– says criticising the Speaker in any way is ‘impermissible’

THE Clerk of the National Assembly has cleared up misunderstandings on the parliamentary procedures regarding the criticising of the Speaker.
Said the incumbent, Mr Sherlock Isaacs: “All reflections, inside and outside of the House, on the character or actions of the Speaker are impermissible.”
He did so in a statement to the media on Wednesday, whereby he also apologised for failing to adequately brief Members of Parliament on these procedures during their post-election orientation.

Elaborating on the correct guidelines, Mr Isaacs said: “Where a Member is dissatisfied with a decision of the Speaker, he or she has a right to table a Motion challenging the decision or action of the Speaker.

“For example, if a Member is dissatisfied with the Speaker’s approval of a Motion, he or she has the right to table a substantive motion challenging the Speaker’s decision. Such a motion will receive priority over the motion challenged.”

The need for clarification arose when People’s Progressive Party (PPP) Member of Parliament (MP) Harry Gill took to the letters column of a certain daily recently to accuse the Speaker of being biased in making decisions in the House.
Fully intending to insinuate that the opposite holds true, Mr Gill wrote in his letter, “Members of Parliament have an obligation to be truthful and factual, and not mislead the people of Guyana in their presentations.

“It is therefore imperative that the moderator of debates in the House, the Speaker of the National Assembly, remain politically impartial at all times.”
Not done there, Mr Gill went on to say: “Someone has to have the credibility and courage to remind the Hon. Dr. Barton Scotland that he owes his loyalty to the dignity of Parliament, and that his role as Speaker of the National Assembly must remain politically impartial at all times.”

When the matter came to the attention of the Speaker and the House, a Motion was put forward by Prime Minister Moses Nagamootoo for the matter to be referred to the Committee of Privileges.

At the sitting at reference, which was on Monday July 30, Dr Scotland noted that it was the second time in two years such disregard for the House had been displayed by an MP, but he supposed such action was now considered de riguer, given the silence of previous speakers, which is perhaps what emboldened MP Gill to do what he did.
Opposition Chief Whip Gail Teixeira felt there was nothing untoward about what did, and even stood up in his defence to argue that the PM’s Motion constituted a threat to his right to freedom of expression.

But as Mr Isaacs was at pains to explain in his statement, such action was contrary to the guidelines governing House business, as obtains in Parliaments the world over, from India, to Australia and Canada.

The prime minister, in the August 5 edition of his weekly column, ‘My Turn’, spoke at length on the matter of Gill’s associates defending his calumny, saying that he was simply “professing the truth”.

As did Mr Isaacs, the prime minister said that according to the Standing Orders, the decisions of the Speaker cannot be questioned or disobeyed, except by a Motion to this effect.

Commenting further, he wrote: “Speaker Scotland may appear to be gentle, which is why there has been such sporadic disorderly conduct in the National Assembly. But he would act whenever attempts are made to impugn and undermine the Office of the Speaker.”
As Mr Isaacs said in his statement, “My understanding of the above, and from discussion with my fellow Clerks in the Commonwealth Caribbean, including the Clerk of the Parliament of Barbados, is that all reflections, inside and outside of the House, on the character of actions of the Speaker are also impermissible.

“It is my hope that the Honourable Members will use this as a guide when considering criticising the character of the Speaker.”