By RASHAD ROLLE

Tribune Staff Reporter

rrolle@tribunemedia.net

HOUSE Speaker Halson Moultrie has ordered an enquiry into why multiple, divergent versions of the Rules of Procedure of Parliament are in circulation.

His revelation came as he defended his decision to suspend Englerston MP Glenys Hanna Martin from Parliament.

As he announced the enquiry, he frequently referenced Maurice Tynes, the former House clerk who has criticised his handling of the matter involving Mrs Hanna Martin.

"Interestingly," he said, "when questioned by media personnel on which rule was relied on for the suspension of the member for Englerston and I indicated that the Speaker was authorised by Rules 88 (3) to order the withdrawal of a member and by Rule 88 (4) for naming and suspending a member, upon review, it was pointed out to me that the rule book in my possession appeared to be different from the rule book in possession of the media. That discovery aroused my curiosity and refreshed my memory that very early in my tenure as Speaker I was quoting from the rule of procedure in Parliament handed to me by the retired clerk and the member for Cat Island, Rum Cay and San Salvador made inquiries of the chair because the numbering of the rules quoted did not seem to match his rule book.

"Yesterday, I discovered three versions of the 2005 Rules of Procedure of the honourable House of Assembly. The books have different numbering for the rules and some books have more numbered rules than others. Time did not permit discovery of whether there are substantial material changes and whether the rules committee had met since 2005 and authorised the apparent changes.

"I just need to know how in the retired clerk's perfect world of flawless administration and offering accurate, correct and apolitical advice to my predecessors did the Parliament end up with multiple distinctly different printed and published versions of the rules of procedures."

He added: "So as not to be accused again of ambushing anyone with the truth, these suspicious circumstances resulting from simple observational analysis, has prompted the Speaker to order an enquiry into the meetings of the rules committee, the instructions given for reprinting of the rules, and the source of the authority for the apparent and actual manifested differences in the published versions of the rules. This enquiry will cover the period 2003 through 2017. Perhaps the retired clerk of Parliament should be more concerned with bringing clarity to this matter as opposed to being seemingly absorbed with the hope that the institution fail in his absence."