The Government could have directed last Friday’s Parliament agenda to debate several motions which the Opposition PNM had filed, before the PNM walked out on Government’s no-confidence motion against PNM leader Keith Rowley, thereby missing the opportunity to deal with their own motions, PNM PRO Faris Al-Rawi has confirmed.
He was commenting to reporters during yesterday’s Senate lunch break, on comments by Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar at Monday’s Peoples Partnership meeting in Fyzabad.
The PM had reproached the Opposition PNM for walking out of the Parliament chamber during last Friday’s no-confidence motion by Government regarding Rowley.
She said the PNM didn’t even return to the chamber to debate a number of other motions on the adjournment which had been brought by them.
The PM accused the Opposition of abdicating its responsibility and duty to constituents and the public at large which such motions on the adjournment usually concern.
Al-Rawi however said it was “unfortunate someone as senior as the Prime Minister could made as ludicrous a statement as she did.”
He said it was well within PP House leader Roodal Moonilal’s business to prescribe the agenda in advance and it was known the PNM wouldn’t have supported the no-confidence motion against Rowley which the PNM considers a “defilement of the Parliament since it is character assassination under parliamentary privilege.”
He added: “Therefore, all business prior to the (no- confidence) motion was dealt with.
“The Government is in charge of its agenda and can easily adjust its schedule to have said they would debate these (other PNM) motions in advance because it is not unknown that was what intended to be done.”
He said the PM was technically correct in saying the Opposition walked out “but she is entirely wrong and perhaps guilty of playing smart with foolishness.”
He said it was well within her purview to have directed (Moonilal) to have put the PNM motions on the agenda for debate, prior to the walkout.
Al-Rawi said there was no discord in organising business in the Senate.
However, he said it didn’t surprise him that Moonilal was in charge of the situation in the Lower House last Friday and it was well within the Government’s business to know what was going to be done as the order of business was determined by Government.
He said they didn’t express an interest to do that. He said PNM had written Moonilal last week, stating the PNM would not debate the no- confidence motion and was prepared to debate a no-confidence motion against Finance Minister Larry Howai instead.
During Senate debate on amendments to the Motor Vehicles Bill, Al-Rawi had also spoken about other comments made by the PM when she claimed Rowley said at a PNM function he proposed to raise the Prime Minister’s salary and that of MPs if the PNM assumed office.
Persad-Bissessar had questioned doing that when she said the PNM had also proposed cutting costs and austerity measures if they won.
She said also here had been a bill recently to increase salaries of MPs and members of the Judiciary and she had put that on hold after public outcry
During debate Al-Rawi asked how one “could have a Prime Minister on a platform saying that remuneration for MPs was a PNM idea.”
He noted the recent moves in Parliament to increase remuneration for MPs and judges.
On the PM’sstatement that the PP would build a causeway to Chaguaramas he said that had been a PNM idea.
More info:
On the Motor Vehicle (Amendment) Bill, Al-Rawi proposed that it be subjected to wider scrutiny by a Joint or special select committee.
Noting the 267 clauses, he said while the concept of the bill was good and the Motor Vehicle Authority proposed in it was a PNM idea, but the bill required “second sight” since Government’s exercise on the matter had fallen short of the mark.
He questioned if Government’s consultations on it had included the Law Association, since, he said, the association would never have agreed to certain clauses.
For example, he cited a clause which stated that a person who caused an accident or hit a person or animal had to render aid to the victim or risk a fine.
He said the clause opened the person who hit the victim to liability and attorneys would not have sanctioned that.