Manning had no concerns about Section 34 -Chief Whip Marlene McDonald

(Trinidad Express) PNM San Fernando East MP Patrick Manning never informed Chief Whip Marlene McDonald, the PNM caucus or the Parliament that he had any concerns about Section 34 of the Administration of Justice (Indictable Proceedings) bill.

McDonald made the comment in response to Manning’s statement that he would have defied the party whip and not voted for the bill had he been in the Parliament during the vote.

Former prime minister Manning had issued a news release last Tuesday stating that he was not present when the vote on the bill was taken and would never have voted for it, had he been there at that time.

“My position would have been completely different from the rest of the Parliament, including my own party colleagues. They said ‘yes’. I would have said ‘no’,” stated Manning.

In response, McDonald pointed out that Manning was present for the debate on the bill but chose to say nothing.

There was a debate on the legislation on two separate occasions, she noted, on Novem-ber 18, 2011, when the bill was debated and passed, and on December 9 last year, when the amendments made by the Senate to the bill came to the House of Represent-atives for approval. On both occasions, Manning remained silent, said McDonald.

But even before debate began, the bill was tabled in the Parliament on November 11 and Manning could have raised his concerns with his party at that stage, she said.

“Mr Manning has never attended any of the caucus meetings of the PNM since the party lost office in May 2010. Mr Manning was privy to the bill since November 11 (when it was laid) and had an opportunity to read the bill, to understand it and if he had any problems or concerns he could have called me.

“Mr Manning has (in the past) called me (as Chief Whip) for all sorts of things. But he never indicated to me as the Chief Whip that he had any concerns. He had an option to speak against the clause as any parliamentarian had, during the debate…not once (on November 18), but twice (when the Senate amendments came to the House) on December 9. He chose not to. He could have voted against the bill on November 18 and then again on December 9. He did not do so. Why?” McDonald asked.

Manning was absent when the vote on the bill was taken. McDonald said this was because Manning, since losing office in 2010, has generally left the Parliament at the tea break at 4.30 p.m.

“I know this because he always comes and informs me and seeks my consent to leave. So Mr Manning might not have been privy to the entire debate,” she said.

McDonald said Manning, as all parliamentarians, had a responsibility.

“When the House goes until 11, 12 in the night, one o’clock, two o’clock, three o’clock in the morning, Mr Manning is not there with us.

“As Chief Whip, I can say we voted for the bill, based on the assurances given by the Government–that proclamation would come further down the road, after the laying of the Criminal Procedure Rules, the recruitment of Masters of the High Court and the construction of four new judicial centres. What we did wrong was to take the Government’s word. Nobody knew what this Government would have done,” she said.

On the issue of Schedule 6, McDonald said one did not need Parliament to add new offences to it, since the Minister could have added the white collar crimes to it and by negative resolution it would have become law.