Hon Evans McNiel Rogers
Hon Othlyn O. Vanterpool
Hon Edison A. Baird
30 October 2013
Dear Mr Rogers, Mr Vanterpool and Mr Baird,
Thank you for your letter of 28 October and for taking the time to call on me on the same day, regarding the proceedings at the House of Assembly on 25 October 2013.
As you will appreciate, my primary concern in considering your letter has been to ensure the legality of the passing of the two pieces of legislation, the Fiscal Responsibility Act 2013, and the Eastern Caribbean Central Bank Agreement (Amendment) Act 2013. In reaching that judgement, I am of course guided by the Constitution, the relevant part of which is section 52:
Quorum
52. (1) If at any sitting of the Assembly a quorum is not present and any member of the Assembly who is present objects on that account to the transaction of business and, after such interval as may be prescribed in the rules of procedure of the Assembly, the person presiding at the sitting ascertains that a quorum is still not present, he shall adjourn the Assembly.
(2) For the purposes of this section a quorum shall consist of two-thirds of the members of the Assembly in addition to the person presiding.
As such, the Constitution does not specify that there must be a quorum for the business of the House of Assembly to continue, or be legitimate. Instead, it refers to the calculation of a quorum as only being applicable ‘for the purposes of this section’ (see section 52(2)). The lack of a quorum therefore does not invalidate the laws passed. For the absence of a quorum to affect the proceedings of the House, a member present must object to the transaction of business on account of the lack of a quorum. Section 52(1) is clear on that. There are no other provisions in the Constitution which deal with the transaction of business in the House of Assembly in the absence of a quorum. I am therefore of the view that the legislation was passed in a way that was both legal and legitimate. And so, as a matter of law, the legislation will now come to me in the usual way that would enable my assent.
Your letter also raises a number of issues relating to the Legislative Assembly (Procedure) Rules, 1976, and in particular the way in which Assembly Members are informed of meetings. It is not for me, as part of the Executive, to comment on the operations of the Assembly. Indeed, I suspect all Assembly Members would quickly join together in condemning a Governor who attempted to second-guess the way in which the elected legislature conducted its business. I would suggest that if you disagree with the Speaker’s application of the rules, you raise your concerns directly with her, along with any suggestions you may have for amendments to improve the Rules by which the Assembly conducts itself.
Finally, I was grateful for your reassurance on Monday, building on your previous statements in the Assembly, that you support the intentions of the Fiscal Responsibility Act 2013 to put into law the Framework for Fiscal Sustainability and Development. As we discussed, this is an important piece of legislation and underlines the commitment of the Government of Anguilla to delivering a prosperous and stable future for the people of Anguilla. It will help to ensure the implementation of sound and sustainable economic and financial principles to support economic development. That is an objective I am sure all sides of the House share, and on which I look forward to working with you all closely.
Yours sincerely,
Christina Scott
Cc: ExCo colleagues and members of the press
