ECYS Minister reads emails into Parliament, but York says the correspondence does not resolve his complaint that her position changed after their original discussion. MPs also demand answers on school-meal funding.

PHILIPSBURG: ---  MP Darryl York confronted Minister of Education, Culture, Youth and Sport Melissa Gumbs over her account of discussions concerning structural repairs at Marie Genevieve de Weever School, prompting a defensive response from the minister during the November 6 budget debate.

Gumbs read January 2026 correspondence into the parliamentary record to support her position that structural repairs could not form part of York’s Adopt-a-School initiative. York countered that the emails did not settle his central complaint: he maintained that their original face-to-face conversation in January 2025 had allowed repairs under departmental supervision, before that position changed.

“I don’t take too kindly to being called a liar on the floor of Parliament,” Gumbs said as she returned to the dispute.

The confrontation unfolded alongside renewed demands from MPs Sjamira Roseburg and Omar Ottley for a practical funding solution to student hunger. They questioned whether money being considered for school repairs could also help finance meals for children struggling to learn without adequate nutrition.

Gumbs turns to correspondence to defend her account

Gumbs said she wanted to clarify an email from which one passage had previously been read.

She then presented York’s January 20, 2026 message concerning the Adopt-a-School initiative.

According to the email as read into the record, the project initially concerned painting, new water coolers, and minor roof repairs, financed through public sponsorship without a direct transfer of money to the school.

The email referred to a previous meeting in which York said Gumbs had given her blessing and directed him to coordinate with the head of the Division of Public Education for the necessary approvals.

It also contained the passage at the center of York’s argument: that structural repairs, such as work on the roof, should have proper departmental oversight to avoid liability issues.

Gumbs disputed that interpretation, maintaining that she had explained the ministry’s liability concerns and had not authorized structural repairs.

The email went on to state that, following further discussions with Public Education, York would proceed only with painting and installing water coolers.

He reported having 18 buckets of paint and two new water coolers and requested approval to execute those non-structural elements.

Cabinet response expressly excluded structural work

Gumbs said her Chief of Staff replied that same afternoon while she was on vacation.

The response thanked York for supporting the school and confirmed that the proposed donation could proceed, with the Cabinet and Public Education facilitating administrative coordination and supervisory support.

It explained that school leadership and the head of Public Education were responsible for submitting and tracking donations through the ministry’s internal process.

The protocol, the correspondence stated, was intended to ensure coordination, transparency, and alignment with needs across public schools, rather than burden donors.

However, the reply expressly stated that structural and infrastructural repairs could not form part of an Adopt-a-School arrangement.

The ministry remained responsible for major repairs, safety, and insurance.

Gumbs also told Parliament that she subsequently asked York to hold off on painting because planned repair work could damage newly painted surfaces. She said it would be wasteful for sponsors to finance painting that would then be disturbed by drilling or other repairs.

“I support reading comprehension training development for all,” the minister added at the conclusion of her explanation.

York says the dates are central to the dispute

York responded directly to that remark.

“An important part of reading comprehension is not only letters, but it’s also numbers,” he said.

He emphasized that the meeting he was discussing occurred in January 2025, while the email Gumbs had read was written in January 2026.

His complaint, he said, concerned what happened between those two points.

According to York, the original conversation had left him with the understanding that he could proceed with structural assistance provided the department supervised the work.

He maintained that the position subsequently changed from permission with oversight to a prohibition on structural work.

“The script changed,” York said.

He did not deny that he later agreed to limit the initiative to painting and water coolers. Instead, he said that was a practical decision to secure some benefit for the school rather than continue fighting over work he had been told was no longer permitted.

“Something is better than nothing,” he said.

Emails establish the later restriction, not agreement on the earlier conversation

York argued that his acceptance of the restriction in 2026 did not mean the original discussion had happened as Gumbs described it.

He demanded that the minister acknowledge the difference between their earlier conversation and the subsequent instruction.

“You’re allowed to change your mind, but don’t act like it was never said,” York told her.

The exchange left their accounts of the original meeting unresolved. The correspondence read into the record established that structural repairs were expressly excluded in the Cabinet’s January 2026 response. It did not, by itself, establish exactly what had been said during the January 2025 meeting or that the minister knowingly misled Parliament.

Gumbs’s defensive presentation of the emails therefore did not end the disagreement. York continued to distinguish between the later written restriction—which he accepted—and the earlier verbal guidance—which remained contested.

