The Tribune

By RASHAD ROLLE

Tribune Senior Reporter

rrolle@tribunemedia.net

HOUSE Speaker Halson Moultrie says he is determined to reduce the power the executive branch of government has over Parliament even if it means risking his political career.

“It might cost me my job and even my seat, but I am determined to get it done,” he said yesterday.

He was reflecting on the changes he wants implemented, including the passage of a Parliamentary Service Act that would give the institution control over its own administration, staffing and financing.

He said within weeks he will change the make up of committees to diminish the powers Cabinet ministers have on those bodies. Some committees, including the Rules and Business of the House Committee, rarely meet, he said, attributing this to the fact they are led by ministers.

Bamboo Town MP Reward Wells, the leader of government business in the House, currently leads the Rules Committee.

“The Speaker has the right to reconstitute those committees,” Speaker Moultrie said. “I’m in the process of reviewing that at this moment. By the next sitting I will announce those reconstituted committees.”

He added: “Can a man be separated from himself and safely cast out Satan? I’m not calling the ministers Satan, but my position is the role of Parliament and the legislative branch is to scrutinise the executive branch. That is very clear in the constitution. It is not the function of the executive branch to scrutinise themselves. It makes a mockery of democracy.”

Last year, the Speaker sent a draft bill to the Office of the Attorney General for the creation of a Parliamentary Service Commission that would control the budget and administration of the Senate and House of Assembly. Under that bill, the Commission would have a board of directors that would govern affairs of the institution by setting policy, reviewing its structure and raising funds. He said his team used Canada, Australia, the United Kingdom and Barbados as benchmarks for its proposal.

However, he noted the executive branch has the power to determine if such legislation is ever passed.

He also criticised successive governing parties for avoiding question and answer sessions in the House.

“In my estimation, there is absolutely no justification for any government to not answer questions and we’ve seen where the past administration refused to answer questions and this administration is trying to justify its decision based on the fact that the previous administration did not answer questions,” he said.

“How can the Parliament function if the executive branch does not answer questions? That defeats the entire structure of the Westminster model and the rules do not help the matter at all because the rule gives Parliament the right to determine the agenda even if it means overriding the provision that says the second Wednesday of each month is the day for questions.

“The rule is, in my estimation, undemocratic and not in the best interest of the minorities in Parliament because they will never have the majority vote. This is not a new issue. For a while I took the position that you should eat what you serve. Don’t put rules in place when you are in government that you cannot live with when you’re in opposition, particularly undemocratic rules.

“But I don’t think it’s the role of the Speaker to sit by and accept something that he knows is wrong and undemocratic. No matter what party he’s elected under, he has a moral obligation to make sure the principles are carried out.”