ST ANDREW Member of Parliament (MP) George Payne has reiterated a call for a gun policy for Parliament.
Addressing a political mass meeting at Eagle Hall on Sunday night, Payne charged that democracy was under threat and that sittings of Parliament since the alleged incident, involving deputy political leader Dale Marshall and Minister of Economic Affairs Dr David Estwick, have been very stressful for those on the Opposition bench.
He said he witnessed the alleged incident, stating that while Estwick had apologised when he said he had done nothing wrong, “I can’t understand what he has apologised for. I was even more frightened when I read the NATION headline and accompanying story where Estwick was saying ‘put up or shut up’.”
Payne added that at the second last sitting of Parliament it was stated as a boycott “but we were fearful for our lives. We were asking for the Speaker to put a guns policy in place, that is all we were asking . . . so we could come back to Parliament, that is all.
“The last three sittings have been stress, real stress. What else can you give to your country but your life and when that is being threatened, that has gone past democracy being threatened.”
Payne, a former minister of housing and tourism, chided Speaker of the House Michael Carrington for the stance he took when he asked them to leave the Chamber and called on the marshals to escort them.
He said at last Tuesday’s sitting, the Opposition wanted to raise the question of safety of members as well as he financial security of those 800 people who invested in CLICO or bought policies after the company was told to stop writing new business: “Those are the issues we wanted to address.”
The St Andrew MP also touched on the subject of the Minister of Education talking down to principals as though they were children in primary school and also adding that the State-owned Caribbean Broadcasting Corporation was being used in a way that it has never been used before. (PW)

ELOMBE MOTTLEY wants to see a gun policy in and around the precincts of the Parliament as well as the establishment of a nearby police outpost.
“I would like to see a gun policy not only in Parliament but extending to the car parks of both buildings. That is the psychological centre of Barbados. That is where the continuity of governance takes place,” said Mottley speaking via telephone link-up from Jamaica.
Mottley’s comments come in the wake of the Opposition Barbados Labour Party’s call for a gun policy to be introduced in Parliament.
“To me, the police should have a post set up so that when you come in and you have a gun, you are required to check it in to enter any of the parliamentary offices. That is important. You just can’t have people walking around with guns just like that.”
Mottley, a social commentator and former political candidate, said the time had come for parliamentarians in Barbados to have to walk through a metal detector.
“I know Barbados is easy when it comes to security support but the House of Assembly must be a neutral area. I don’t know why anyone would want to have parliamentarians walk in the House with guns.”
Mottley felt the media might have made too much of the confrontation between Speaker of the House Michael Carrington and his niece Mia Mottley and St Andrew MP George Payne that led to the expulsion of the two Opposition MPs.
“I expected if it is a confrontation, the Barbados Labour Party will hold their side and Carrington, as a supporter of the Government, will hold their side. Anything can happen from that. That is a minor thing. It’s an issue that will be dead by next week.
“Too much has been made of that. The issue is whether guns should be allowed in Parliament. That is a major issue.”