Roseburg presses for funding to feed children

While the repair dispute occupied parliamentary attention, Roseburg returned to student meals.

She referred to the 50,000-guilder allocation approved during the 2025 budget process and said her concern went beyond identifying which ministry should provide an implementation update.

She wanted to know how the government would finance a sustainable program and whether ECYS would support directing additional resources toward feeding children.

Roseburg cited a proposal to provide breakfast and a mid-morning snack to approximately 400 students, with an estimated annual funding requirement of 576,000 guilders.

She linked that need to MP Raeyhon Peterson’s announced intention to redirect part of Parliament’s travel budget toward school repairs.

If an amendment made additional resources available, Roseburg asked, would the minister support allocating some of that money to meals?

“School needs repairs. But if a child is still hungry, the child cannot focus,” she said.

Her argument was that school buildings and student nutrition both required attention, and Parliament needed a clear funding response.

Ottley calls for an “ultimate solution”

Ottley supported the demand for clarity.

He recalled an earlier nutrition initiative that, according to his account, had fed more than 160 children during his tenure as VSA Minister.

He said the program was intended to continue in collaboration with education and referred to subsequent budget arrangements that he understood had moved funding toward education.

Those statements were not reconciled with the current budget allocations during the supplied exchange.

Ottley asked whether insufficient funding was preventing continuation and whether Parliament needed to amend the budget.

He also urged the minister and MPs to move beyond the argument over repair permissions.

“I need the ultimate solution,” he said.

At the center of his intervention were two immediate needs: schools requiring repairs and children requiring food. If money was the obstacle, he argued, Parliament needed to know so it could decide what to do.

Questions remain on the government’s preferred approach

Roseburg also sought confirmation that her question about the CRT pilot program had been forwarded to VSA after ECYS identified that ministry as responsible for implementation.

Returning to meals, she referred to the 2025 parliamentary decision requiring VSA to work closely with ECYS and existing NGO partners.

If government did not support another amendment, she asked whether other budget allocations could be made available to keep the initiative going.

She requested the ministry’s preferred approach rather than another referral between portfolios.

The supplied excerpt ended before Gumbs answered those follow-up funding questions. It therefore did not establish whether she supported dividing a proposed reallocation between repairs and meals, or whether government would identify additional resources elsewhere.

Gumbs outlines work under the governing accord

Earlier in this portion of her responses, Gumbs addressed MP Sarah Wescot-Williams’s request for ministers to explain how commitments in the governing accord were being implemented.

She grouped ECYS’s work into equal opportunity and access, human capital development and economic growth, and nation-building, identity and social cohesion.

Gumbs said the study financing ordinance was finalized and awaiting ratification.

She identified initiatives at different stages involving special-needs education, higher education financing, school transportation, student insurance, early childhood development, school reconstruction, literacy, numeracy and school safety.

Teacher development and retention, career guidance, coding and robotics, and a national artificial intelligence education policy framework also formed part of the agenda.

In culture and youth development, she referred to creative-industry initiatives, support for an artists’ guild, youth participation, child protection, positive parenting, heritage preservation and library reconstruction.

Gumbs acknowledged that some commitments were completed, others were being implemented, and others still required policy development and decision-making.

Personal-device restrictions still being considered

Responding to Wescot-Williams on classroom devices, Gumbs said she supported moderate technology use for legitimate educational purposes.

However, she did not believe students’ personal devices belonged in lessons unless their use was specifically authorized for learning.

She said the issue had been discussed briefly with the head of Public Education and her youth cabinet.

Parents needing to reach children during an emergency could contact the school, she argued.

The minister also reported youth-cabinet feedback that some students had allegedly been charged to use school telephones to contact their parents. She called that unreasonable, particularly in emergencies.

“It is a school, not a prison,” Gumbs said.

She encouraged schools to consider appropriate network filtering while the ministry continued examining the implications of personal-device restrictions. She did not announce an island-wide ban or an implementation date.

Regional cooperation supported

Gumbs deferred formal questions about CARICOM associate membership to the Prime Minister but advocated greater government-to-government engagement across the Caribbean.

Cooperation with CARICOM countries and institutions such as the Caribbean Development Bank could contribute to nation-building, she said.

She also called for fiscal discipline, respect for rules and a willingness across government, Parliament and the business community to set egos aside when determining the country’s direction.

Labega confirms overdue contractor received payment

During the clarification round, MP Dimar Labega said a company whose overdue payment he had raised earlier had informed him the money had arrived.

