The PNCR-1G and the AFC have been advised to meet to resolve a row over the opposition nominees for a parliamentary delegation that will undertake a study of the Nebraska Legislature in the US.
Stabroek News understands that during a special meeting of the Parliamentary Management Committee (PMC) on Tuesday, Speaker of the National Assembly Ralph Ramkarran asked the two parties to meet, in a bid to defuse the dispute over the make-up of the mission. Opposition Leader Robert Corbin’s decision to submit the names of four PNCR-1G nominees to represent the opposition on the eight-member delegation has drawn severe criticism from the AFC, which says the move is in breach of the parliamentary practice of ensuring representation on a proportional basis. In fact, the AFC has said that its exclusion from the delegation is just the latest example of a plot to stifle the party’s participation in parliamentary business.
As a result of a written complaint by AFC Whip Sheila Holder, the PMC met to review the matter.
Stabroek News understands that during the meeting Ramkarran urged the parties to resolve the issue and he also emphasised the importance of inclusivity.
Although the PNCR-1G has maintained that the AFC would not be entitled to participate in the Nebraska mission, Stabroek News has been told that the existing formula used to determine representation on committees would in fact allow the party one member on the delegation. The formula being used by the parliament is consistent with the practice in other commonwealth countries.
The AFC’s charges, which were made public last Friday, prompted a strongly-worded denial by the PNCR-1G, which, in a statement on Monday, denounced the claims as being “mischievous [and] a clear attempt to deceive and gain political mileage.”
According to the PNCR-1G, the identification of nominees to participate in the mission to Nebraska was in keeping with the formula agreed for participation of parliamentary parties in the committees of the National Assembly. It said that at the start of the new parliamentary session, it had proposed that the number of committee places available should be taken as a whole and thereafter distributed proportionately to the various parties. It also thought that GAP-ROAR’s lone MP should not be excluded from participation in the work of committees. But it said the AFC insisted that the allocation of members to the various parliamentary committees should be done on a committee by committee basis. It explained that while under that formula the AFC would have been only entitled to 53% of a seat on each Sectoral Committee, the party has in fact benefited with a seat on every Committee. “While the PNCR was concerned about that formula they had no objections to the widest possible participation on the Parliamentary Committees by all the parties,” it said. “The record of the PNCR has shown that it has always been willing to collaborate with others,” the party added, while recalling that during the last parliamentary session it had regular consultation and collaboration with all opposition parties as part of the Joint Parliamentary Opposition of Guyana.
It added that if the AFC felt it should have been included in the delegation on some other basis besides the formula, the proper course of action would have been for it to approach the party to seek an accommodation. In fact, it noted that in recent discussions about opposition collaboration between the AFC leader Raphael Trotman and the acting Opposition Chief Whip Deborah Backer, no mention was made of any discontent or concern by the AFC on any matter.
The party was also critical of the AFC’s decision to go public with the issue, when based on Holder’s proposal the PMC had agreed to discuss criteria for the composition of parliamentary delegations. It said before the PMC had the opportunity to discuss this matter, the AFC, in bad faith, unilaterally placed it in the public domain. The PNCR-1G contended that this was in breach of an agreement that matters under discussion by the PMC would not be open to the public.
Last Friday, the AFC said it was firmly of the view that there was a collaborative PPP/C and PNCR-1G effort to deny it an opportunity to meaningfully participate in the business of parliament. The party said it had reason to complain in the past about the exclusion of its members from committees as alternates, the removal of AFC and GAP-ROAR representatives from the programme of the recently concluded parliamentary symposium involving MPs from the UK Parliament, as well as the Nebraska incident.
According to the AFC, at the commencement of the Ninth Parliament, MPs were informed that political party representation on committees, delegations and the like would be accorded on a proportionate basis. Unfortunately, it added, this rule is being observed in disobedience. It said it was mind-boggling how a parliamentary delegation of the size and importance that is scheduled to visit Nebraska could include only the PPP/C and the PNCR-1G and not all of the political parties represented in Parliament. Regretfully, it said, the statements made and repeated about inclusiveness and cooperation are nothing but idle boasts.
