Two dailies cited as having breached the privilege of Parliament

As the Report of the Select Committee established to consider the declaration forms required under the Integrity in Public Life Act was tabled yesterday, Newsday and the Trinidad Guardian were cited as having breached the privilege of Parliament. Both newspapers had reported on the findings of the Committee in advance of the tabling of the Report. Independent Senator Eastlyn McKenzie said she was “offended” when she read about the recommendations of the  JSC in Tuesday’s Newsday. “The report was made public before we (the Parliament) had seen it,” she said. “I felt offended. It was a breach of the order and respect of this Parliament,” McKenzie complained.

Attorney General John Jeremie, chairman of the Joint Select Committee, agreed that the leaking of findings of the Committee to the media “amounted to a contempt of Parliament.” Jeremie, who noted that there was also an article in the Guardian on the issue, said he too was concerned when he read the newspaper report. He said he was sorry that the report leaked out to the media. But he noted that this was a “small society.”  Saying that he did not wish to cast aspersions on anyone, he noted that the report was signed by all members. He said he would try to ensure in the future that there was no breakdown in the respect for the Parliament. McKenzie accepted his assurances. According to the Standing Orders any committee established by the Parliament must first report to the Parliament before making the contents of its deliberations, or report, public and any publication beforehand amounts to a breach.

The Report of the Joint Select Committee which was laid in the Senate yesterday stated that the Committee had identified areas of concern as well as parts of the new prescribed forms that needed clarification. The list of “major concerns and the sections of the forms that needed clarification were prepared and forwarded to the Acting Registrar and all members of the Integrity Commission for expert assistance and advice,” it said. As a consequence the Registrar and the members of the Commission attended a meeting of the Committee. The Report stated that the Committee also deliberated on whether the 14-day period for furnishing information and documents, when requested by the Commission, might “in certain circumstances be unduly onerous.”

The Committee pondered on whether to extend the time limit. The Report said that members of the Integrity Commission “found merit” in the suggestion that the Commission should be vested with the power to extend the time and felt that this could be effected by changing certain paragraphs of the regulations to give the Commission the power to extend the 14 day period upon application by the declarant. The period of extension, would be the sole discretion of the Commission, the report noted. The Committee also found that the term “dependent child” was not clearly explained, and left room for different interpretations. This was clarified by the Commissioners, the Report said. The Committee discussed the question of what would be the effective year for the filing of  declaration once the forms are approved by Parliament. “There were differing views with the Chairman and Members of the Integrity Commission firm in their interpretation that declarations would have to be made retroactively to 1999 under the provisions of Section 11 of the Integrity in Public Life Act No 83 of 2000,” the Report stated. It added that the Committee “strongly recommended” that the Parent Act be amended to give effect to the intention of Parliament as was manifested in the legislation passed in 2000.