Speaker of the National Assembly Ralph Ramkarran on Thursday ruled that the government’s initial attempt to move the second reading of the Trade Union Recognition (Amendment) Bill was proper.
The bill initially came up for second reading on December 29, 2008, but it was deferred to allow Ramkarran to pronounce on a point of order raised by PNCR leader Robert Corbin. As a result, the second reading was delayed until Thursday, when the bill was passed despite a second round of calls by the opposition for a deferral after concerns that the umbrella union body, the Guyana Trades Union Congress, had not been sufficiently consulted.
Corbin’s initial objection was based on Standing Order 54 (2), which states that a bill should not be read a second time before the expiration of six days from the date of its publication in the Official Gazette and until it has been printed and circulated to MPs.
He argued that while the bill was first circulated to members on December 22, six days clear from the date scheduled for second reading, there had been two public holidays and a Sunday during that time. As a result, he said there had been less than six days between the first and second readings, thereby violating the Standing Orders. To support the argument, Corbin cited Section 40 of the Interpretation and General Clauses Act, which states that public holidays should not be reckoned in the computation of time.
However, PPP/C MP Anil Nandlall stated that Section 40 of the Interpretation and General Clauses Act related only to “written laws” and he argued that the Standing Orders therefore did not qualify.
Ramkarran held that Standing Order 54 (2) establishes that a bill is to be read in not less than six days. As a result, he said the issue was specifically within the ambit of Section 40 (d) (ii) of the Interpretation and General Clauses Act, which provides that within any time exceeding six days, public holidays shall not be reckoned so as to reduce the time to less than six days. “In the circumstances I do not agree with the point of order advanced by Mr Corbin and rule that the bill was properly before the National Assembly on December 29, 2008,” Ramkarran declared.
On Nandlall’s argument, Ramkarran noted that the Standing Orders can only be given effect to by a Motion which upon passage becomes a resolution.
He explained that having been passed in the National Assembly, it thus has legislative effect. In this regard, he said the Standing Orders were given effect by the very process in May, 2006 and therefore they do fall within the definition of “written laws.”