 
HAVING BEEN Deputy Speaker of the great Parliament of 1976 to 81, I offer my personal opinions on recent matters arising in our House of Assembly, if only to clear some of the cobweb!
The complaint lodged by Miss Mia Mottley and Mr Dale Marshall on the evening when the original incident took place was NOT a matter for the Committee of Privileges, simply because that request for a gun policy could not affect the parliamentary privileges of any member, and in any event Mr Speaker is the sole guardian and boss of the Parliament. Not even the Prime Minister and his Cabinet ministers have any legitimate claim to a higher or superior status within the curtilage of Parliament.
To talk about referring the gun policy issue to the Committee on Privileges was something which did not find acceptance with me, and the incident thereby got off on the wrong foot, and led directly to the boycott of the House by the Opposition.
No Speaker should in any way concede any of his power to any parliamentary committee however august that committee may be. Fortunately, that notion of reference of the gun policy to the Committee is no longer on the table, but in the meantime more contentious matters developed on the floor of the house of Assembly last Tuesday, and I found myself imagining what my response would have been, had I been sitting in the “hot seat.”
As I recall, The Leader of the Opposition was trying to give the House notice of her intention to raise a definite matter of urgent public importance. From the letter written to Mr Speaker in accordance with the rules, it was clearly about Clico, and I waited to hear Miss Mottley outline her case for showing that the matter sought to be raised was (1) a definite matter, (2) that it was of public importance and (3) that it was urgent. I did not hear her arguments.
As she began to speak, the Speaker ruled that it was not urgent. Miss Mottley sought to raise several points of privilege, but these did not meet with the favour of Mr Speaker and an untidy session ended with the Speaker ordering the marshals to remove St Andrew MP George Payne and the Opposition Leader from the Chamber. This removal was not apparently done.
Had I been presiding, I would have heard Miss Mottley’s entire submission, and then ruled against it if I was so minded. The early ruling by Mr Speaker robbed my expert ears from hearing Miss Mottley show how the issue was NOW urgent, even though it was in the public domain for two years.
The new disclosures on the preceding Sunday about the sale of 800 policies after a cease-to-sell-Order was given by the Supervisor, might have convinced me if I was in the Chair that there was NOW something definite and urgent and of public importance, but it is reasonable to say that any such arguments died an unnatural death, and never saw the full light of day!
If I was in any doubt I would remember that the best presiding officers always act on the premise that “one should allow the Opposition to have its say, because by force of numbers, the Government will have its way”.
Anyway on Tuesday, as tempers flared, The Speaker called for a glass of water, and two Opposition members held forth against Mr Speaker’s rulings and were suspended (not expelled) for the remainder of the day’s sitting. Veteran retired politician Lionel Seymour Craig has suggested that the sitting of the House should have been adjourned to allow tempers to cool, but sensible as Mr Craig’s opinion is; he knows that if I were presiding, I would never have allowed matters to so slip out of my control that I would need to resort to such measures!
Defiance of the presiding officer and challenges to his presidential authority and rulings hardly take place when a presiding officer has stamped his authority on the House. To have Members defy Mr Speaker speaks volumes about how frustration, real or perceived can lead to a breakdown of authority even if defiance of the chair can never be easily excused!
In my time, I always treated points of order and points of privilege with unusual sensitivity. A point of order is usually raised when a member thinks that an inaccuracy has been spoken into the record about some matter of importance or there has been a breach of the Standing Orders (the Rules of the House) and he wishes to set the record straight.
Points of privilege arise most often when a member thinks that his privileges as a member have been or are being adversely affected. Both Miss Mottley and Mr Payne thought that their right to speak was under threat, and hence they repeatedly tried to raise points of privilege.
If I was presiding I would have allowed them to make their points and then ruled as I saw fit. Yet these are only my opinions as indeed all Speaker’s rulings are! But then I never got into any tangles with honourable members challenging my rulings, and certainly not if and when I was standing!
* Ezra Alleyne is an attorney- at-law and a Deputy Speaker of the House of Assembly between 1976 to 1981.

by ALBERT BRANDFORD
 
(B)ut man, proud man!
Drest in a little brief authority;
Most ignorant of what he’s most assur’d,
His glassy essence, like an angry ape,
Plays such fantastic tricks before high heaven,
As make the angels weep
– William Shakespeare; Measure For Measure
 
I FIRST came across the above quotation at the top of a Gladstone Holder column in 1978 headlined ‘BRIEF AUTHORITY’.
Holder noted that the author was an Englishman, writing in the 16th Century, and speaking about us in the Caribbean in the 20th century.
Would that both pens were functioning today in the 21st Century!
The musing following last Tuesday’s events in the House of Assembly, which according to the bard, would “make the angels weep”.
 
