Dear Editor,
I wish to refer to a letter titled, ‘It is the House not the Speaker which has the power to remove a motion from the Order Paper’, from Ms Gail Teixeira in the May 17th issue of your newspaper.
From the onset, I wish to point out that the caption may, not intentionally, mislead the public since the Speaker did not direct that the motion be removed from the Order Paper.
I was directed to inform Ms Manickchand that the motion would not be proceeded with in the National Assembly, that is, the motion would remain on the Order Paper with a note stating, “not to be proceeded with”.
The Speaker, in my view, was in order when he directed that the motion should not be proceeded with in the National Assembly since it would have contravened Standing Order No 26 (e). Standing Order No 26 (e) states that in order for a motion to be admissible, it shall not revive discussion of a matter which has been discussed in the same Session. I am of the view that Ms Manickchand’s motion would have revived discussion of a matter which was discussed in Ms Teixeira’s motion which was debated and defeated in the National Assembly at its Sitting on 30th January, 2017.
Further, please note that a “Session of Parliament” is defined as the period which commences with the First Sitting of the National Assembly after general elections are held or after a prorogation of Parliament, and which concludes when the Parliament is prorogued or dissolved.
I will now quote the Resolved Clauses of Ms Teixeira’s motion and those of Ms Manickchand’s motion.
Ms Teixeira’s Resolved Clauses:
“BE IT RESOLVED: That this National Assembly calls on the Government to repeal the Value-Added Tax (Amendment of Schedules) Order 2016, Order No. 18 of 2016 made under the Value Added Tax Act which comes into effect on February 1, 2017;
“BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: That this National Assembly calls on the Minister responsible to reinstate and bring back into force the Schedules I and II existing prior to Order No. 18 of 2016, Value Added Tax (Amendment of Schedules) Order 2016.”
Ms Manickchand’s Resolved Clauses:
“BE IT RESOLVED: That this National Assembly calls on the Government to direct the Minister of Finance to take immediate steps to revoke Order No. 18 of 2016 imposing VAT on educational goods and services;
“BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: That the Government reinstates Schedules I and II existing prior to Order No. 18 of 2016, Value Added Tax (Amendment of Schedules) Order 2016 on educational goods and services.”
In my opinion, the Resolved Clauses of both motions are calling for the repeal of the Value- Added Tax (Amendment of Schedules) Order 2016 – No 18 of 2016 and the reinstatement of Schedules I and II which existed prior to the making of Order No 18 of 2016.
It must be noted that the Speaker has the power, under Standing Order No 27, to alter motions. Standing Order No 27 (2) states:
“If the Speaker is of the opinion that any Notice of Motion which has been received by the Clerk of the Assembly infringes the provisions of any Standing Order or is in any other way out of order, he or she may direct:-
“that the Member concerned be informed that the Notice of Motion is out of order, or
that the Notice of Motion be entered in the Order Book with such alternation he or she may direct.”
The Speaker, in accordance with Standing Order No 27 (2), altered both motions because of their length. Ms Teixeira, a legislator of long standing, is fully aware that inclusion of facts or supporting matter in a Notice of Motion is limited to essentials. The proper place to argue the case for the motion is in the subsequent debate, not the motion itself. His Honour the Speaker was of the view that both Ms Teixeira and Ms Manickchand were arguing their cases in the motions, which made them lengthy.
It is unfortunate that Ms Teixeira did not discuss or seek clarification from me with respect to the interpretation of the Standing Orders under reference. As Clerk of the National Assembly, I have always acted professionally and will continue to do so during my tenure in office.
I will end by quoting Sir Michael Davies, Commonwealth Senior Parliamentary Staff Advisor to the National Assembly of the Parliament of Guyana, in his Report dated 18th February, 2005 on the Needs Assessment of the National Assembly of Guyana which states, among other things, Standing Orders are for Clerks, not for Members. One reason Clerks are employed is to provide advice to Members on the Standing Orders and on the procedure of an Assembly.
Yours faithfully,
S E Isaacs
Clerk of the National Assembly
