BRIDGETOWN, Barbados, CMC – The Barbados government is moving to have the Speaker of the Parliament be elected from outside the chamber. Prime Minister Mia Mottley on Tuesday tabled constitutional and legislative amendments marking a significant shift in how parliamentary representation and ministerial accountability operate.
The measures are also intended to allow senators with ministerial roles to participate directly in House debates.
Mottley said that it is unfair to the Member of Parliament holding the position of Speaker not to be allowed a voice and to represent their constituents in the House.
But rather than follow the United Kingdom’s policy of preventing anyone from running against the Speaker in their constituency. At the same time, while they hold that office, the government has chosen to elect a person who is not a legislator to the apex role in Parliament.
“When we were reflecting as to which one should happen, it was the view of the government that the more palatable way for Barbados is not to argue that no one should run against the Speaker, because we will have a hard time trying to explain that in the context of our culture.
“But like other Caribbean islands, it was felt that we should move to a point where the Speaker can be elected from outside of the elected members. The Parliament will still elect the Speaker.”
Mottley said that if the government has the majority, it effectively gets to choose who the Speaker is, just as it will determine who the Speaker is in the current circumstances.
Mottley said that under the existing procedure, the current Speaker Arthur Holder, who is the parliamentary representative for St Michael Central, has not been able to participate in parliamentary debates to represent the interests of his constituents, placing him at a disadvantage compared with his fellow legislators.
She acknowledged that the majority of the Parliamentary Reform Commission preferred to maintain the status quo, but that her administration had instead supported the minority position.
“The Parliamentary Reform Commission felt that we should keep the status quo; the minority opinion felt that it should go. The government finds itself associated with the minority opinion because I have seen over 31 years in this chamber and three-and-a-half years in the other chamber, the extent to which it does put a serious hardship on speakers, because people feel you are not representing them, you are not speaking for them, and not hearing you talking about them. I don’t think it is fair, and as we move forward, this is one of the things that we would wish to do.”
Mottley also said the other reason for the amendments was to give those who sat in the Senate but held ministerial positions the “right of audience” in the House to address matters that directly related to their ministries.
“Those who sit in this House have the benefit of the majority of portfolios… [and are] expected to answer the questions. However, if you are debating a matter where, for example, the minister is in the Senate, in this instance, it might be the Ministry of Health.
“It might be the Ministry of Energy and Business. It might be the Ministry of Innovation, Science, and Technology. Take, for example, some of the bills currently before this honourable Parliament, such as the Human Transplant Bill.
“The Minister of Health does not sit in here. Now, we’re lucky that in this particular instance, we have a Minister of State in the Ministry of Health. But in the other two ministries, there is no representative inside this honourable chamber for them.”
“In such circumstances, the amendment would allow for these senators to attend Parliament and address the Lower House during debates on matters that impact their ministries,” Mottley said.
The government on Tuesday also tabled an amendment widening the range of constituency sizes, allowing the difference between constituencies to move from 80 to 120 per cent to avoid almost two-thirds of the constituency boundaries being significantly altered.
and then 