To those who follow our parliamentary proceedings it must be obvious that each Parliament develops and therefore projects its own sort of collective image and signature. Possibly this is what former parliamentarian and founder-member of the PNM Kamaluddin Mohammed had in mind in a television interview about earlier parliamentary personalities when he opined that the quality of the debates on both sides was not up to par with earlier parliaments. There can be no doubt that there will be differences as people come and go, times change and political attitudes shift.

The current Parliament, like others before, obviously projects its own mixed bundle and perhaps one glaring element is the now entrenched responses to questions. Rarely are they ever answered when they first appear on the order paper, notwithstanding the elaborate procedure that requires prior vetting of the question, reference to the pertinent ministry, formal drafting of the answer and final approval by a cabinet committee.

While we accept that some questions require considerable research and careful drafting of answers, surely many can be answered promptly by reference to filed material. A case in point is the question regarding the salaries and allowances of Calder Hart from his several public appointments. Does it really require a two-week deferral?

But perhaps the other rather unsettling distraction of this Parliament is the question of the use of the Privileges Committee. All will acknowledge the importance of the parliamentary privilege of free speech, provided within bounds of its standing orders. But it seems now that media persons are being drawn into the net for what most will consider minor issues of reporting or commentary and it should not surprise parliamentarians that many will conclude that it is simply intimidation, a worrisome development in any democracy.

What exactly is the public to make of a summons to a news reader who does no more that present the evening TV news? Or Independent Senator Dana Seetahal? We expect that Ms Seetahal, an attorney by profession and a newspaper columnist, is more than able to defend herself before anyone.

On the other hand, the move with its political overtones, is supported by a textbook of parliamentary practice and an old colonial law. We therefore remind Neil Parsanlal, Minister of Information, and mover of the motion, that there is a Constitution with enshrined rights which he has sworn to uphold, the pertinent rights being the right to thought and expression and the right to press freedom. While Parliament may regulate its procedures it has no right whatsoever to attempt to intimidate or act against the media as long as there is no defamation. Fair comment is in order.