Dear Editor,
Page 234 of the Erskine May’s Parliamentary Practice states “The chief characteristics attaching to the Office of Speaker in the House of Commons are authority and impartiality.” These principles also apply to the Guyana National Assembly and to its Speaker, Dr Barton Scotland. The National Assembly is governed by the rules laid out in the Standing Orders of the National Assembly, and the Speaker is expected to be guided by this document.
At times I am convinced the Speaker unfairly targets members of the parliamentary Opposition, especially when he conveniently disregards disparaging remarks and heckling from the Government side, but is quick to reprimand one of my colleagues when they respond in kind. But I have always given the Speaker the benefit of the doubt when it comes to his interpretation of the Standing Orders, even though at times I disagree with his ruling.
Now there is reason enough for me to question my own judgement, as I may not be so willing to give the Speaker a free pass again.
My colleague, the honourable Bishop Juan A Edghill MP was summoned to appear before the Privileges Committee of the National Assembly on June 5, to answer charges relating to a speech he had made in Parliament which was misconstrued as misleading. I wanted to attend this hearing for two reasons: (a) to give support to my friend and colleague, Bishop Edghill and (b) as a learning-curve for me as a parliamentarian. This Committee only meets when there is a need to discipline one of its members, and so it was an educational opportunity for me to witness the Committee in action.
Early that morning I called the Clerk of the National Assembly, Mr Sherlock Isaacs to indicate my interest in attending this hearing as an observer, and gave him the aforementioned reasons. He quoted Section 95 (15) of the Standing Orders of the National Assembly (Procedures in Select Committees) which reads: “Subject to this Standing Order, any member of the Assembly (not being a Member of the Committee) may attend any meeting of a Committee, but such a Member may not be able to join in the deliberations; only Members of the Committee of Privileges may attend any meeting of that Committee while the Committee is deliberating.” To my surprise, the Clerk used this section of the Standing Order to explain that only Members of the Committee of Privileges were allowed to attend this Hearing.
He suggested that I call the Speaker if I have a problem with his interpretation of the Standing Order. I did! After repeating my request to the Speaker of the National Assembly, Dr Barton Scotland, I again emphasised the need to attend in the limited capacity as an observer. I told him of my earlier discussion with the Clerk, and the way he interpreted the Standing Order.
Dr Scotland, who is also the Chairman of the Committee of Privileges, admitted that he had not read that section of the Standing Order before and needed time to do so. I then took the opportunity to read him Section 95 (15) above, and he insisted that he would have to read it thoroughly before he can interpret the Standing Order to which I refer. But although he confessed to not having read this Standing Order before, he was adamant that Members of the National Assembly who are not Members of the Committee of Privileges are not allowed to attend these meetings. When I insisted that Section 95 (15) of the Standing Orders gives me the right to attend, the Speaker informed me that even though the interpretation may be different, he will not be the one to break from tradition.
At 11:07h that morning, I received a call from a staff member of the National Assembly who said she was calling on behalf of the Speaker to advise that “You will not be allowed to attend the Committee of Privileges”. This decision, I‘m sure, was taken after the Speaker read Standing Orders Section 95 (15) as he said he would.
Editor, I am not a lawyer, but anyone would conclude that Standing Orders Section 95 (15) gives me and every Member of Parliament the right to attend any meeting of the Committee of Privileges, except that a Member who is not a Member of that Committee cannot stay during the deliberations. And I made this quite clear to both the Clerk and the Speaker that I will not be around during the deliberations. Read the Standing Order yourself, it is written in layman’s language. Although a prominent legal scholar, the Speaker seems to be having difficulty with the interpretation of this Standing Order, very much like the President is having in deciding who is a ‘fit and proper’ person. Why the hypocrisy? The Speaker must be consistent in his rulings to avoid the perception of being bias. There can only be one interpretation of any Standing Order, and the Speaker does nothing to his credibility by misinterpreting any.
Sincerely,
Harry Gill, MP
