PNM agreed Red House solely for Parliament

THE HOUSE Committee (of the House of Representatives), including among its members a Deputy Political Leader of the PNM, Kenneth Valley, took a unanimous decision in August 1997 that the renovated and restored Red House be used solely for the Parliament and that all the other government departments there should relocate quickly.

Valley, who must have been aware of his party’s views on the matter, did not dissent. Furthermore the entire Parliament in which the Opposition headed by Patrick Manning sat, did not dissent when the report was tabled in the Parliament. In fact the report of the House Committee was approved by the Parliament on November 6, 1997. The report was listed on the Order Paper for a long time — several months — and was eventually debated and approved on November 6, 1997. None of the PNM MPs, including Manning, registered their objection. A motion asking that the House accept the recommendations of the House Committee was put before the House of Representatives and there were only “ayes”, no “nays”.

The House Committee was chaired by then Attorney General Ramish Lawrence Maharaj and included former MPs Reeza Mohammed, Pamela Nicholson, Manohar Ramsaran, Rupert Griffith (who at the time of his appointment to the committee on December 6, 1996 was a PNM member) and Valley. On the basis of this a note from the Parliament went to the UNC Cabinet that, among other things, the position that the Red House be dedicated solely for Parliament was confirmed on September 25, 1997. In the note, the then Cabinet noted that then Speaker (Hector McClean) was supportive of the proposals made by the House Committee. 

“The Speaker also recommends that the restored Red House should be dedicated to the sole use of the Parliament ... and that internal renovations should be tailored to the needs of a modern and dynamic Parliament,” the note stated. Government’s recent decision represents a radical departure from the position taken by the House Committee and endorsed by the Parliament. And the change in policy came without consultation. In fact the Cabinet note which signalled the change in policy came, not from the Parliament, but from the Minister of Public Administration, Dr Lenny Saith.  In its 1997 Report the House Committee noted the deteriorated condition of the Red House; the absence of facilities for Members of Parliament at the Red House which are essential for the proper performance of their duties; the restoration of the Red House and the need for the Red House to be dedicated to the sole use of the Parliament; the functioning of the Committee system.

Also noted was the need for improved administrative and other arrangements for Members of Parliament so that they may better represent their constituents including, inter alia, better facilities at constituency offices, improved terms and conditions for staff in constituency officers and improved terms and conditions of service of Members of Parliament; the unsatisfactory state of affairs surrounding the printing of the Hansard; and the problems experienced by those involved with the administration of the Parliament which impact on the support services provided to Members of Parliament.

The Committee further noted that the area designated the Old Senate Chamber was dysfunctional due particularly to the perilous condition of the ceiling; there were no offices for Members of Parliament in the Red House; the Parliament Library had long outgrown the space allocated to it; the Members’ Tea room and Lounge area was inadequate; facilities for the media who cover Parliament were almost non-existent. The Committee also noted that numerous leaks wreak havoc on the Parliamentary offices whenever it rains. The UNC Cabinet agreed that “in principle, the Parliament be temporarily relocated in order to expedite the completion of works involved in the Red House Restoration Project”.