This attorney lacks training in the field of Parliamentary matters

Dec 05, 2016 Letters

---

Dear Editor;
I wish to respond to a letter written by Mr. Maxwell Edwards, Attorney-at-Law, and published in KN 28th & 29th November 2016. Mr. Edwards’ letter is a response to mine in which I examined what responsibility, if any, does a Member of Parliament have to produce a document to which he refers during the course of a speech in the National Assembly.
My conclusion was that a Member of Parliament who is not a Minster is not obliged to produce a document to which he refers during the course of a speech in the National Assembly; that on the other hand a Minister must produce a document to which he refers in a speech in the National Assembly.
I did not arrive at these conclusions capriciously or vacuously. I consulted the Standing Orders and leading texts on Parliamentary Practices and Procedures in the United States of America, the Union of India and the United Kingdom. In my letter, I named these texts.
I see no sense in repeating the names here. Suffice it to say, that these authorities are predicated upon profound research, authored by highly qualified persons in the field and have withstood the test of longevity and critical scrutiny by millions who consult them. Indeed, they are regarded as the conclusive authority on Parliamentary matters in the respective jurisdictions.
Mr. Edwards takes umbrage to my aforesaid conclusions and expresses an agreement with the Speaker. While mine were based upon the venerable authorities to which I have referred, Mr. Edwards grounds his contention thus “My reasoned agreement is based on three grounds – fairness, illogicality and unwritten rules.”
He cites no authority in support of his contention. In short, Mr. Edwards is asking your readership to disregard the learnings propounded by those respectable authors and accept his ‘ipsit dixit’ on the matter. I say so with the greatest of respect because Mr. Edwards has no known training in the field of Parliamentary matters and he certainly did not allude to any, while he is entitled to an opinion on these matters every rational mind, will advise that his opinion must yield to those trained in the field. That is a fact of life.
Mr. Edwards may not be aware that our local Standing Orders provide that where it is silent of any matter, reference can be made to the Parliamentary Practices, Usages and Procedures of the House of Commons (UK), in force at the time, for guidance.
Erskine May’s Parliamentary Practice is regarded as the premier authority of what the Parliamentary Practices, Usages and Procedures of the House of Commons are, at any given time. Hence my heavy reliance on this text.
In the course of his letter, Mr. Edwards took vehement objections to the differential in obligation which devolves upon a Minister when he refers to a document in the course of his speech in the House and that of a Member who is not a Minister. In my letter I highlighted this difference with a direct quote from Erskine May’s.
Mr. Edwards castigates me for this differential in treatment, labelling me “Orwellian.” However, it was Erskine May’s, and not me who adumbrates the difference. Unfortunately for Mr. Edwards, one of the privileges of being the leading authority in any specific field is that the authority’s opinion declares and determines what the position is on any principle in that field. So Mr. Edwards’ opinion on the matter is of miniscule relevance or value, when compared with Erskine May’s.
Lastly, Mr. Edwards and I are clearly from different philosophical schools on the issue of freedom. I am of the view that a person is free to do anything unless prohibited from so doing by some known or recognized legitimate rule, regulation, order or law. On the other hand, Mr. Edwards believes in fettering freedom by his concept of “fairness, illogicality and unwritten rules.”
Applying my philosophy, I am free to refer to any document in the course of my speech in the House, without having the restriction of being obliged to produce that document unless some known or recognized and legitimate rule, regulation, order or law mandates me to do so. On the other hand, Mr. Edwards is of the view that although no known or recognized  legitimate rule, regulation, order or law obliges me to do so, I am still obliged to produce a document to which I refer in a speech in the House because according to him, his concept of “fairness, illogicality and unwritten rules” so dictate. I will never subscribe to such a philosophy.
It is inherently undemocratic. Freedom is too fundamental to modern civilization for it to rest upon such whimsical and capricious footing.
Mohabir Anil Nandlall, MP
Attorney-at-law

---

---