The company had repaired the Receiver’s Office and, according to Labega’s earlier complaint, had waited eight months for payment.

He thanked the government and an official from the Prime Minister’s Office who had contacted him about resolving the matter.

That announcement provided an immediate outcome during proceedings in which the school repair dispute remained unsettled and MPs were still awaiting answers on how the government would sustain meals for vulnerable students.

Prime Minister leaves legality question to the courts, confirms integrity meeting remains adjourned and proposes December deadline for ministries’ legislative priorities.

PHILIPSBURG:--- Prime Minister Dr. Luc Mercelina told Parliament that GEBE expects to introduce a permanent collection policy in June 2027, while the utility currently operates under a temporary policy that includes disconnections.

Returning to answer MPs’ follow-up questions during the November 6 debate on the 2027 draft budget, Mercelina said GEBE had cited existing connection terms and conditions as its authority to disconnect customers. However, he declined to pronounce on whether the practice was lawful, saying that determination belonged to the judiciary.

The Prime Minister also confirmed that the parliamentary meeting on integrity allegations had been adjourned, not concluded, and acknowledged that proposed participation and dividend policies for government-owned companies had not yet been formally approved or implemented.

His clarification round provided additional timelines and commitments, but left the financial impact of the new generators, permanent collection safeguards and several governance reforms awaiting further work.

Permanent GEBE policy still months away

MP Sjamira Roseburg had returned to the disconnection issue after earlier assurances that a policy was nearing completion.

She also offered a draft that could help establish clearer rules and protections for vulnerable consumers.

Mercelina welcomed that offer and said he looked forward to receiving the document so it could be discussed at a future GEBE shareholders’ meeting.

He then relayed the utility’s current position.

“GEBE has indicated that the company presently works with a temporary collection policy which includes disconnections,” he said.

According to the Prime Minister, GEBE had informed government that a permanent collection policy would follow in June 2027.

That answer placed the anticipated permanent framework several months beyond the current budget debate. Mercelina did not announce a suspension of disconnections pending its completion or outline the detailed protections that the final policy would contain.

Customers directed to GEBE for reconnection assistance

Responding to MP Darryl York, Mercelina said the utility had indicated that disconnected customers, including seniors, could visit GEBE to work toward reconnection.

The Prime Minister did not specify eligibility criteria, payment requirements, processing deadlines or guarantees of reconnection.

His statement therefore described assistance GEBE said it would provide, rather than an automatic reconnection entitlement or a blanket exemption for vulnerable customers.

The temporary policy, he added, had previously been shared with Parliament.

Courts must determine legality, Prime Minister says

York had asked what authority GEBE was using to disconnect customers and whether disconnections could be lawful without a completed permanent policy.

Mercelina called those “correct questions” and said GEBE had cited Articles 5, 9, 10 and 11 of its existing terms and conditions of connection and rates.

He said those terms and conditions dated from the Netherlands Antilles period.

However, he distinguished the company’s stated basis for acting from an authoritative legal determination.

“The question whether this practice is lawful is not for government to answer,” Mercelina said. “Such will be for the judiciary to answer.”

His response did not establish that disconnections were unlawful, nor did it provide Parliament with a government legal assessment to resolve the concerns raised by MPs.

No change in position on shareholder inquiry

Roseburg also requested the Council of Ministers’ current position on initiating an inquiry procedure concerning GEBE through its role as shareholder.

Mercelina said the Council’s position had not changed.

He did not announce that an inquiry would be initiated or provide a new timetable for reconsideration.

The response followed Roseburg’s repeated calls for government to examine how the utility’s problems developed rather than wait for action by another institution.

Generator specifications promised immediately

Responding to MP Francisco Lacroes, Mercelina committed to sending Parliament the specifications of the generators ordered for GEBE.

He said the information would be forwarded in writing directly after his answers.

However, the question of what the investment would ultimately cost residents remained outstanding.

Mercelina said he had forwarded that question to GEBE and would ask the VROMI Minister to provide a written response once the total calculation had been completed.

He did not present a quantified effect on electricity tariffs, household bills or other consumer charges during this clarification round.

LNG not preferred under the assumptions reviewed

On fuel options, Mercelina said GEBE’s least-cost planning had not identified liquefied natural gas as the preferred option under the assumptions examined.

He cited the significant infrastructure investment required and concerns about cost-effectiveness.

