Speaker: The Rule is Clear on How Parliamentarians Can Address the Chair

Everyone will remember the e-mail that the Leader of the Opposition, Moses Shyne Barrow wrote to the Speaker of the House, Valerie Woods back in August, which the Constitution and Foreign Affairs Committee met to discuss on October eleventh. In the letter, Barrow told the speaker that she had exposed herself to be a complete waste of time of a speaker of the House, and that she repeatedly acts as a shield for the government, interpreting and misapplying the Standing Orders to protect the prime minister and the government from public scrutiny. The e-mail was sent after the speaker denied Barrow’s motion for a Vote of No Confidence in the House against Prime Minister John Briceño. Barrow, who apologized two months later, had suggested publicly that the Standing Orders do not require one to use parliamentary language when addressing the speaker outside of the confines of the House. Today, Woods revisited the issue and said unequivocally that the Standing Orders are clear about the language when addressing the chair, similarly to how attorneys cannot speak of judges of the court.

Valerie Woods

Valerie Woods, Speaker of the House

“The motion on no-confidence, the member is very well aware, can be brought at any time. It just needs to be within the confines of the Standing Orders, and there’s precedent on motions for votes of no-confidence. So, there’s no such thing that privilege has been denied or your right has been denied. And I made sure, as I try to do not just for members but for the listening public because it’s important that the public understands the legislature and its procedures as well, the rationale and the thinking and the decision-making behind why, on that day, it was not allowed. But it can come back. Just follow the Standing Orders. That’s one. Two, on the matter of language directed towards the chair, you’re right in repeating what I said, that it’s not a church, nor is it a public brawl, but there is that line of respect. Think of the referee. When does a card get pulled out in football or a flagrant foul in basketball? When does that occur? It’s utter disrespect to the chair and in this case, to the referee. Think of judges. There is such a thing as contempt of court. There is such a thing as you may not like the ruling of a judge, but there is a line that you don’t cross. That’s why you find lawyers in their practice, whether in court or outside of court, are very careful on the references that they make toward judges. It is no different here. So the member wrote a disparaging letter directed to the Chair and it was my obligation to bring this to the attention of the House. I’m not going to engage with members outside of the House, but I will do so within the confines of the House when it is a matter that is flagrantly in disregard, non-compliance of Standing Orders, and there is such one regarding reference to the Chair, to the Speaker, to the President, to the Monarch, to judges, and so forth. There’s a very clear Standing Order on that.”