Several devices
 
Now, there are several parliamentary devices that MPs use to trigger debate on matters of national interest – among them is the traditional congratulatory resolution moved by the Minister of Finance after the presentation of the Annual Financial Statement and Budgetary Proposals.
Another is the “Personal Explanation” (self-explanatory) but which is restrictive in that Standing Order 19 says “no controversial matter may be brought forward, nor may debate arise upon the explanation”.
Implicit in this, however, is the enormous power granted to the Speaker who alone can determine what is a “controversial matter” – and such decision is final, except, according to Standing Order 39 “upon a substantive motion made after notice” which shall not require more than two days.
Then, there is perhaps the most important – the point of privilege – which Standing Order 76 says “shall take precedence of all other public business”.
The problems, which ultimately led to the expulsion of Leader of the Opposition Mia Mottley and veteran St Andrew MP, George Payne (chairman of the Barbados Labour Party – BLP) from the Chamber, had to do with attempts by Opposition MPs to speak on a “point of privilege” but were denied by Speaker Michael Carrington.
It appeared that the issue related to the Opposition’s desire to explain their boycott of the House the previous Tuesday over the Speaker’s failure to establish a firearms policy for Parliament and to further their quest to have an incident involving Deputy Leader of the Opposition Dale Marshall and Cabinet Minister Dr David Estwick – on March 19 – referred to the Committee of Privileges for enquiry, report and recommendation.
 
Still baffled
 
Parenthetically, I am still baffled by the delay in instituting the firearms policy similar to that which is in place in several other state buildings, including Government Headquarters on Bay Street and the new Supreme Court complex. It ought to be a simple matter for the Speaker to add firearms to the posted list of prohibited items which are held in the custody of the Police detail at Parliament.
The Speaker had granted Marshall leave the previous Monday to raise the issue, as a matter of privilege, from the floor of the House, and the procedure calls for the Speaker to determine whether a prima facie case had been made out, and then rule accordingly and refer the matter to the Committee.
 
Prohibited
 
Following the Speaker’s refusal to allow the Opposition’s explanation for its absence, Mottley then attempted to raise, on a point of privilege, a matter relating to the embattled CLICO International Life Insurance, whose chairman Leroy Parris disclosed that it had sold over 800 policies this year although it had been prohibited by the Supervisor of Insurance from writing new business since August 2009.
Carrington denied the request, saying that having looked at the Opposition’s letter on the issue, it failed to meet the tests under Standing Order 18 relating to a motion for the adjournment on a definite matter of urgent public importance, because he was not “satisfied that the matter [was] definite, urgent, [and] of public importance . . .”.
“The matter to which you refer has been around for a long time,” he told Mottley. “The fact is that when you are talking about a matter of this kind, a so-called emergency debate, it has to do with something which is definite and urgent.”
Mottley sought, on a point or privilege, to get a clarification of that ruling, but was again denied, which led to the heated exchanges with the Speaker, involving her, Payne and former Prime Minister Owen Arthur, and the fateful outcome.
Work through these issues with me, dear reader.
First, Marshall himself was guilty not only of a lack of common courtesy, but also
was in breach of the Standing Orders in not informing the Speaker of his intended absence, for which he was justly chastised by the Speaker for being disrespectful.
Standing Order 72 says: “Any Member who is unable to attend a meeting of the House, shall acquaint the House as early as possible of his inability to attend.”
There is nothing in the Standing Orders that I have seen which says that a Speaker may not withdraw such “leave” once the offer was not taken up at the immediate next sitting of the House given the purported gravity of the allegations against Estwick.
While Marshall can rightly claim that he was under the party “whip” in its decision to boycott the sitting of the House, the phrase ‘as early as possible’ is sufficiently elastic that he could have acquainted the House of his intentions mere minutes before the scheduled start of the sitting.
For his part, it is my view that the Speaker took the wrong course when he permitted Estwick, who was seen as the person “charged” in the court of public opinion as the “offender” to make a statement in his defence when the matter had not yet been properly placed before the House through a statement from Marshall on the floor as the “complainant”.
To compound this unfortunate circumstance, the Speaker then promised to give Estwick a second chance to defend himself by allowing him to respond to Marshall’s allegations from the floor of the House rather than those the “complainant” had made in the media or in written correspondence to the Speaker seeking to have the matter referred to the Committee.
The issue which concerns me most, however, is that of how and when Members can rise and be heard on a “point of privilege”.
The Standing Orders are clear: Section 76 states:
A motion directly concerning the privileges of the House shall take precedence of all other public business.
2. Any Member desiring to raise a matter under this Standing Order, shall first obtain leave of the Speaker who shall determine whether the member is entitled to raise the matter as a question of privilege.
3. If permission is given by the Speaker under paragraph 2 of this order, the Member may raise the matter at any time before public business is commenced and move that the matter be referred to the Committee of Privileges.
4. There shall be no debate on a motion under paragraph 3 hereof, but if the Speaker decides that a prima facie case has been made out, he shall rule accordingly and refer the matter to the Committee of Privileges.
5. If during a sitting of the House, a matter suddenly arises, which appears to involve the privileges of the House and which calls for the immediate intervention of the House, the proceedings may be interrupted, save during the progress of a division, by a motion based on such matter.
Section 2, above, gives the Speaker enormous power solely to “determine whether the member is entitled to raise the matter as a question of privilege”.
And again, only the Speaker can decide if a “prima facie” case has been made out and then he can refer it to the Committee.
Section 5, in my view, goes to the heart of last Tuesday’s difficulties. It covers any exigency that might arise during the proceedings “and which calls for the immediate intervention of the House”.
It is my view that since the Speaker is the guardian of the “ancient rights and privileges” of the House, then only he can make that “immediate intervention” on behalf of Members and do so by giving “precedence” to the “point of privilege” on which any Member rises and under which he is entitled to be heard for a maximum of 15 minutes.
There is nothing in the Standing Orders to suggest that a Speaker has the right to deny a motion of privilege on any “matter [that] suddenly arises, which appears to involve the privileges of the House”.
Any such action would set the House on a collision course with its own Standing Orders.