The government was also awaiting the outcome of the port’s assessment of LNG opportunities in the maritime sector, he said.

The Prime Minister maintained that viable diversification options would continue to be evaluated for their contribution to energy security, affordability and sustainability.

His response did not amount to a permanent rejection of LNG, but it also did not announce an approved LNG conversion program.

Fuel-cost cap remains a proposal for discussion

Lacroes also sought the Prime Minister’s position on a proposal to cap fuel costs at 30 cents per kilowatt-hour and provide space for additional fuel tanks.

Mercelina acknowledged the proposal and thanked MP Christopher Wever for raising it.

He said the Council of Ministers would consider specific proposals from the TEATT and VROMI ministers.

The government needed to be both realistic and creative in working with GEBE, SOL and other stakeholders on rising energy costs, he said.

He did not endorse an operational cap, identify financing for it or announce an implementation date.

RAC/BTP questions directed to TEATT

MP Sarah Wescot-Williams asked whether the change in GEBE’s designated government point of contact meant her questions about implementing the RAC/BTP recommendations should now go to VROMI.

Mercelina said TEATT Minister Grisha Heyliger-Marten had addressed the matter earlier that day and that further questions about the report could be directed to her.

The answer identified TEATT as the appropriate route for those regulatory recommendations, despite VROMI’s broader coordinating role concerning GEBE.

Corporate-governance policies remain unapproved

Mercelina acknowledged that the government’s participation and dividend policies had advanced, with an implementation plan prepared for phased introduction.

The draft framework included proposals for quarterly reporting by government-owned companies to government and annual reporting by the Finance Ministry to Parliament.

Restructuring options also formed part of the proposed approach.

“At the same time, the policies have not yet been formally approved and implemented,” he said.

Draft corporate-governance legislation was still being assessed for its financial implications, required expertise, staffing and institutional capacity.

His response therefore distinguished policy preparation from an operational framework already binding the government’s management of its company interests.

GEBE autonomy depends on established responsibilities

York asked whether the shareholder could prevent GEBE’s management from making a significant investment.

Mercelina rejected a simple yes-or-no characterization.

He said the answer depended on the articles of incorporation, corporate-governance framework, delegated authority, financing arrangements and applicable approval requirements.

“The shareholder’s role is not to manage the day-to-day affairs of the company or to substitute itself for the management board,” he said.

Where an investment fell within management and supervisory-board authority, those bodies should exercise their responsibilities. Where shareholder approval was required, government should act through the established mechanisms.

Mercelina maintained that GEBE already possessed significant autonomy. In his view, the issue was consistent observance of each body’s role rather than an inherent defect in the governance structure.

Integrity meeting was adjourned

York also requested a direct clarification on the status of the parliamentary integrity meeting.

Mercelina answered that it had been adjourned.

That clarification followed his earlier response emphasizing that he had already appeared before Parliament and answered questions.

The latest answer confirmed that his participation had not meant the parliamentary proceedings were concluded. He did not provide a resumption date in this exchange.

December 1 proposed for legislative priorities

Responding to Roseburg’s demand for a consolidated legislative agenda, Mercelina said General Affairs had requested, but had not yet received, priorities from all ministries.

He had placed the matter on the agenda of the next Council of Ministers meeting.

His proposal would require each ministry to confirm its three legislative priorities for 2027 by December 1, 2026.

He would then inform Parliament of the calendar covering the resulting 21 priorities.

The December 1 date was presented as his proposal to the Council, rather than a deadline he had already confirmed as collectively adopted.

Legal support pool will work through the local department

Mercelina further clarified that ministries would not submit their legislative agendas directly to the TWO.

Requests for assistance would go through the Department of Legal Affairs and Legislation, which would coordinate with the external experts and the TWO where necessary.

Experts would work with the department’s legal advisers, while the department retained the final review.

The pool would assist with legal advice, legislation, national decrees and contracts. Responsibility for preparing and submitting legislation would remain with the ministries concerned.

The Prime Minister described the arrangement as additional external capacity supporting the existing system, rather than a transfer of local authority.

SER amendment welcomed; regional update expected in 2027

On the stalled Social Economic Council appointments, Mercelina said he was open to reviewing and discussing Wescot-Williams’s draft amendment.

He agreed a structural solution was needed and said he was willing to work with Parliament.

He did not commit to a particular amendment or legislative submission date.

On regional cooperation, Mercelina said Parliament could expect an update containing proposed actions and indicative timelines in the second quarter of 2027.

