Holness doubles down

House Speaker Juliet Holness on Tuesday defended her decision to send reports from the Integrity Commission to its oversight body before tabling as government and opposition legislators sparred over the non-disclosure of the attorney general’s (AG) opinion on the matter.

Holness told the House that her decision was not inconsistent with the law.

Further, she said that all documents from the AG, as well as all correspondence between former Speaker Marisa Dalrymple-Philibert and the auditor general on the matter, were passed to Parliament’s legal counsel.

“Notwithstanding all that effort, ultimately, the Speaker has a duty to the people of the country as well as the Parliament to ensure that the ruling is sound in law. The ruling of the Speaker is in keeping with the law and the Standing Orders of this Parliament,” she told legislators.

Holness said in her ruling, she noted that the opinion of the Parliament’s legal counsel – which considered all the correspondence between the Parliament, the AG and the auditor general – was available for perusal.

She also said that she requested that her ruling and the opinion of the parliamentary legal counsel be shared via email with members of parliament.

She said opposition members are part of Parliament’s Joint Select Committee now reviewing the Integrity Commission Act and have the opportunity to “fix anything that you had wanted to be set differently”.

“This Speaker has ruled in keeping with exactly how the law is worded,” she said, while disclosing that there are no Integrity Commission reports in contention that have not been properly laid.

Her comments followed a contentious debate between government and opposition members over the full disclosure of the AG’s legal opinion.

Government members vigorously opposed the sharing of the document, insisting that this was Holness’ prerogative.

Justice Minister Delroy Chuck, acting leader of government business, and de facto Information Minister Robert Morgan argued that Holness did not have to share the AG’s opinion with the Lower House.

Chuck blasted opposition members, charging that they were inappropriate for “interrogating” the Speaker and insisted that it must stop.

“The Speaker’s ruling is final,” Chuck said emphatically.

He argued that if the opposition members have an issue with the Speaker’s position on how the Integrity Commission reports are to be treated, there are avenues such as the Standing Orders or amendments to the Integrity Commission Act that can be explored.

“The attorney general is the lawyer for the Government, not for the Parliament. If the Speaker asks for an opinion from an attorney – doesn’t even have to be the attorney general – it’s a matter for the Speaker whether the Speaker wants to share with the House,” said Chuck.

“If the Speaker does not provide it, that’s the end of the matter,” he repeatedly said.

He was responding to Leader of Opposition Business Phillip Paulwell, who initially sought a response from Holness on whether the AG’s opinion would be shared with the House.

But opposition Member of Parliament for St Andrew South Eastern Julian Robinson rebutted his argument, noting that former Speaker Marisa Dalrymple-Philibert sought the AG’s opinion because there was a dispute about how reports to the House should be dealt with.

He said that this was not sought in her private capacity.

In response, Morgan argued that Holness was under no obligation to share the “opinion of the attorney general to the Government with the Opposition”.

“You may do it because of your good nature, but you have no such obligation. We have been subjected as a country to some very disgusting and inappropriate commentary by members of the Opposition about the integrity and good sense of the Speaker, and I don’t believe that this House should tolerate it,” he said, adding that the Opposition has sought to “caricature” the Speaker as hiding reports.

His comment was rejected by opposition member Dr Angela Brown Burke, who challenged that he was misleading the House, an act she said was “unparliamentary and beneath” him.

“At this time, it should be withdrawn because you know that that is absolutely not true,” she said before Opposition Leader Mark Golding took the floor.

Golding said that having sought the AG’s opinion, “the right and transparent thing to do” would be to share it with the members of parliament.

He said it is an opinion that was rendered on an important matter affecting the governance of the country and that MPs have a right to know the opinion and whether the reasoning is sound as to how the change has been implemented on how the reports are to be treated.

Holness last week announced that she would end the practice of tabling all Integrity Commission reports upon submission, although the Attorney General’s Chambers said such a treatment was not inconsistent with the law or parliamentary rules.

She implemented a new rule, which mandates that special and annual reports of the commission will go to its oversight committee for deliberations first and then tabled later on with the committee’s own report.

kimone.francis@gleanerjm.com