By RASHAD ROLLE

Tribune Staff Reporter

rrolle@tribunemedia.net

TEMPERS flared in the House of Assembly yesterday as members of the governing party, the Opposition and House Speaker Dr Kendal Major argued about the Public Accounts Committee’s rejection of the Speaker’s recent order to suspend its controversial investigation into Urban Renewal.

The fight erupted after St Anne’s MP Hubert Chipman, PAC chairman, took to the floor moments before the House prepared to adjourn its session until this morning, when Prime Minister Perry Christie is expected to deliver his budget communication.

Mr Chipman argued that by seeking advice from the Office of the Attorney General concerning a parliamentary matter, Dr Major failed to respect the separation of powers that exists between the executive and the legislature.

His statement set off a firestorm that lasted nearly 30 minutes as members of both sides stood on points of order, shouted, struck their desks and accused those opposite of misunderstanding House of Assembly rules or trying to stifle democracy.

In some of his most forceful comments since beginning his tenure as House speaker, Dr Major accused Mr Chipman of making “inappropriate and extremely contemptible” statements, adding that he felt betrayed by the member because he had private discussions with him concerning the issue beforehand.

The verbal tussle came nearly two weeks after Dr Major ordered that the PAC “stay its hand” in investigating Urban Renewal 2.0 until Parliament has addressed issues relating to an auditor general’s report, which raises concerns about weaknesses in the management and expenditure of the programme.

His decision came after he consulted with various people and determined that the PAC can only examine documents that have been tabled in Parliament and could only send for persons, papers or records if a parliamentary resolution allows it to do so.

Mr Chipman claimed that Dr Major is not always protective of the opposition.

“I note that unsolicited legal advice was forwarded to your good self on that matter at hand, by the attorney general, acting on behalf of the executive,” he said. “The forwarding of such legal advice is highly inappropriate and constitutes a breach of the separation of powers with regards to the work of the Public Accounts Committee. If the Speaker required advice on the matter before him, it would have been correct and judicious to consult the clerk or (a) Speaker of another lower body such as the British House of Commons. There is precedence for this. Your good self also sought advice from the executive in the person of the attorney general on the matter before us, yet another breach between the legislative and executive branches on this matter. Section 7 (a) (6) of the House Rules empowers you to engage legal counsel for the benefit of the House; however, this does not include the attorney general because of the constitutional requirement of the separation between the legislative and executive branches is to be adhered to at all times.”

These statements prompted PLP Fox Hill MP Fred Mitchell to rise on a point of order and criticise Mr Chipman for “attacking” the Speaker and breaching parliamentary procedure.

Agreeing with Mr Mitchell, Dr Major said: “…Attacking the ruling of the chair, that’s exactly what you’re doing, there’s no other way to put it…I have spoken to you privately about the matter. We left that conversation with an understanding. The understanding was not for you to stand in this place at this time and to do what I know not of.

“That is inappropriate, it is unfair, it is a low blow...You have every reason to say as you wish but you are wrong to stand in this place and attack a ruling which clearly speaks to Rule 45.3, that if any member has a difficulty with the Speaker or the confidence of the Speaker then you come to this place on a substantive motion and ask for a vote of no confidence. If you are not prepared to do it, the ruling is irrevocable.

“You have no right to stand here and beckon to what is right or wrong and tell me who I should consult with and who I shouldn’t be consulting with. That’s inappropriate and extremely contemptible.”

“I have been very respectful,” Dr Major added. “I sought the deliberations for over two weeks waiting for responses of the consultations I made. They were thoughtful. They were prayerful and they concerned all matters. Don’t stand here and give the impression that I have just sought the opinion of the law offices of the Crown when I speak to speakers every day through the Commonwealth. And I understand the sensitivity of the matter. This is not the way to do it, not what you are doing today and I condemn it.”

At times Opposition Leader Dr Hubert Minnis, Long Island MP Loretta Butler Turner and East Grand Bahama MP Peter Turnquest all rose to defend the position of their party.

They were met with considerable resistance from the governing side. Members of both parties were occasionally on their feet at the same time, shouting as they argued their positions.

Dr Minnis said the Speaker’s decision set a bad precedent adding that it was a sad day in the country, prompting Mr Mitchell to rebut him. The Fox Hill MP and some government MPs who were seated started to chant: “It’s a sad day for you.”