House standing orders committee takes briefing on modernised rules draft

The House Standing Orders Committee met on July 7 to begin formal scrutiny of a revised draft of the rules governing proceedings in the House of Representatives, with external consultant Sean Kinsey leading a virtual briefing on the changes and their rationale.

Kinsey, who has worked with the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and Jamaica’s Parliament over roughly the past year, told members the exercise forms part of a non-partisan modernisation project backed by a memorandum of understanding with the CPA. The current standing orders, first adopted in 1964 and amended piecemeal since, had become difficult to navigate, he said, with related provisions scattered and much reliance on informal practice.

The draft reorganises the rules into a clearer, numbered framework. Kinsey highlighted new opening provisions on purpose and scope, a systematic interpretation section, updated rules on suspension and amendment, and clearer treatment of the clerk’s duties, the speaker’s role, member interests, order and discipline, attendance, dress, language, technology, public access, voting, financial procedure and committees. He said the language has been simplified and modernised throughout, and that a comprehensive definitions section has been added at the end.

Committee chair noted that existing timelines and sanctions, including the rule requiring six consecutive absences within 21 days before attendance becomes a procedural issue, were left unchanged for now, leaving further adjustments to the committee.

Member Phillip Paulwell asked whether the draft departs significantly from Westminster practice and how courts treat parliamentary self-regulation. Kinsey said the work draws on best practice across Commonwealth jurisdictions, with particular inspiration from Trinidad and Tobago’s recent rewrite, while remaining anchored in Jamaica’s constitution and local practice. He stressed that the house retains constitutional power to regulate its own proceedings, subject to the constitution.

Debate also focused on suspension of standing orders. Members were told proposed standing order 41 repeats existing standing order 86, allowing one or more orders to be suspended on notice or with the speaker’s leave. Several members argued suspension is used too often and undermines certainty, especially on debate time limits.

Clause 25, a new sub judice provision, drew mixed views. Some members questioned whether it aligns with Jamaica’s separation-of-powers tradition and civil proceedings before judges; others said Parliament should clearly state how it will treat matters before the courts. Kinsey said the clause reflects standard Commonwealth practice but welcomed local legal scrutiny.

The committee corrected and adopted its minutes, agreed to release the draft to members for caucus review despite printing difficulties, and adjourned with plans to return for further work in the current parliamentary session. The speaker said other Commonwealth parliaments, including Trinidad and Tobago, have expressed interest in Jamaica’s draft once the process is complete.