He also confirmed that engagement concerning membership in the Organization of Eastern Caribbean States was being considered.

Police-station assistance still requires follow-up

Roseburg sought a clearer explanation of the Netherlands’ response to the earlier request for assistance concerning police-station conditions.

Mercelina again said the then State Secretary had not responded positively and said he intended to raise the matter with the new officeholder.

He did not read a response, explain whether there had been a formal rejection, or announce secured assistance.

The clarification round thus provided firmer information—particularly the June 2027 expectation for GEBE’s permanent collection policy and the status of the integrity meeting—while leaving several practical outcomes dependent on calculations, Cabinet decisions, legal review, and future discussions.

ECYS Minister outlines existing school allocations and Rotary assistance, saying a one-time transfer from Parliament’s travel budget cannot sustain a recurring nutrition program.

PHILIPSBURG, St. Maarten — Minister of Education, Culture, Youth and Sport Melissa Gumbs clarified that vulnerable students in public schools already receive breakfast assistance, but said expanding that support into a structured program for approximately 400 children would require reliable annual funding of about 576,000 guilders.

Returning to Parliament on November 6 to answer follow-up questions during the 2027 draft budget debate, Gumbs distinguished existing needs-based assistance from the larger, sustainably financed program MPs were requesting.

She also addressed proposals to redirect Parliament’s travel spending, arguing that money used once for repairs could produce a lasting improvement, while feeding children required funding that returned every year.

“For me both of them are priorities,” Gumbs said of school repairs and student meals.

Schools already receive breakfast allocations

Responding to MPs Sjamira Roseburg and Omar Ottley, Gumbs said breakfast support was already in place in public education.

She listed the following budget allocations:

Gumbs said assistance was provided according to need, with each school maintaining a roster of vulnerable children requiring breakfast support.

Her clarification established that the absence of a fully funded expanded program did not mean no breakfast assistance was being provided.

However, she did not identify how many students currently receive support through these individual allocations.

Rotary adds monthly assistance

In addition to the school budget provisions, Gumbs said the Rotary Club of St. Maarten contributed 630 per month per school, totaling 4,410 per month, including St. Maarten Vocational Training School.

She presented that community support as another component of the existing assistance.

The school allocations and Rotary contributions were separate from the annual estimate for the proposed program, which would serve approximately 400 children.

The expanded program would cost 576,000 guilders annually

Gumbs confirmed the estimate discussed earlier in the debate: approximately 576,000 guilders per year to feed 400 students across public education.

The broader proposal previously described to Parliament included breakfast and a mid-morning snack.

Her latest response did not announce that the full amount had been secured or that the expanded program had received final approval for implementation.

Instead, she emphasized the recurring financial commitment required to make it sustainable.

The distinction was between helping children through existing school resources and partners, and establishing a structured program with dependable funding from one year to the next.

Repairs and meals compete within a constrained budget

Gumbs said the questions raised by Roseburg and Ottley illustrated the difficult choices facing ECYS.

She described the ministry’s situation as one of “triage,” comparing the prioritization of limited resources to decisions made in a post-disaster setting.

MPs were pressing for rapid, comprehensive school repairs while also demanding a structured breakfast program, she said.

As an example of infrastructure costs, the minister cited an estimate of approximately 300,000 to replace the roof at Ruby Labega Primary School.

She maintained that both infrastructure and nutrition were important, but the ministry’s resources were insufficient to meet every demand immediately.

The minister’s explanation did not reject either need. It emphasized how government and Parliament would finance both.

Travel-budget transfer would need to recur for meals

The debate turned to Parliament’s travel budget after MP Raeyhon Peterson announced an intention to propose reallocating a substantial portion toward public school repairs.

Roseburg asked whether some additional resources could instead support feeding children.

Gumbs responded that the uses had different financial implications.

A transfer could help pay for repairs to some schools, although she doubted that even Parliament’s entire travel budget would cover all public school infrastructure needs.

A breakfast program, however, would require continued financing.

“I cannot feed children year over year with the travel budget of Parliament unless I get the travel budget of Parliament,” she said, then clarified that this would mean receiving the allocation annually.

Her point was that a one-time amendment could not, by itself, guarantee a permanent meal program.

Parliament must determine amendment priorities

Gumbs said MPs should debate their amendments, decide what they consider the priority, and build support from colleagues.

She did not select school repairs over meals or announce support for a particular division of the proposed funding.

