Senate President Timothy Hamel-Smith says it will not be necessary to recuse himself from next Tuesday’s sitting of the Senate, where debate on the controversial Constitution (Amendment) Bill 2014 is tabled to begin, as he will be out of the country. In a release yesterday, Hamel-Smith, said prior to the fixing of August 26 for the debate on the bill, he had already made arrangements to travel to Florida on August 20. He said he would not be returning to Trinidad until August 28.
In trying to clear the air on the issue, Hamel-Smith said: “Having regard to the view advocated by me with regard to the referral of the bill to a Joint Select Committee, some individuals have taken the view that I should recuse myself from presiding on the debate of the Bill despite the fact that I have not expressed any view as to the merits or demerits of the bill.”
He highlighted section 59 (2) of the Constitution, which stated: “The President of the Senate or other member presiding in the Senate shall not vote unless on any question the voters are equally divided, in which case he shall have and exercise a casting vote.” Hamel-Smith said he had given serious consideration to the question of recusal and while he believed the argument had no merit, he was aware that a high level of emotion surrounded the consideration of the bill.
“In the circumstances, I would not like my participation as presiding officer to add to the heightening of such emotions and to distract the public, or honourable members for that matter, from a fair consideration of the bill,” Hamel-Smith wrote. He said he might have made the decision to recuse himself from presiding on the debate of the bill but added that this issue does not arise.
E-mail lobby
Last week, former public service head Reginald Dumas had called on Hamel-Smith to recuse himself from presiding over the August 26 debate, if Hamel-Smith did in fact send an e-mail earlier this month urging various people to lobby for the bill to be sent to a joint select committee. The e-mail, which Dumas claimed to have received a copy of, also urged that the recipients should make the call to the media as a “matter of urgency.”
Dumas said he had seen the e-mail, dated August 10, and sent after 4 pm and wondered whether Hamel-Smith could be impartial if presiding during the debate. Yesterday, however, Hamel-Smith said he was not subject to any “party whip” nor did he participate in the proceedings of any political party.
“All decisions made by me with respect to my role as President of the Senate have been independently made by me on an impartial basis without regard to partisan politics and are based purely on my own personal judgment in accordance with the standing orders of the Senate.”
Westminster protocol
Although T&T’s Parliament is based on a Westminster model, it is not identical and the presiding officers’ roles vary. The Speaker at Westminster is chosen from among elected MPs, rather than being brought into the Parliament after a general election, as is the practice in T&T. The UK Parliament Web site explains:
“Speakers must be politically impartial. Therefore, on election the new Speaker must resign from their political party and remain separate from political issues even in retirement. However, the Speaker will deal with their constituents' problems like a normal MP.” The Lord Speaker in the House of Lords is not precisely equivalent to that of the President of the Senate in T&T, whose role more closely resembles that of the Speaker of the Lower House.
A UK Parliament document explains:
“Unlike the Speaker of the House of Commons, the Lord Speaker is politically neutral and is elected by Members of the House. “The Lord Speaker does not control the proceedings during a debate. You will never hear the Lord Speaker shouting “Order, Order” as it is assumed that the Lords themselves will keep order during their debates.”
Sources:
www.parliament.uk/business/commons/the-speaker/the-role-of-the-speaker/r...
Debates in Parliament: Parliament Explained 5, produced by the Parliamentary Education Service