLOGICAL CARE – ADDITIONAL GYNAECOLOGISTS PROVISION Mr J. F. François (Second Member for Rodrigues): Thank you. Madam Speaker, my second matter is addressed to the hon. Minister of Health, and it concerns gynaecological care in Rodrigues. At present, gynaecologists are posted in Rodrigues for a period of only one month. This means that any person having gynaecological health problem or a pregnant may be followed by as many as eight different gynaecologists during her pregnancy. Each specialist may have a different medical approach. This clearly affects the continuity and quality of care for patients. I have also been informed that upon mutual agreement, some specialists spend only 15 days in Rodrigues. One can easily understand the consequences of a situation for patients who require regular examination. Recently, there was an emergency case at Queen Elizabeth Hospital, where the only gynaecologist who was supposed to consult patients at La Ferme Area Health Centre could not attend. Patients had to be sent back and their appointments re-scheduled. Madam Speaker, as the hon. Minister, himself, mentioned in a previous reply, the number of caesarean cases is increasing. I am also informed that maternal deaths are showing signs of increase, even if some cases may, unfortunately, be inevitable. These situations call for urgent attention as Rodrigues currently has only one administrative structure in the health sector. Madam Speaker, Rodrigues cannot continue to rely on a gynaecological system that lacks continuity in such a critical field of health care. In my regard, I humbly request the hon. Minister to look seriously into this matter and to also consider renewing – this is very interesting – the previous agreed arrangement between his Ministry and the former OPR Regional Government to recruit gynaecologists from India. This initiative had been pursued before and proved beneficial for Rodrigues. Madam Speaker, the people of Rodrigues deserve stable and reliable gynaecological care. I rely on the usual collaboration of the hon. Minister and his Ministry. I thank you.

Yes, hon. Minister!

Madam Speaker, I am conscious that there is only one gynaecologist we are sending monthly. As a result of the introduction of 24/7 by the previous government regarding gynaecologists and paediatricians – they were bound to work for 24/7 –, this led to the resignation of dozens of such specialists from the government service. This is the reason why I see there is a big scarcity of gynaecologists and paediatricians in our hospitals. The Public Service Commission has already invited applications. I do hope we do get such specialists so that I can increase the number of specialists going to Rodrigues. At the same time, we are negotiating with the Indian authority, the Indian hospitals, and I believe that I will be able to get a few gynaecologists so that I can help you.

Here you are! Thank you very much, hon. Minister! Thank you, everybody! At 5.52 p.m. the Assembly was, on its rising, adjourned to Tuesday 24 March 2026 at 11.30 a.m. WRITTEN ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS PRESIDENT OF SEYCHELLES STATE VISIT – JOINT MANAGEMENT AREA DISCUSSIONS