Instead, she reiterated that both were priorities for her ministry.

For a lasting solution, she argued, the country needed to generate more revenue so the available budget could increase.

That position linked ECYS’s immediate funding pressures to the wider parliamentary debate over revenue-generating measures.

Her response nevertheless left Parliament to decide whether to redirect existing resources in the meantime and, if so, how to provide continuity for any expanded program.

Minister acknowledges oversight on pilot-program question

Gumbs also returned to Roseburg’s question about the CRT pilot program.

She acknowledged that the question had not, to her knowledge, been formally forwarded to VSA and apologized to both the MP and the VSA Minister for the oversight.

She said follow-up was underway through the Secretary-General so VSA could provide its answer.

ECYS Youth Affairs had only played a consultative role in that initiative, she explained.

Existing support confirmed; expansion still needs financing

Gumbs’s clarification answered an important question raised during the earlier exchange: public schools already have breakfast allocations, supplemented by Rotary support, and assistance is being provided on a needs basis.

What remained unresolved was how the government would finance the proposed larger program for approximately 400 children on a sustained annual basis.

No new funding commitment, start date, or final parliamentary allocation for that expansion was announced during this response.

VSA minister defends social assistance allocation, outlines ambulance improvements and faces demands for clearer answers on patient care, consultancy spending and support for vulnerable households.

PHILIPSBURG:---  Minister of Public Health, Social Development and Labor Claret Connor told Parliament that GEBE is financing the entire announced 400,000 utility relief allocation, while the government administers the program without contributing funds. The disclosure prompted MP Omar Ottley to announce his intention to bring a budget amendment requiring government to contribute toward helping vulnerable households.

Connor’s responses during deliberations on the proposed 2027 budget covered general health insurance, financial assistance, ambulance staffing, overseas medical referrals, labor legislation and the new hospital. However, several MPs challenged the completeness of his answers and requested outstanding information before the next round of debate.

The exchange ended with a ten-minute adjournment to allow the minister to prepare responses to those requests for clarification.

GEBE Pays; Government Administers

Connor explained that the Department of Labor Affairs and Social Services handles utility relief applications, with the ministry providing oversight.

“GEBE finances the entire amount,” he said. “The government contributes no funds.”

Ottley objected, arguing that GEBE was carrying a responsibility that government should help finance. He said the utility company had requested matching support and announced that he would bring an amendment to secure a government contribution. No vote on that proposed amendment occurred during the exchange.

Connor said eligibility is determined under the financial aid ordinance and depends on household income and financial circumstances. Existing financial aid recipients and qualifying new applicants can receive assistance.

Working households and single-income families may qualify, he explained, but an unaffordable electricity bill alone does not establish eligibility. Small businesses are excluded because the program serves residential households, although self-employed individuals may qualify based on their household circumstances.

Renters whose electricity accounts remain in their landlords’ names face another restriction. Connor said they must transfer the account into their own names and that the renewed program would help with that transition.

According to the minister, only one application had been denied because the applicant had sufficient means under the applicable criteria. He also said the renewed agreement includes assistance involving arrears and payment arrangements.

He promised quarterly public reporting will begin with January 2027 figures. Reports are to show allocations, assistance applied, participating households, applications and denials, and the remaining balance, with information aggregated to protect beneficiaries’ privacy.

Social Assistance Entitlement Despite Budget Gap

MPs questioned why the proposed financial assistance allocation stood at approximately 8.2 million when expected needs had been described as higher.

Connor said the allocation reflected estimates available when the budget was prepared. Demand began trending upward later in 2026, he explained.

He rejected the suggestion that the difference automatically represented assistance being withdrawn or families being removed from support.

“Financial assistance is a statutory entitlement and eligible persons must be assisted,” Connor said.

However, his response did not identify a specific additional appropriation to close any eventual funding gap. Instead, he emphasized employment services, training and cooperation with other ministries to reduce dependence on financial aid.

Connor said approximately 32 million across the ministry’s budget goes to vulnerable households through financial aid, medical aid, food and poverty programs, subsidized services, employment support and the social registry.

He also outlined plans to improve response times, train social workers and strengthen assistance for seniors, people with disabilities, at-risk families and households experiencing domestic violence.

No Firm Start Date for General Health Insurance

Connor said the general health insurance legislation has completed the Council of Advice stage. Adjustments have been made to the process, and the accompanying further report is being finalized.

