Mark vows to protect senators from intimidation

SENATE President Wade Mark has ruled that he would take action against any entities which may harass, intimidate or attempt to shame senators for their statements and how they vote while in the Upper House.

Mark's ruling came at the start of the sitting on June 30 ahead of the debate on vote on the Prime Minister Pension (Amendment) Bill. While he did not say what triggered his warning, it came one day after UNC PRO Dr Kirk Meighoo called into question the impartiality of the Independent Bench during a press conference.

Mark said parliamentarians were constitutionally protected from external interference, giving them the freedom to speak, deliberate, and vote without fear or coercion. While he admitted that healthy criticism was expected in a functional democracy and it was acceptable to express disappointment over voting or policy outcomes, the recent statements were more severe.

"When words or actions cross the line into harassment, intimidation, or attempts to shame senators for how they vote or pressure them to vote in a particular way, that is something entirely different and it will not be tolerated.

"Such actions strike at the very heart of parliamentary democracy and may constitute a serious breach of privilege. They will not be taken lightly."

As such Mark warned that he and the House would "act firmly to protect the privileges, rights, and immunities of this Senate collectively and each senator individually."

He added: "That protection will be exercised to the full extent of the Senate’s authority and, if necessary, the appropriate avenues for redress will be pursued without hesitation."

Speaking at a June 29 conference at the party's Chaguanas headquarters, Meighoo called on independent senators to throw their support behind the Prime Minister's Pension (Amendment) Bill, which due to its retroactive implementation proposal, requires a three-fifths majority to pass in both houses.

That means four independent senators' votes were needed along with the government's for it to succeed in the Upper House.

The bill was passed in the House on June 27.

It was passed in the Senate on June 30. Five independent senators supported the bill.

The bill introduces a tier system for pension entitlements depending on the duration of service beginning with a minimum of one year, and retroactively implement it. It effectively prevents former prime minister Stuart Young, who served around 36 days in office, from receiving an annual pension of about one million dollars.

However, on June 29, Meighoo doubted if there were any truly independent senators in the Upper House.

He reasoned that the senators were appointed by President Christine Kangaloo, who he said was “a long-standing and deeply embedded figure within the PNM...

“How are the President’s senators going to vote? Will they vote as a group, as if they caucused, or of one mind? Will they stop the will of the people? Will they stop the bill?

"We need four, but if the President’s senators vote against the bill or cowardly abstain like the PNM did in the House of Representatives, then they will defeat the legislation and allow the PNM to continue to rape the treasury and the citizens and taxpayers even while in opposition."

Public Utilities Minister Barry Padarath and Public Service Association head Felisha Thomas also called for the Independent Bench to support the legislation.

Responding to Meighoo's claim, longest-serving Independent Senator Anthony Vieira told Newsday government should put forth strong arguments to get senators' support.

“If the government wants support from the Independent Bench, that’s easy – just give us cogent, compelling and persuasive arguments. Somehow I think that might work better than trying to demean and belittle us (even before the debate has started), or via veiled threats and attempts at intimidation.”

However, during his debate contribution, Vieira said government failed to convince him. Like opposition Senator Faris Al-Rawi and Independent Senator Candice Jones-Simmons, Vieira took issue with the proposal to retroactively implement the legislation.

"A pension vested under law is not a privilege subject to public opinion or to party manifesto. When clawback is driven by campaign promises or the majority sentiment, the retrospective provision becomes a political act, not a constitutionally valid one and that's a very serious issue," Vieira said.

The senators believed that part of the bill was more focused on preventing Young from accessing the pension than on functioning as general legislation.

Al-Rawi argued that the pension became Young's constitutional right immediately upon taking office and the amendment would infringe on that right and needed to be considered.

In piloting the motion in the Upper House, Minister of Planning, Economic Affairs and Development and former PNM finance minister Kennedy Swaratsingh warned that if the bill was not passed in its current form, taxpayers would immediately be on the hook for paying millions of dollars in pension entitlements to someone who served as prime minister for less than a year for the rest of their life.

"A prime minister who has served for one year and one who has served for ten years should not walk away with the same retirement package. A leader should be rewarded based on their length of tenure."