PUT UP OR SHUT UP.
That’s what Minister of Economic Affairs Dr David Estwick is demanding of Opposition parliamentarian and former Attorney-General Dale Marshall, if he is to prove his allegation that the Cabinet minister pulled a gun on him during a verbal altercation in the precincts of Parliament.
In New York where he participated in an investment seminar on insurance sponsored by Invest Barbados, Estwick told WEEKEND NATION:
“The fact of the matter is that it has gone too far. He [Marshall] is going to do two things and my good friend Owen Arthur [former Prime Minister]. You either bring the evidence, shut up or you are going to be deal with it in the large courts.
“It is as simple as that. Because my good friend, the former Prime Minister was in St Lucia [when the incident allegedly occurred].
“He doesn’t know what’s going on. But I heard him [Arthur] on the platform [saying] my behaviour was an abomination to the parliament and a lot of things. I am stopping all of that.
“You either bring the evidence or shut up and as a result of that, the matter will be dealt with in the appropriate legal way and you can rest assured that process might already have been started while I am here in New York and that’s all I will have to say on that matter.”
Estwick said he would ask Barbadians to remember one thing: “If your Parliament is the highest court in the land, then by extension the Speaker of the House acts as a High Court judge.
“There is a procedure that is akin to what happens in a normal court; you have an allegation so you come and you lay a case. You lay the case before the judge. The judge, in this case, the Speaker, will determine after investigations carried out, whether what you are saying is true or not and therefore no further action is required.”
Estwick said he was sick and tired of the untrue allegations being made against him and insisted that Marshall, the representative for St Joseph in the House of Assembly, present his case in the appropriate parliamentary forum.
Failing that, he said, he might be forced to do it in the law courts.