Submission to Parliament is intended within the coming months, following Council of Ministers approval.

The minister did not commit to a January 2027 implementation date. He said parliamentary approval must come first, followed by the necessary financial, administrative and information technology preparations.

Implementation, he stressed, must proceed without creating undue operational or financial risks.

An allocation of 800,000 is intended for preparations, including implementing regulations, legal and financial work, systems and processes at executing organizations, and public communication.

MP Veronica Jansen-Webster pressed for a clearer submission period and a phased implementation schedule. She recalled earlier expectations that the legislation would reach Parliament in December 2025 and questioned the continuing delay.

Hospital Savings Remain Unquantified

Responding to MP Darryl York, Connor said he could not provide a definitive estimate of savings from the new St. Maarten General Hospital over its first three years.

He explained that the immediate scope for reducing overseas referrals is limited because many procedures planned for the new hospital are already performed locally.

Connor also acknowledged that a high-level analysis undertaken in 2017 as part of the original hospital business case had not been followed by an updated assessment of whether additional overseas treatments could now be delivered locally safely and economically.

He said further work would be undertaken with St. Maarten Medical Center and SZV.

Other hospital questions remained outstanding. Connor said the hospital director had assured him that written responses were being prepared, tentatively for the following Tuesday.

York requested those answers by Monday morning, saying receiving them later could leave him without essential information before the second round of budget deliberations.

On the hospital construction dispute involving reported unpaid wages, Connor said SMMC remained in discussions with the contractor concerning the contractor’s claim. He did not announce a resolution.

Overseas Patient Support Challenged

Connor outlined SZV’s arrangements for patients referred abroad, saying patients aged 65 and older and minors are automatically approved for an accompanying person.

He acknowledged that some patients do not have someone available, while companions may be unable to remain abroad throughout treatment. Companions can therefore rotate every 30 days.

Where no companion is available, Connor said SZV arranges nursing support through the treating institution. He added that SZV does not maintain a separate record of patients traveling without companions.

Jansen-Webster challenged whether these arrangements adequately reflected patients’ experiences. She said she personally knew of patients sent abroad alone and raised concerns about their ability to obtain meals and manage complications without assistance.

She renewed her request for a closed-door meeting with the minister and SZV to discuss individual cases.

Connor also said SZV covers treatment-related complications arising from authorized overseas referrals, while liability for established medical wrongdoing rests with the treating institution and its liability insurer.

Ambulance Staffing and Fleet Under Pressure

Connor acknowledged staffing challenges affecting continuous ambulance coverage.

He said three positions were being finalized and that a certified ambulance nurse from the Netherlands was already providing temporary support. Assistance from elsewhere in the Kingdom remains an option.

His response did not confirm the precise claim that only one ambulance team was covering the entire Dutch side.

Non-operational ambulances will be assessed individually to determine whether repairs are safe and economical or whether disposal and replacement should be recommended.

One new ambulance purchase was being finalized in 2026, with another planned for procurement in 2027. Connor also promised a written reconciliation of fleet, equipment and other vehicle allocations questioned by MPs.

Labor Reform, Seniors and Outstanding Clarifications

Connor said labor inspectors currently cannot impose administrative fines directly and must refer violations to the Public Prosecutor’s Office. Legislation and implementation tools intended to expand enforcement powers are being finalized.

On successive temporary contracts, he said he would monitor the Civil Code provisions introduced in 2022. MP Sjamira Roseburg sought clarification about a subsequent draft amendment she said had already received Social Economic Council advice, asking whether it was on the legislative priority agenda.

Connor also outlined the proposed Second Chance Builders initiative, combining construction training, supervised community service and pathways to employment. The Ministry of Justice is developing the pilot, with the first group targeted for mid-2027.

For seniors and vulnerable households, he reported that the social registry pilot had registered approximately 1,200 households comprising more than 2,000 people, including 555 individuals aged 65 and older. Structured implementation is planned for 2027.

MP Sarah Wescot-Williams requested an update on the elderly council and called for a comprehensive government policy addressing seniors’ needs.

Meanwhile, Jansen-Webster continued to question consultancy entries labeled “other,” saying a general explanation of strategic and legal support did not identify which individual contractors were being paid.

Roseburg also requested answers on school breakfast funding and the youth pilot previously raised with ECYS.

Those follow-up questions remained pending when Parliament adjourned briefly, leaving the minister to return with further clarification on several of the budget’s most immediate service and accountability concerns.