WHO VEX, HUSH!

Before I comment on the PNM’s discourtesy to UNC Member of Parliament  Chandresh Sharma last Thursday, what I want to know in the first place is why was the Government debating a crucial money bill in the dead of night. When this very question was posed by Newsday’s political reporter, Clint Chan Tack, to the man who arranges the business of parliamentary sittings, PNM Chief Whip, Ken Valley, Valley’s knee jerk response was to transfer the burden of blame onto the shoulders of the minority Opposition. Valley’s reason for why last week’s session went late: when Parliament resumed at 5.10 pm, after adjourning at 4.30 pm for tea on Wednesday, every Opposition MP wanted to speak.

Never have I heard a more ridiculous defence and from of all people, a parliamentary whip. Of course the UNC MPs wanted to speak. That’s not only their right; it’s their job. If the UNC didn’t stand up to contribute to a debate over the Government’s demand for millions more than it originally planned to spend then the UNC would have been shirking its responsibilities. Valley could and should have scheduled the debate over a few days.

When he was on the other side of the political fence, the same Valley objected strongly to the UNC’s custom of holding these legislative all-nighters. On the afternoon of January 16, 1996, Valley began his address to Parliament by placing on record, his disapproval of the UNC Government’s first use of the marathon session to pass important legislation. It was during the 1996 Budget debate. “Mr Speaker,” he complained, “we are meeting this afternoon, just a few hours after we were allowed to leave by the Government this morning at 7.30 am.”

Devised one assumes by the then merciless UNC Chief Whip, Ramesh Lawrence Maharaj and sanctioned by his leader, the “fox populi,” the strategy threw the PNM off balance and forced its MPs to stumble through their addresses throughout the night, to play to vacant media and public galleries. While the UNC might have outfoxed the PNM, its fly by night method of doing the people’s business annoyed many. The UNC nevertheless, continued to rush through legislation and was infamous for passing bills in the wee hours of  the morning. The PNM is doing the same, never mind that marathon sittings  are unfair to the public, the parliamentary staff, the police and the media. Late night sessions also place the lives of those in the Chamber at extreme risk; the deserted, dark streets outside spell “coup attempt”.

However, it’s bad enough to be conducting the people’s business when the  people are sleeping. Worse, is what, according to media reports, happened  early Thursday morning. According to reports, UNC MP Chandresh Sharma was  addressing the legislature. His allotted 45 minutes came to an end. His peer  Ganga Singh got up, as is the practice, to move a motion under Standing  Order 41 (2), to ask the House to extend Sharma’s speaking time once only by thirty minutes. The PNM voted against the motion and Sharma was not given  extra time. Now, what I have usually seen occur when these motions arise, which is during every sitting, is this. An MP’s time comes to an end. Someone on his side asks for him to be given 30 minutes more. The Speaker puts the question to the House, saying “Honourable Members, the question is that the speaking time of X be extended by 30 minutes.” The Speaker then asks for the MPs to vote for or against the motion.

Those in favour are asked to say “aye.” If the MP asking for more time is an Opposition member such as Sharma, at this juncture, the Opposition usually shouts out “aye” and the Government usually remains silent, and thus abstains. At times, in the spirit of camaraderie, Government MPs will also yell “aye”  and I’ve even seen Government MPs ask the House to give a rival more time. At other times, I have heard a member on the Government bench shout out  “no,” but it has always been in jest or sarcasm, to indicate that another MP has been long-winded and irrelevant and really deserves no more time. When the moment comes for those who want to vote against the motion to say so, the Government stays quiet. In this way, with its majority, the Government does not vote and the motion is carried; in other words the Opposition MP is always given 30 more minutes. I have never, ever witnessed what reportedly occurred on Thursday morning. During late night sittings in the days of “Relentless Legislating Maharaj,”  UNC MPs were content to sit there and let all PNM MPs speak for 75 minutes. And again, I do not accept the PNM Chief Whip’s excuse for his party’s  breach of parliamentary protocol.

Asked to explain the vote against Sharma, Valley said the Speaker had to  repeatedly caution Sharma about being irrelevant during his contribution. He  added that Standing Orders 69 (2) and 70 (1) clearly state that parliamentarians speaking on motions of the Lower House’s Finance Committee must confine their comments to the motion at hand. Look who’s talking about relevance. And since when was irrelevance a reason for cutting short, anyone’s contribution on any bill or motion in our House of Representatives? There must be new rules in the House because if dragging unrelated garbage  into an address were a reason for not granting speaking extensions then in  my opinion, very few MPs would be given 30 minutes extra — at any time of day. Valley has to, as they say, come better.

Valley further “reasoned” that given the late time, Government felt it was unreasonable to grant an extension of speaking time to Sharma. What the PNM  should have done in this case was adjourn the House, which should not have  been sitting at that hour to start with. I’d like to direct Valley’s  attention to the new sitting hours in the House of Commons, effective since  January 2003: Mondays: 2.30pm to 10.30 pm, Tuesdays and Wednesdays: 11.30 am to 7.30 pm, Thursdays: 11.30 am to 6.00 pm, and Fridays (selected dates only) 9.30 am to 3.00 pm. Extended sittings that go late into the night still occur, but are not the norm.

The short of all that happened on Thursday is that the PNM wanted to pass  its money bill immediately so it used its majority to railroad it through. As Valley later said, the ruling party was unconcerned that the UNC walked out in protest. The long of it is that as usual, the citizen has been treated with contempt. A spendthrift Government with a penchant for commissions of inquiry went to  Parliament Wednesday afternoon for $644 million and twelve hours later, left the Chamber with the money like a thief in the night. Who vex, Mr Sharma, better hush!