Editorial | House rules should allow digital sittings

KEIR STARMER is right about the value of parliamentary oversight of governments in times of crisis, such as the COVID-19 pandemic.

“The best decisions,” said the new leader of Britain’s opposition Labour Party, “are those that are challenged and subject to scrutiny… By that process issues can be resolved, mistakes quickly rectified, and individual concerns addressed.”

The problem for Mr Starmer is that the Commons hasn’t been meeting because of concerns that members of parliament (MPs), sitting near each other in a crowded chamber, risk contracting, or transmitting, among themselves and staff, the coronavirus that causes COVID-19. So, he wants the leader of the Commons, Jacob Reese-Mogg, and the Speaker, Lindsay Hoyle, to seriously consider having the legislature meet virtually, in line with “examples around the world of parliaments operating effectively, using technologies and different models”.

Antigua and Barbuda probably isn’t one of the examples Sir Keir had in mind, but its legislature has met remotely, recently, as a way round the ban on crowds. There are, perhaps, lessons for Jamaica from this regional partner.

The last time Jamaica’s House of Representatives met, a hurriedly convened sitting on March 3, from which opposition members were absent, the potential pitfalls of having large numbers of people, not wearing face masks, sitting together and debating in a relatively small space, were quite obvious, despite the valiant effort at conforming to the Government’s guidance of physical distancing. There was also the irony of the several members in the chamber, including the Speaker Pearnel Charles, 85, who were either in the age group (75-plus) that the Government has ordered to be confined to their homes, or those (65 up) advised to work from home.

Karl Samuda, leader of Government business in the House, who is closer to the former age category than the latter, said recently that the idea of MPs legislating remote isn’t one that has received “serious discussion so far”. However, last week Parliament formally convened a special digital sitting on COVID -19, although the legal basis for this remains unclear.

With no one knowing how long it will be before COVID-19 is brought under control, or what will be its effect on Jamaica, the matter of the House and the Senate convening digitally to do their work should be on the agenda. Mr Samuda and his advisers must consider how the rules would have to change, including, possibly, constitutional amendments.

With an unwritten Constitution, and Parliament being sovereign, it ought to be relatively easy for the Brits to institute digital sitting of the Commons. Section 59 (2) of the Antigua and Barbuda Constitution, it would appear, provided the opportunity that country’s Parliament needed to determine how it wants to meet, including, if it wishes, digitally.

While Subsection 1 of the clause says that the Parliament must hold its sessions at a place within the country appointed by the governor general, the following section says “the sittings of Parliament shall be held at such time and place as Parliament may, by its rules of procedure, or otherwise, determine”. The legislature, given the use of the term “or otherwise”, seems, beyond what may be set out in the standing orders, to have greater flexibility in determining the form of its meetings.

Regarding Jamaica, Section 63 (1) of the Constitution says: “Each session of Parliament shall be held at such place within Jamaica and shall commence at such time as the governor general may, by Proclamation published in the Gazette, appoint.” The following sections deal primarily with that time that can elapse between sessions of Parliament.

ALLOWANCES

Section 51 does allow Parliament, via its standing orders, to “regulate its own procedure”. But the rules, amended in recent years to allow for the use, in certain circumstances, of digital devices in the House, apparently didn’t contemplate virtual meetings. In fact, standing order 85A (2) explicitly bars the use of digital devices “for external communications with other individuals during proceedings in the House or in committee”, and warns against the use of these devices in a manner that might “compromise the dignity and decorum of the House”.

However, Section 63 is not an entrenched clause of the Constitution, which means it requires no special provisions and majorities for its amendment or repeal. Moreover, only 16 of its 63 members is a quorum of the House, which means that is can legitimately do business with that number. Further, adjusting the standing orders ought not to be, it seems to us, a major hurdle. The discussion should start now.

In other words, Parliament should be allowed to responsibly get on with its work, without compromising the health of its members, or undermining the very laws, rules and regulations it makes.