Dylan Norbert-Inglis’ Steady Path to Shaping Saint Lucia’s Substance Policies

Dylan Norbert-Inglis, 37, charted his own course from Saint Mary’s College to a distinguished legal career. After earning his law degree from UWI Cave Hill and his Legal Education Certificate from Hugh Wooding Law School in Trinidad and Tobago, he was called to the Saint Lucian Bar in 2011.

A five-year stint in criminal law exposed him to the system’s frustrating delays and inefficiencies, prompting a shift to corporate banking law. He later joined the Ministry of Commerce as a legal officer, supporting enterprise development, company registration, and providing legal advice to various agencies under the ministry’s umbrella, including Export Saint Lucia and the Saint Lucia Bureau of Standards.

He has represented the ministry on several key boards, including a cannabis task force and the Controlled Substances Bill Steering Committee, where he helped shape legislation around cannabis and other regulated substances.

Today, Dylan is the CEO of Saint Lucia’s first Regulated Substances Authority (RSA), leading the charge in developing policies that will define the country’s future relationship with regulated substances. In an interview with St Lucia Times‘ Keryn Nelson, he shared insights into the agency’s mission.

KN: While the RSA’s mandate goes beyond cannabis, that topic has dominated public discussion for years. Can you explain the agency’s role in the ongoing work around cannabis legalisation?

DN: Our role is really about policy. We’re not looking to get directly involved in the industry itself. That’s not the function of a regulator. Instead, we aim to strike a balance between the interests of industry players and the safety of the wider public, including those who may not use these substances. For example, I might not have a personal interest in cannabis, but I still want to understand what’s happening in that space, especially if it could affect my community or family. The same goes for alcohol, petroleum, or other regulated substances. Even if I don’t drive, I’m still exposed to radiation or emissions. So, our approach is holistic, a whole-of-society perspective.

KN: In our culture, there’s often scepticism around the effectiveness and enforcement of policies. Any concerns related to creating poorly enforced policies?

DN: At this stage, the intention is to put in place a regime that is robust and enforceable. Within the RSA, there are field officers who have to be hired by the agency. Instead of spreading other departments thin, you now have an umbrella regulator with dedicated responsibility. The officers are specifically tasked with enforcement, as well as supporting, guiding, and assisting applicants or licensees for these substances. So it should work a little better.

KN: Policy work isn’t always seen as exciting. What do you look for to ensure you’re bringing the right people on board for this kind of work?

DN: Persons with passion. There’s been this view for quite some time that public servants don’t work. I think that’s not true. Persons without passion will have a problem working, generally. So if you are unable to elicit passion from people, or they don’t feel passionate about what they’re doing, you will have a challenge.

KN: Cannabis is often the focus in public discussions, but I understand radiation is also one of the RSA’s current priorities. Why is radiation part of the agency’s early mandate?

DN: Cannabis and radiation were the first two substances under the remit of the RSA essentially because they were the first two substances that we really had reason to discuss. So, the genesis of the RSA is from looking into the legalisation of cannabis, and during that discussion with the Ministry of Commerce also being the line ministry for the Saint Lucia Bureau of Standards, we recognised that there was a need for an authority to deal with radiation safety and security, relating to the relationship that the Saint Lucia Bureau of Standards had with the International Atomic Energy Agency.

KN: What other substances are on the table and why haven’t those been brought under the RSA yet?

DN: We do recognise that there is an inadequacy in the regulation for other substances. A lot of the legislation specific to other substances is quite dated, so you’re looking at pieces of legislation from between the early 1900s and 1965, or thereabouts. Alcohol, petroleum, pesticides and toxic chemicals, explosives—all would have been pieces of legislation that have not been addressed in quite some time. In some cases, like pesticides and toxic chemicals, the legislation does create an entity, the Pesticides Board, that falls under the Ministry of Agriculture. They do currently have a mechanism that deals with and treats it. It’s just to review these pieces of legislation and determine if they are fit for purpose, if they need to be modernised. If the RSA can lend support, we’re happy to do so. But it’s just about a review process to see what needs to happen.

KN: Do you see yourself leading the RSA over the next five to ten years?

DN: I don’t know about ten years. From my view, proper corporate governance requires a change at the helm, at least at regular enough periods. I don’t think that ten years is in the cards for me. I think it would be good to spend some time crafting the RSA and then allow for fresh mindsets and fresh blood to come in. Maybe five to six years would be that sort of timeline.

KN: Your leadership at the RSA feels like a defining chapter, but surely not the final one as you’re still quite young. How are you feeling about the future?

DN: This story is never done if you still have the pen in hand. So there’s still more to be written. There’s still more to this story. As long as you still have life, you still have the pen in hand, you can write a little bit more. It may not be easy. You may be writing a little low on ink sometimes. You may have a lot of critics to what you’re writing. But if you still have the pen in hand, there’s still more to your story.