Speaker: I’m not restricting debates

Opposition Leader Pennelope Beckles contributes to the debate in the House of Representatives to acknowledge the reasons for the July 17 state of emergency (SoE) declaration on July 28. - Photo by Ayanna Kinsale

SPEAKER of the House of Representatives Jagdeo Singh says he is not using the House's standing orders to restrict debates or the speaking rights of any MP in the House.

He made this statement during debate in the House on July 28 on a motion filed by Attorney General John Jeremie for the House to acknowledge the reasons why a state of emergency (SoE) was declared on midnight on July 17.

In her response to Jeremie's opening contribution on this motion, Opposition Leader Pennelope Beckles said while SoE's can cause temporary reductions in crime, it has been proven they are not long term solutions to crime.

She recalled when the former PNM government declared a SoE last December to deal with a security threat, her predecessor (now Prime Minister) Kamla Persad-Bissessar said a SoE was a political gimmick to help the PNM win a general election.

Recalling the former opposition UNC never supported any of the PNM's anti-crime initiatives and always asked for its crime plan, Beckles said this is the question the PNM is putting to the UNC now.

She added a SoE is an extraordinary but temporary measure to address extraordinary circumstances.

Beckles said what the population wants to know is beyond the SoE, what is the UNC's plan to reduce crime.

She added the curtailment of some of the citizens' constitutional rights takes place during a SoE and they would want to know how long the SoE would last.

"Some members of the public have drawn the conclusion that it is very much as if we are living in a militarised state."

During Beckles' motion, Leader of Government Business Barry Padarath intervened a few times to claim her comments were irrelevant with respect to the motion.

Singh advised Beckles some of her comments may be more appropriate for a debate scheduled later in the sitting. He suggested she consider reserving those comments for that debate.

Beckles told Singh, "I will end here because what is unfortunate, it that it is always very easy to use the standing orders and restrict debates."

Opposition MPs thumped their desks in response to her statement.

Singh replied, "Let me make it abundantly plain and in case one word doesn't work...plain, pellucid and palpable."

The standing orders, he continued, provide a regulatory framework.

Singh said this framework was decide upon by parliamentarians collectively in the House's standing orders committee.

"Both sides of the House are staffed with very experienced lawyers, I did not decide these standing orders. I did not have an input (into them)."

Singh said, "To suggest, perhaps even tangentially, that standing orders are being used to curtail debate is an unfortunate and perhaps unintended consequence for what (the) Member (of Parliament) for Arima (Beckles) wants to say."

He added he has known Beckles for a long time.

Singh said he was not going to interpret Beckles' comments as a criticism of him.

"The standing orders exist for a reason and the standing orders are layered in the regulatory purpose of the House for a reason."

Beckles withdrew her statement and said it was not directed at Singh.

She said, "This is a matter in which we are seeking to have some collaboration and co-operation and support."

When Padarath complained Beckles was being irrelevant, Singh allowed Beckles to complete her point.

Singh said, "I think it is only fair that we should give the member not a long time but I think the point has been sufficiently made."

He was concerned the House was "descending into perhaps an area...a grey area of this debate that could be saved for a later on in the proceedings."

Beckles said, "All I will say to the honourable Member for Couva South (Padarath) that he totally and absolutely, simply missed my point."

Opposition MPs thumped their desks as Beckles sat down.