Recently, the Senate debated a Private Member's Motion moved by Senator Subhas Ramkhelawan on how to make Parliament more efficient. The debate produced some interesting comments from Senators. However, the issue of making Parliament more effective may have more to do with the public's perception of Parliament, than the ways in which parliamentarians may seek to handle their internal affairs. One of the matters raised by Senator Ramkhelawan was the question of having benchmarks for the measurement of the accomplishment of a government's legislative agenda. Ever since the Throne Speech fell into disuse after the opening of the 1971 Parliament by Governor-General, Sir Solomon Hochoy, which was followed by the change to a republican status in 1976 when the new President Ellis Clarke read out a legislative agenda at the opening of Parliament on September 24, 1976, there has been no such item by which to measure performance.
The Throne Speech (which has its roots in our monarchical past) is not an item on the parliamentary agenda and so it is difficult to measure any levels of accomplishment by any Government in relation to their legislative agenda. In the United Kingdom, there is usually a ceremonial opening of Parliament in the autumn every year or right after a general election where Her Majesty the Queen will ride in state from Buckingham Palace to the Palace at Westminster to deliver what is called the Gracious Address from the Throne. This is delivered in the House of Lords and, by convention, the Prime Minister and other members of the House of Commons stand at the bar of the House of Lords to listen.
The speech is written by the Prime Minister and read by the Queen on the basis of proposed action to be taken by "My Government." This is a clear reference to Her Majesty's Government against which there is Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition. After the Gracious Address is delivered it is debated in the House of Commons and the Government must get a majority vote in order to stay in office. In Trinidad and Tobago, the Throne Speech, as it has been called, has come to be regarded as a colonial anachronism and after the 1970 uprising it was used only in 1971 and not for any of the remaining sessions of that Parliament which stood dissolved in 1976. The new republican Parliament in 1976 had the new President referring to "My Government" and there was a debate on the Speech afterwards.
However, successive Presidents have used the occasion of the State opening of Parliament to bring greetings or to make their own pronouncements about national issues. The Prime Minister no longer writes a speech for the Head of State and there is no legislative agenda laid out for the information of parliamentarians or the public. This will require some attention if such benchmarks are deemed to be appropriate for the measurement of parliamentary business. Another area of concern has to do with the special departmental committees. In 1998/99, the six "wise men" came out in open disagreement with the proposal to have parliamentary committees scrutinise Service Commissions and other government agencies and departments.
A casual reading of the newspapers at that time would lead one to believe that a dictatorship was bout to be set up. More than a decade later, the public can see their MPs openly questioning public officials about their performance. This is a welcome move in the direction of transparent government, however, the political demands of the parliamentary system are such that any strategy of deliberate absenteeism by one side or the other could cause these committees to lose their quorum and thereby scuttle any sitting of these committees. Additionally, these committees should not have government ministers on them as it can blur the line between the separation of powers where parliamentary scrutiny of the Executive is concerned.
In the Westminster system in the United Kingdom, there are hundreds of MPs available for service on such committees. In small Parliaments such as ours, the issue of numbers is a real challenge. Parliament can be made more effective if these committees were to be given more resources and their membership appropriately adjusted to exclude ministers. The vexing issue of the quorum ought to be addressed whereby it would become more difficult for any group of persons to undermine the sittings of the committees if they were so minded. As far as Parliament is concerned, there is the question of whether the Senate will get its own chamber. Our two-chamber Parliament operates on the basis of the two Houses of Parliament sharing one chamber.
This matter is a long standing one and with the prolonged Red House renovations underway and the Red House no longer going to be used for the Office of the Prime Minister, one hopes that the Senate will get its own home and our Parliament will move up several notches of functionality in the process. Such a move would allow for the House of Representatives and the Senate to sit simultaneously and also to have more sittings per week to address the people's business. More will be said on this topic on future occasions.