The Speaker is in order

Mar 19, 2022 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

---

Kaieteur News – The Speaker of the National Assembly is perfectly in order to disallow or amend certain clauses of an Opposition member’s motion concerning the need for adequate insurance coverage for local petroleum-related operations. The motion in question is highly flawed.
The Opposition has to be more careful when submitting its motions. Poorly worded motions are not going to pass muster and will either be rejected or amended.
Apart from adhering to the nine requirements for admissibility of motions, the motions themselves must be subject to other requirements. In addition, the Standing Orders of the National Assembly confer on the Speaker the authority to either inform the submitting member that the motion is flawed or to instruct alterations.
A motion is essentially a proposition which is presented to the Assembly for discussion, or debate, or for the House to express an opinion or a decision. It is usually presented in the name of a member of the National Assembly.
As was reported in this newspaper in its edition of March 16th, 2022, a member of the National Assembly submitted a motion calling for the Government of Guyana to include full unlimited liability coverage for oil spills and other disasters related to local petroleum operations. The motion, reportedly, also called for an independent analysis of the effects of an oil spill, and for its findings to be sent to the Parliamentary Committee on Natural Resources.
According to that the newspaper report, as many as 13 clauses of that motion were deemed to have been defective and thus disallowed. Preamble clauses form the limbs upon which a motion is predicated, and if these are defective, then they can render the motion inoperable.
According to newspaper article, the Speaker pointed out that 13 clauses in the preamble of the motion were disallowed and requested that evidence be provided to substantiate the accuracy of the contentions being made in those clauses. Let us therefore examine some of these clauses.
The second clause is reported to have read: “Whereas worldwide offshore oil production operations show a high likelihood of an oil spill occurring offshore Guyana, and that such likelihood of a spill increases exponentially with the rapid increase in offshore production activities.”
Oil spills are not regular occurrences and therefore it is far from accurate to state that offshore oil production activities indicate a high likelihood of an oil spill occurring offshore. That clause should have merely indicated that the possibility of an oil spill cannot be ruled out.
Another clause in the preamble was reported to have stated that the clean-up of an oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico cost US$70B. There however is a difference between the clean-up costs and the long-term economic cost. Reports in the foreign media are that the US$71B spent thus far includes both the cost of the clean-up (estimated at US$20B) and the cost of economic compensation.
Sometimes all it takes is the use of the wrong word or phrase to render a clause defective. For example, one of the clauses which was disallowed states that: “Whereas a major oil spill offshore Guyana would result in the environmental devastation of Guyana and its neighbouring countries, obliteration of the areas fishing industry, aquatic vegetation, and economic bankruptcy, including possible lawsuits from neighbouring countries.” The use of ‘could’ instead of ‘would’ would have been better advised because not all oil spills will lead to the serious devastation and economic effects. A very small oil spill can have only minimal effects depending on the size and location of the spill.
It would have also been much better if that particular clause was worded to simply state that an oil spill could have major economic, social and environmental impacts. The more substantive cases about it leading to economic bankruptcy could have been left for the debate on the motion.
Words can get in the way of motion. The PPP once introduced a motion in the National Assembly calling for a COI into the assassination of Dr. Walter Rodney.
There was amendment proposed by the then Opposition against the use of the word assassination since it was stating a conclusion. The PPP created history when it abstained from its own motion after the wording had been amended to instead call for a COI to look into the circumstances of his death.
That case illustrated the importance of paying keen attention to the wording of motion. This is necessary to ensure accuracy and, non-prejudicial language.
In the present case, the Speaker has done the correct thing. The motion should be corrected and resent.
(The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of this newspaper.)

---

---