Red House exclusively for Parliament

House Speaker Barry Sinanan has written to the National Trust stating that as far as he is aware the restored Red House is to be used “exclusively” for Parlia-ment. This is at sharp variance with what the country has been told by the Government.

The Speaker’s letter pre-dates the government’s declared intention to use the Red House for another purpose. The Government has made clear its intention to relocate the Parliament. The letter was dated February 20. The announcement of Government’s plan came on February 27 and was made by Minister of Public Administration, Dr Lenny Saith. The National Trust has officially written to the Speaker asking to what use the restored Red House was going to be put. The Speaker indicated in his reply that his understanding is the restored and adapted Red House is to be used exclusively by the Parliament upon its completion.

Sinanan also stated in the same letter that Phase 2 of the project —the restoration and renovation of the interior of the Red House to accommodate a modern Parliament — should have already started. This phase however has not even begun, partly due to delays as a result of the changes in government, the problem of funding and the intricate nature of the roof repairs which are currently being done. Sinanan is away for this week attending a conference in England on parliamentary practices and procedures.

Former Attorney General, Ramesh Lawrence-Maharaj said yesterday that Government’s decision to relocate the Parliament was illegal. “This decision is not in accordance with the settled Constitution convention and it would be contrary to the principles of public law,” he said. Maharaj said that the seat of Parliament cannot be changed by an Executive decision. He said requirements of Parliament, such as the site, housing and general suitability, could only be arrived at by a process of consultation involving the views of both Houses. This is normally done at the House Committee level and then a report presented to Parliament for further deliberation. Maharaj said the Executive is then entitled to make a decision, but only after discussion with members of the public, if that decision is contrary to the wishes of Parliament. Maharaj said that apart from the “immorality” and the lack of public consultation, the decision to oust Parliament for the Red House was also illegal. He said the Opposition, and any groups in the society can file for judicial review of the decision.

Independent Senator Kenneth Ramchand confirmed yesterday that judicial review was one of the options being considered. Ramchand said however that a public petition would be prepared in the first instance in an effort to get Government to review its decision. It is also understood that two motions — one in each House — will be filed by the end of this week, seeking to have Government reverse its decision to move the Parliament from its historic site. If this is done, the motion in the Upper House is expected to get the support of both the Opposition and Independent Senators, with the Senate President having to exercise a casting vote. Sources said that as long as the Presiding Officer understands that she/he must vote to maintain the status quo, any motion asking Government to leave the Parliament in the Red House is likely to to be approved..

Newsday was also informed that since the controversy developed, the Parliament department has been inundated with calls from persons wanting  information, records, historical documents and (parliamentary) proclamations. It has also received many calls from distraught and concerned members who are against the move and who are arguing that the Parliament is bigger than the Office of the Prime Minister.