THE House of Representatives yesterday suspended debate on the controversial amendments to three bills recommended by the Electoral Commission to stamp out open voting.

Leader of the House, Dr Peter Phillips, called for the postponement after it appeared that his appeal for MPs to reject the Senate’s amendments to the bills and restore the parliamentary convention of enacting the commission’s proposals, without variance, could be defeated.

A number of Government backbenchers, led by K D Knight and John Junor, and supported by a couple of Opposition MPs, including spokesman on justice Delroy Chuck, revolted against the advice of their leadership.

“.My considered view is that the consequences of tampering with those arrangements are potentially dire,” Phillips told MPs.

He then suggested that the House delay the conclusion of the debate until further discussions.

The House leader had opened the debate by reading a letter from the chairman of the Electoral Commission, Professor Errol Miller, resolutely disagreeing with the amendments to its proposals passed by the Senate on June 15.

However, the commission offered to review all mandatory provisions in the voting laws and submit a report to Parliament for approval as soon as possible.

Phillips said that on only one occasion in the 28 years of the Electoral Advisory Committee/Electoral Commission, has Parliament ever interfered with their recommendations. He noted that, on that occasion, there was a lack of consensus at the EAC which resulted in two separate reports being tabled.

He said that if Parliament was to vary the commission’s proposals on this occasion it would be “opening the door once again to a situation where the majority, at any point in the House, would be able to adjust electoral laws”.

He said that this has to be seen in a context in which the view is held that it is a disadvantage to one side, and an advantage to the other.

He was supported by the general secretaries of the two political parties – Donald Buchanan (PNP) and Karl Samuda (JLP).

But Knight insisted that since, jurisprudentially, the country was moving away from mandatory sentences, they should not be included in the bills.

He also criticised a letter from Director of Elections Danville Walker, which appeared in the press over the weekend, on the basis that Parliament should not be fettered by the commission.

Junor said that what the House was attempting to do was to pass ‘bad law’. He said that mandatory sentences often lead to a reluctance on the part of the court to come to a guilty verdict.

They were supported by both Chuck and Everald Warmington (South West St Catherine), on the Opposition benches, both of whom defended Parliament’s authority in the matter.

The three bills amend the Representation to the People Act, as well as the KSAC and Parish Council Acts, to penalise open voting.

The House passed them without amendments on May 29, in keeping with the convention of rubber stamping Electoral Commission reports. But the Senate broke the tradition when it amended the bills declaring that the commission should not dictate to Parliament.