Acting Speaker defends motion decision
-- PPP disagrees
Guyana Chronicle
February 2, 2007
THE People’s Progressive Party (PPP) says it stands by its earlier position that the Acting Speaker of the National Assembly erred in her ruling to disallow Prime Minister Samuel Hinds from speaking on a motion on the Berbice River Bridge project brought before the National Assembly by Mr. James McAllister of the People’s National Congress Reform-One Guyana (PNCR-1G).
Acting Speaker Ms. Clarissa Riehl on Wednesday rebuked the PPP for a statement it issued last week in relation to the ruling she made during the debate on the motion.
The PPP had described the ruling by Ms. Riehl as a flagrant violation of the Parliament and a partial political decision and called on her to act in a principled, professional and impartial manner.
It claimed the Deputy Speaker breached Standing Order 39 Right of Reply Clauses one and two which states: “(1) The mover of a motion may reply after all the other members present had an opportunity of addressing the Assembly and before the question is put, and after such reply, no other member may speak, except as provided in paragraph (2) of this Standing Order. (2) A minister may conclude a debate on any motion which is critical to the government or reflects adversely on or is calculated to bring discredit upon the government or a government officer.”
However, Ms. Riehl said in the National Assembly Wednesday that her interpretation of the Standing Order in question is that a minister only has a right of reply after a motion has been debated, if there is anything in it that is critical or adverse to the government in the motion, and not in the ensuing debate.
She added that there was nothing in the motion that was critical of the government and therefore disallowed the Prime Minister from speaking after the mover of the motion had replied to all those who spoke on it.
Ms. Riehl further chastised the ruling party for the statement it issued, asserting that the standing parliamentary practice is that the Speaker’s ruling is final and if any party disagrees with a ruling, or feels a decision was impartial, the norm is for it to bring it in the form of a substantial motion before the House.
Ms. Riehl also chided members from the government side for going on a programme and insinuating impartially on her part in handing down the decision.
This, she said, is tantamount to unparliamentary practice.
The PPP charged that when Prime Minister Hinds rose to speak on the motion under Standing Order 39 (2), he was prevented from doing so by Ms. Riehl.
The PPP also asserted that there is no ambiguity in the clause, and recalled that at the training session conducted by the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, this question was raised by the PNCR and they were explicitly told that a minister always has that right.
The party pointed out that the particular Standing Order was taken completely from the UK’s Parliamentary Standing Orders.
Following the position articulated by Ms. Riehl in the National Assembly, the PPP issued another statement reiterating its earlier stated position.
According to the party, Ms. Riehl’s position is a “very narrow interpretation’ of Standing Order 39 (2) and expressed surprise at her remarks in the National Assembly Wednesday.