THERE has been a further increase in security at Gordon House since the shooting incident on October 22 at Parliament Hill in Ottawa, Canada.

Barriers have been placed on the sidewalks leading from the north and south to restrict entrance into the building to a single file, and visitors’ bags and other items are searched before they are allowed to enter the premises and obtain a pass to the gallery.

The new restrictions have also completely shut out supporters of both political parties from members arriving or leaving Gordon House.

This is in addition to security measures introduced last year which require members and staff to carry digital identification cards in order to open doors to sections of the building, including the lobby and their offices. In addition, a number of CCTV cameras have been placed inside and outside the building, to capture the activities 24/7, and more armed police are assigned to the roof and more officers are manning the metal barriers.

The unusual features of the new security arrangements have served to distance the MPs from visitors, and irritatingly affect access to some areas by the press, as well as the members and the staff themselves.

However, Marshal to the House Kevin Williams has explained that currently, the Parliament building is not only administratively inadequate, but is also difficult to secure because of its design and its proximity to the streets.

Williams agrees with the widely held view that what is really needed is a new Parliament building.

“This is something that is necessary, because the Parliament plays such an important role in governance, in balancing and keeping our economy stable and it also stands as a monument of our stability as a nation,” he said, recently.

Standing orders being reviewed

The Standing Orders Committee of the House of Representatives has started a review of the orders, which are the rules under which the House operates.

The review is looking at how the current rules can be amended to allow for not only better control of the proceedings by the Speaker, but also for a free flow of its business and better use of its time.

There are two priorities at the moment: (1) the need to reduce the length of time that the annual Sectoral Debate takes; and (2) a report on decisions taken by the committee earlier this year, which has not yet been tabled.

Unfortunately, at its meeting last Tuesday, members did not seek an explanation as to why a report, which should have been tabled months ago has not yet reached the floor of the House. This suggests that even this committee, which is chaired by Speaker Michael Peart, is also a victim of a process which is nagged by delays and a limited capacity to perform efficiently.

Speaker Peart himself admitted that he has moved to institute a policy allowing Opposition spokespersons to rebut statements from Cabinet ministers, although it is included in the report which has not yet been tabled or passed in the House.

It is understood that changes to the prayer are also recommended in the delayed report, although they were approved by the Cabinet in March.

However, the priority for the committee at this time seems to be how to restructure the annual sectoral debate, and probably the budget debate as well, based on recommendations from the International Monetary Fund (IMF), which is insisting that the annual budget exercise be completed prior to April 1.

Objections have been raised by members, including the Opposition’s Delroy Chuck (North East St Andrew), that the inclusion of activities within their constituencies by members contributing to the sectoral debate is making the presentations much longer than necessary.

Chuck has suggested that a separate debate be held to deal specifically with constituency matters, or a state of the nation debate, and that the standing orders should require members to speak only on national issues.

“We need to find a way to separate the sectoral debate from constituency concerns which could be dealt with, perhaps, at the start of the year or at the end of the year,” he suggested to the committee.

However, the Speaker pointed out that because there is no opportunity elsewhere on the agenda for members, particularly back-benchers and Opposition MPs, to raise constituency issues, this has become a feature of the sectoral presentations.

“But it has reached the stage now where we can no longer continue like this. We have to manage our time better,” Peart insisted.

He noted that the length of time which follow-up questions take in the House, as members try to express their positions on issues raised in the proceedings ostensibly to seek clarification, is also a problem for the House.

It was not surprising that Opposition MP Everald Warmington (South Western St Catherine) raised the issue of members reading their speeches.

Warmington has insisted that standing order 32(11), which says that a member shall not read his speech should be followed. He has suggested that the practice should be eliminated. However, as Chuck has insisted, members should be limited to reading speeches during the budget and sectoral debates only, or on occasions when the Speaker gives permission.

Another issue which the committee has been dealing with is the question of Cabinet ministers and junior ministers sitting on committees of the House from which they are barred under standing order 68(3).

THIS WEEK’S SCHEDULE

Tuesday, November 18: Constituency Development Fund (CDF) at 9:00 am; Infrastructure and Physical Development Committee at 10:00 am: and sitting of the House of Representatives at 2:00 pm.

Wednesday, November 19: Public Administration and Appropriations Committee (PAAC) at 10:00 am; Joint Select Committee on the Road Traffic Act at 2:00 pm.

Thursday, November 20: Joint Select Committee on the Public Procurement Bill at 10:00 am.