Gail Alexan­der

A mo­tion by for­mer Prime Min­is­ter Patrick Man­ning in Par­lia­ment yes­ter­day was de­feat­ed be­cause non-sup­port by the Gov­ern­ment as well as Man­ning's own col­leagues as sev­er­al PNM MPs-in­clud­ing Op­po­si­tion leader Kei­th Row­ley-ab­stained from vot­ing.Just be­fore the vote was tak­en, Man­ning had said he felt con­fi­dent and looked for­ward to sup­port from his col­leagues.Those ab­stain­ing from vot­ing on Man­ning's mo­tion, how­ev­er, in­clud­ed chief whip Mar­lene Mc­Don­ald and MPs Colm Im­bert, Paula Gopee-Scoon and Nile­ung Hy­po­lite.MP Ali­cia Hospedales, who sec­ond­ed the mo­tion af­ter Man­ning had pi­lot­ed it, was ab­sent for the vote. So, too, was Joanne Thomas who went to the bath­room right be­fore the vote.Those who sup­port­ed Man­ning in the vote were Amery Browne, Fitzger­ald Jef­frey and Pa­tri­cia McIn­tosh. Don­na Cox was over­seas.All 27 Gov­ern­ment MPs present vot­ed against Man­ning's mo­tion.

Gov­ern­ment MPs loud­ly cho­rused "Oooooooh!!" when PNM MPs-start­ing with Mc­Don­ald-Row­ley and Hy­po­lite ab­stained from vot­ing.PNM's McIn­tosh said a firm "Yes!" and Jef­frey said "Yeah..."But when the vote ques­tion was put to Im­bert, he hes­i­tat­ed a while, then with a sheep­ish grin, said very soft­ly: "Ab­stain..."That brought up­roar from the Gov­ern­ment side al­so. They ex­pressed fur­ther sur­prise when Gopee-Scoon ab­stained.House Speak­er Wade Mark had al­ready de­clared the mo­tion de­feat­ed be­fore Man­ning called for a di­vi­sion vote count and each MP was ques­tioned about their sup­port for the mo­tion.

The mo­tion yes­ter­day was a spin-off de­vel­op­ment from Man­ning's is­sue with Par­lia­ment's Priv­i­leges Com­mit­tee. But it ran sec­ond to the ob­vi­ous spilt in the PNM ranks on the mat­ter.Man­ning was the sole PNM speak­er on his mo­tion. Hospedales who sec­ond­ed it, when asked by the House Speak­er if she would speak al­so, had said "No."In the mo­tion, Man­ning sought to have full le­gal rep­re­sen­ta­tion for MPs in Priv­i­leges Com­mit­tee mat­ters.Man­ning is be­fore the com­mit­tee re­gard­ing al­le­ga­tions he made last year about Prime Min­is­ter Kam­la Per­sad-Bisses­sar's Palmiste house in Par­lia­ment.

The Gov­ern­ment re­ferred the is­sue to the Priv­i­leges Com­mit­tee to see if Man­ning mis­led the Par­lia­ment.Con­tend­ing the com­mit­tee was a ju­di­cial body, Man­ning said the Gov­ern­ment had made an er­ror and should have al­lowed full le­gal rep­re­sen­ta­tion.He ac­knowl­edged that the Par­lia­ment's Stand­ing Or­ders need­ed to be re­viewed to rec­ti­fy such sit­u­a­tions.Man­ning re­called he had tak­en the is­sue to court. He said oth­er le­gal coun­sel had ar­gued that the mat­ter had been tak­en to court pre­ma­ture­ly.

He said the mat­ter was with­drawn from the court but an at­tempt was made to hasti­ly con­vene the Priv­i­leges Com­mit­tee on the is­sue and this led to the cur­rent mo­tion seek­ing le­gal rep­re­sen­ta­tion.Man­ning said he found him­self in the un­usu­al po­si­tion of hav­ing to come to the Par­lia­ment to ar­gue his own case.He said the mat­ter was "one of fun­da­men­tal rights and con­sti­tu­tion­al rights."Re­ply­ing on Gov­ern­ment's be­half, Jus­tice Min­is­ter Her­bert Vol­ney said Man­ning's sug­ges­tion was a recipe for dis­as­ter.

Deny­ing the Gov­ern­ment had made an er­ror, Vol­ney said: "This li­cence sought by (Man­ning) will im­pose an un­de­sir­able fet­ter on the House's abil­i­ty and the Priv­i­leges Com­mit­tee to deal ef­fec­tive­ly with priv­i­leges is­sues as they arise in a prompt and ex­pe­di­tious man­ner and will amount to a re­lin­quish­ment of con­trol over the in­ter­nal pro­ce­dures of the House and the right to reg­u­late its own pro­ceed­ings."...A to­tal­ly un­ac­cept­able state of af­fairs and one which this House must stren­u­ous­ly guard against," he added.Vol­ney said it was "un­think­able" for coun­sel rep­re­sent­ing an MP to ques­tion com­mit­tee mem­bers.

Con­tend­ing the com­mit­tee was not a court but an in­ves­tiga­tive arm, he said the Stand­ing Or­ders were silent on the right of an MP to ap­pear be­fore the Priv­i­leges Com­mit­tee through coun­sel.Vol­ney said le­gal coun­sel would be "strangers" to the House and the Stand­ing Or­ders stat­ed strangers must be silent and were not per­mit­ted to at­tend pri­vate pro­ceed­ings like Priv­i­leges ses­sions.He said not all Priv­i­leges Com­mit­tee mem­bers were le­gal ex­perts and it might be nec­es­sary for the com­mit­tee to al­so have its own coun­sel. He said the com­mit­tee could risk los­ing con­trol over its in­ter­nal pro­ceed­ings. (See A32)