House Speaker Addresses L.O.O. Concerns on Standing Orders

Today’s house meeting was a one-sided affair after the Leader of the Opposition and four other U.D.P. area representatives boycotted the sitting of the House of Representatives.  On Thursday, Shyne Barrow wrote to the Speaker of the House, pointing out that the schedule for the meeting deviated from the five clear days notice that has been established.  In his letter, the Leader of the Opposition wrote, “failure for this honorable house to follow the five-day notice protocol disenfranchises the Opposition, obstructing our ability to satisfy the required five day notice as per Standing Order Nineteen-three for the extremely crucial questions to ministers.” This morning, at the start of the session, House Speaker Valerie Woods addressed the letter in the absence of the Opposition Leader.

 

Valerie Woods, Speaker of the House

“I also would like to bring to your attention, members, that I was contacted by the Leader of the Opposition, the member for Mesopotamia, regarding the concern on the late notice, as he worded it to me, regarding this meeting.  In the interest of disclosure, I was given an official complaint letter yesterday during the course of the day and I responded.  With your indulgence, I would just like to give my response to you so it forms a part of the record, but also to ensure that members on both sides are aware of the rules that are currently in the standing orders.  And it reads: Dear, Honorable Moses Barrow, Leader of the Opposition, I acknowledge receipt of your letter of protest on the notice period for the house meeting called for tomorrow, June 28^th, 2024.  The Clerk of the National Assembly was notified on Sunday, June twenty-third, by the Cabinet Secretary on behalf of the executive for June twenty-eighth to be set aside for a house meeting.  This was brought to my attention and the notice went out on Monday, June twenty-fourth when the orders of the day were verified.  I do appreciate the concern on notice, however, the notice for this meeting is not in contravention of the standing orders.”