Two Fridays ago, the Parliament hosted an “Oval” to discuss parliamentary scrutiny. The only academic there who researches and publishes in the field of parliamentary affairs was an international colleague of mine, Prof Rick Stapenhurst from Mc Gill University.
It appeared as though Stapenhurst was not being appreciated for what he was trying to get across. Instead, we were subjected to useless discussion about “the king in Cabinet” which completely missed the point about the lack of political consensus on the subject of widening the powers of parliamentary scrutiny.
The best example of this lack of consensus can be seen in the debates over the creation of departmental joint select committees to oversee government departments, municipal corporations, statutory authorities, state enterprises and Service Commissions in the Constitution (Amendment) Act (No 29 / 1999).
Those proposals generated considerable controversy in the society when they were advanced by the Panday administration. There were the so-called “Six Wise Men” who came out publicly against the proposals in 1998.
Debate on the amendment bill started in the House of Representatives on February 24, 1999. In her contribution, the then minister of education Kamla Persad-Bissessar said in part:
“That is why I had to ask whether the Leader of the Opposition was saying that we cannot run these committees, because we do not want that accountability or transparency. This bill, far from giving dictatorial powers to Government or ministers, far from doing that, the provisions in it would place ministers and ministries under complete scrutiny. There will be public hearings about what is taking place. This would open up the functioning; investigate, report on the powers, the methods of functioning and the criteria adopted by all these bodies. (Hansard, February 24, 1999, p 513).
In her contribution, Opposition MP Camille Robinson-Regis said:
“What this bill seeks to do is allow politicians to interfere in the work of the Service Commissions through parliamentary cover and we on this side are stating and insisting that this, in every way, attempts to interfere with the independence of the Service Commissions as established by the Constitution of Trinidad and Tobago.” (Hansard, February 24, 1999, p 521).
At the final vote on the bill, which was taken on April 28, 1999, the House divided 18-14 in favour of the bill. The record of the division was as follows:
AYES
Maharaj, Hon R L
Persad-Bissessar, Hon K
Lasse, Dr The Hon V
Griffith, Dr The Hon R
Sudama, Hon T
Maraj, Hon R
Rafeeq, Dr The Hon H
Khan, Dr F
Assam, Hon M
Job, Dr The Hon M
Singh, Hon G
Nanan, Dr The Hon A
Partap Hon H
Mohammed, Dr The Hon R
Singh, Hon D
Ramsaran, Hon M
Sharma, C
Ali, R
NOES
Valley, K
Manning, P
Imbert, C
Robinson-Regis, Mrs C
Narine, J
Hart, E
James, Mrs E
Bereaux H
Joseph, M
Sinanan, B
Boynes, R
Hinds, F
Williams E
Nicholson, Miss P
(Hansard, April 28, 1999, pp 519-520)
The debate in the Senate started on September 2 and finished on September 4, 1999. There were two temporary senators sworn in on September 4. Nirupa Oudit replaced Kenneth Ramchand, and Carlene Belmontes replaced Joan Yuille-Williams. The final vote was 18-11 in favour of the bill as follows:
AYES
Kuei Tung, Hon B
Theodore, Brig The Hon J
Baksh, Hon S
Phillips, Dr The Hon D
Gangar, Hon F
Cuffy Dowlat, Mrs C
Tota-Maharaj, Mrs V
Baksh, N
Hamel-Smith, P
John, S
Gabriel, A
Williams, Mrs A
Ramnath, K
Teemul, Mrs E
Spence, Prof J
Mahabir-Wyatt, Mrs D
Teelucksingh, Rev D
Oudit, Mrs N
NOES
Mohammed, Miss N
Montano, D
Jagmohan, M
Shabazz, M
Alfred, Miss C
Belmontes, Miss C
Daly, M
St Cyr, Dr E
Mc Kenzie, Dr E
Kenny, Prof J
Marshall, P
On September 6, 1999, the Senate amendments to the bill were taken to the House of Representatives for ratification. In winding up the debate on those amendments, Attorney General Ramesh Lawrence Maharaj said: "But, Mr Speaker, the amendments make the other Service Commissions accountable to Parliament and this is the first time in the Caribbean you are going to have this. You have it in other parts of the world. But, in effect, what it does is, the Government has been successful in getting the other place to agree that independent Service Commissions should be accountable to the people through the Parliament. In principle, that has been agreed." (Hansard, September 6, 1999, p 785). The House divided 19-8 in favour as follows:
AYES
Maharaj, Hon R L
Panday, Hon B
Persad-Bissessar, Hon K
Lasse, Dr The Hon V
Griffith, Dr The Hon R
Humphrey, Hon J
Rafeeq, Dr The Hon H
Khan, Dr F
Assam, Hon M
Job, Dr The Hon M
Nanan, Dr The Hon A
Partap, Hon H
Mohammed Dr The Hon R
Singh, Hon G
Ramsaran, Hon M
Singh, Hon D
Sharma, C
Ali, R
Maraj, Hon R
NOES
Valley, K
Narine, J
Hart, E
James, Mrs E
Imbert, C
Joseph, M
Hinds, F
Williams, E
(Hansard, Sep 6, 1999, pp 785-786).