By SEAN DOUGLAS Friday, April 25 2008

MINISTER of Works and Transport Colm Imbert has evaded an Opposition move to send him to the Privileges Committee by apologising for incorrect statements he made last week in the House of Representatives.

Caroni Central MP Dr Hamza Rafeeq read a motion during sitting of the House of Representatives on Wednesday complaining that Imbert had last Friday claimed flashing amber lights had already been erected on the highway at Carlsen Field to remedy the high rate of accidents recently, but that Rafeeq himself had not seen such lights.

Rafeeq said Imbert had committed a contempt and a breach of the privileges of the House and moved that he be sent to the Privileges Committee.

Speaker Barry Sinanan said he would rule later.

At that, Imbert rose to explain his Ministry’s measures. Tenders were now being evaluated to build a walkover there between May and September, while warning signs and flashing lights have been installed and a maxi-taxi shuttle ferries residents across the highway.

He then explained errors in his own statement last week at which time he had said that warning lights had been installed in the Carlsen Field area. “However on looking at my speaking notes afterwards, I realised that this was not an accurate statement, since what I should have said was that these lights were in the process of being installed and would be operational shortly,” he explained.

He said next day he immediately faxed the Speaker to say he would correct his misstatement at the next House sitting.

“As I have indicated previously, the warning lights are now fully operational and I wish to stress, Mr Speaker, that it was not my intention to mislead this honourable House and I apologise for any misunderstanding that may have arisen”.

Government Members pounded their desks in support of Imbert, while Opposition MPs scoffed loudly but later told reporters they would drop the matter despite saying it was a “grave contempt” as defined by May’s.

Later Sinanan said Imbert had not deliberately sought to mislead the House and so was not guilty of contempt as defined in May’s Guide to Parliamentary Practice, and that his apology was what was expected of an honourable Member.

“It is an example worthy of emulation.”