Lynford Simpson, Staff Reporter
PRIME Minister P.J. Patterson in the run-up to the 1997 General Election which the People's National Party (PNP) won by a landslide, journeyed to the Clarendon North West constituency of Carl Marshall with one purpose in mind - to make an impassioned plea for the House Speaker.
The Prime Minister, recognising the value of one who had come to be accepted by both sides of the House of Representatives as a good Speaker, appealed to the constituents to turn out in their numbers on election day to ensure Mr. Marshall retained his seat in Parliament. His plea of "I can't afford to lose my Speaker," to some extent fell on deaf ears as Mr. Marshall was beaten in the December polls by the Jamaica Labour Party's (JLP) Cliff Stone. That defeat ended his eight-year hold on the constituency and more than four years as House Speaker.
An educated man with a B.Sc. in Economics and post-graduate diploma in Public Administration from the University of the West Indies, and a Masters degree in Business Administration from Nova South-eastern University in Florida, Mr. Marshall represented the PNP on several trips overseas between 1990 and 1996. Those trips, combined with his job as House Speaker kept him away from his constituency for long periods. For the Speaker, Mr. Patterson's intervention came too late as the Prime Minister was unable to do for him what he did for others in 1997 - bring him home on his coat-tail.
Apart from being bright, Mr. Marshall was familiar with the Standing Orders (the rules that govern the running of Parliament). He familiarised himself with the document and when not sure, did his homework. For the most part, Mr. Marshall conducted himself with dignity and impartiality.
Unfortunately, the same cannot be said of current House Speaker Violet Neilson. Her most recent performance of Tuesday, December 18, has left a sour taste not just in the mouths of Opposition Parliamentarians who had every right to feel unfairly treated when she tried to limit their questioning of Industry, Commerce and Technology Ministe, Phillip Paulwell, on the NetServ fiasco to one hour. It served to set her up as a most biased House Speaker in the eyes of the public, one bent on serving only partisan interests.
A single hour of questioning on an issue that's shaping up to cost taxpayers in excess of $185 million in a failed venture in which politicians and technocrats blundered, was all Mrs. Neilson would allow because, as it turned out later, she had an appointment elsewhere!
Her verbal exchange with Audley Shaw and Derrick Smith, Leader of Opposition Business in the House after they objected to her decision to limit their colleague, Delroy Chuck, to one question, left a lot to be desired.
Her sotto voce comments which were caught on tape, courtesy of her microphone which is always kept on, showed a contempt for the nation's business that cannot be explained. Mr. Chuck had just started asking (his one question) which had to do with whether Government had followed its own guidelines in disbursing more than $700 million in INTECH Funds to eight companies, and whether the amount was matched in equity.
"I'm going to be late," the Speaker was heard to remark, just as Minister Paulwell had started his response. Incredible. That was the last question she entertained for the rest of the afternoon.
Earlier, she had protested that the questioning by the Opposition had gone on for one hour and that the Minister, who at best was evasive in his answers, "was doing well". "We have been at it since 10 minutes to four," she said. It was only 10 minutes to five at the time of the comment, and with no law stating that Parliament could not sit beyond 5:00 p.m.
The fact is that Mrs. Neilson was attending only her second sitting of the House since Parliament reconvened on September 25. Yet she could not sit out an entire session. The question that arises is what was she late for? It is known that she had travelled overseas in recent months for treatment due to ill-health. One could hazard a guess that she had a doctor's appointment.
If that was so, then O.T. Williams, notwithstanding the fact that he was oftentimes out of his depths, had deputised for her during the weeks she had been absent. He took over the Speaker's chair the previous week after she made a brief (guest) appearance.
If Mr. Williams and Mrs Neilson are the best choices for House Speaker, it says a lot about the quality of our Parliamentarians, or the judgement of our Parliamentary leaders. With the governing party having an overwhelming majority, one would have thought Mr. Patterson whose call it is to appoint a Speaker could have done better. There is indeed talent on the back benches, including, sadly, attorney Canute Brown who the PNP has been unable to convince to go for a second term.
Did Mr. Patterson have a premonition of the problem he would be faced with when he made a case for Mr. Marshall back in 1997? The events of the past week suggest he did.
By contrast, the Upper House of Parliament, the Senate, has a much more level-headed President in Syringa Marshall Burnett. She usually remains calm during the most heated exchanges between Government and Opposition Senators and as such is able to make fair decisions. Also, the debates in the Senate are often times more lengthy and in-depth, so ensured by the contributions of Anthony Johnson and Dorothy Lightbourne on the Opposition side and Independent Senator, Dr. Trevor Munroe, and Fred Hamaty on the Government side.
The various topics up for debate are also usually well researched. At the penultimate sitting of the Senate for the calendar year on Thursday, December 13, Government Senator Noel Monteith did a wonderful job acting as President in the absence of Mrs Marshall-Burnett. While there are the usual clashes in the Senate, they are usually resolved without the lowering of the bar.
It was not only the Speaker's behaviour that was bad last Tuesday. The entire Government side barring no one (at least not publicly) supported Mr. Paulwell in a matter that should have already resulted in his resignation or his sacking by the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister's support of Mr. Paulwell no doubt brings into question his so-called values and attitudes campaign and make him appear weak.
It cannot be that in Mr. Paulwell's rush to create 40,000 jobs in the information technology sector the proper due diligence was either not done or not adhered to before nearly $200 million of public funds was pumped into a company that collapsed within months of such massive capital injection.
The behaviour of Audley Shaw and Derrick Smith from the Opposition benches last week also left a lot to be desired. Long-standing Parliamentarians, both know how not to address the Speaker. Mr. Smith knows what the Speaker can and cannot tell him, and she was within her rights to tell him to sit. His "you can't tell me that," response made him look like he had just won his seat and was attending a sitting of the House of Representatives for the first time.
Mr. Shaw dared Mrs Neilson to throw him out, she threatened to do so and could have done so.
Whether she felt disrespected, however, Mrs Neilson's behaviour was less than Speaker-like. Her decision to quit representational politics at the end of her current term even if for health reasons is a welcome one. Her open bias while often discussed in media circles, could not escape public criticism this time round. After all, her less than desirable behaviour was carried live on television.