ONE OF THIS COUNTRY’S most outspoken former politicians believes Speaker of the House Michael Carrington’s expelling of two Opposition members from the Lower Chamber on Tuesday should have been a last resort.
But what former Member of Parliament Lionel Craig wants to really know is why Carrington did not suspend the morning’s sitting and invoke a “cooling-off period” before expelling Opposition Leader Mia Mottley and her Barbados Labour Party colleague George Payne.
Mottley and Payne were asked to leave the Lower Chamber on Tuesday, after a heated exchange with Speaker Carrington.
Mottley was attempting to raise a matter of urgent public importance regarding the decision by local insurance company CLICO to write more than 800 policies in contravention of the Supervisor of Insurance’s August 2009 decision prohibiting the ompany from writing new business.
“An expulsion from the House is a serious thing, and should only be a last resort,” Craig, the former Member of Parliament for St James North told the WEEKEND NATION.
“I believe the Speaker should have made the decision, under the circumstances, to request from the Leader of Government Business [Chris Sinckler] that the House be suspended for about 20 minutes as a cooling period.
He could have simply then requested the Opposition Leader to come to his office, and handle the matter, before returning to the chamber to deal with the people’s business.”
Craig, who served 20 years in the House of Assembly, ten as a Government MP, and ten on the Opposition benches, believes Carrington could easily have cooled tempers by suspending the House for 15 to 20 minutes, and then having a private word with Mottley in his office before resuming his position as chair of the House of Assembly.
However, Craig doesn’t believe democracy is under threat, despite the unruly behaviour shown in the House from both sides.
In fact, he feels Barbadians should not take anything serious from Tuesday’s proceedings.
“The Parliament of Barbados is not ‘holier than thou’. There have been instances where much worse has happened in Parliament before, not just in Barbados, but in other countries around the world,” Craig told the WEEKEND NATION.
The former MP noted that Barbadians should not be too concerned about the general behaviour in Parliament, since it was much more robust and controversial in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s.
He did note, however, that he was concerned about the general overuse of desk-thumping and applause in the House for simple matters, noting that in his heyday, applause and desk-thumping were reserved for the Estimates or special sittings of the House of Assembly.

PARLIAMENTARIANS are being asked to apologise to the nation’s youth for their actions in the House of Assembly on Tuesday.
In a Press release, youth activist and chairman of the Drug Education and Counselling Services, Roger Husbands, is asking those “[palimentarians] who displayed acts of disrespect to the highest Chamber in this island” to apologise for their actions.
Husbands said it was unfortunate young people had to view “this lack of self-control by “big adults” whom he said should know better.
“As a youth advocate, I was very disappointed in the politicians who showed the same type of behaviour our young people display currently within schools, homes and on the street.
“This whole aspect that authority can be disrespected in order to get ‘my point’ across is something our young people are currently facing on a day to day basis,” he said.
Husbands said the attitude of ‘don’t do as I do, but do as I say’ could no longer work anymore in Barbados and called politicians to set proper examples.
“I believe that if we are teaching our young people to be self-controlled, adhere to the code of conflict resolution as a peaceful solution, being assertive but not disrespectful then it means that our leadership has to follow the same protocol,” he said.
Husbands said it was “interesting” to see the Opposition Leader Mia Mottley call a Press conference after they had been asked to leave the House, asking if such a forum would not have been the right way to go in the first place.
“If you couldn’t say it in Parliament, then don’t you think that this would have been the right forum and save our young people this sad and distasteful example of how to deal with situations?
“I am asking those members to publicly apologise and also teach our young people that the behaviour exhibited Tuesday was a mistake and that the correct procedure is to follow rules and regulations.
“No wonder we have gangs in this nation, who callously do as they will, because no longer do we have even leaders following rules and regulations,” he said.
Principal of the Sunbeam Montessori Pre-school, Sandie Field-Kellman, voiced similar concerns.
In a telephone interview, she said children mimicked adults and the behaviour displayed in the House was not something she wished them to emulate.
“They took an oath of office which came with a code of ethics but they have broken the rules of the House.
“It is not even about who is right or wrong. They did not have to behave like that,” she said.
Field-Kellman said teachers were trying to instil decorum in children and teach them to settle conflicts in a reasonable manner and with everything that was happening in Barbados today, this was not the time for the nation’s youth to witness such behaviour from the leaders of the country.
“What messages or morals are they getting? It starts with us adults to set the examples, no matter what sphere of life we are involved in,” she said.