MP Darryl York: “Is it integrity when it is convenient, or integrity at all times?”

GREAT BAY--Member of Parliament Darryl York has questioned the move to bring Parliament into what he described as an internal dispute between Prime Minister Dr. Luc Mercelina and Minister of Public Health, Social Development and Labor Richinel Brug, stating that Parliament is being asked to consider serious political consequences without all members having access to the same proof.

Speaking during a public meeting of Parliament on Monday, MP York said the Prime Minister accused Minister Brug of making serious allegations without proof, but then, in York’s view, proceeded to do the same by outlining accusations without presenting the supporting documents to Parliament.

“The Prime Minister is doing the exact same thing he accused the Minister of doing,” York said. “Laying allegations irresponsibly without proof.”

York said he was not dismissing the possibility that the Prime Minister’s claims may be true. However, he said if serious allegations are made on the floor of Parliament, especially allegations that could lead to the removal of a Minister, then the evidence must be placed before Parliament in a proper manner.

He said the situation is especially troubling because a motion is reportedly expected against the Minister of VSA, while many Members of Parliament have not yet seen all relevant documentation.

“One minute we are told to mind our business, and then we are asked to vote on something before we receive any proof from Minister Brug and before we receive any proof from the Prime Minister himself,” York said.

MP York also criticized the URSM board’s handling of the matter, noting that when the issue first became public after the Minister’s Chief of Staff was denied access to the Government Administration Building, Members of Parliament were told it was an internal party matter. He said it is contradictory for the same matter to now be brought before Parliament for political action.

“The same board found it fit to go public and tell us Members of Parliament to mind our business and that it was an internal matter,” York said. “But yet they are coming to Parliament now for Parliament to vote to get rid of the Minister. Make it make sense.”

York said much of what is now being raised was already discussed in Parliament last year during meetings concerning the Mental Health Foundation project. He said questions were asked at that time about the master schedule, technical assistance, the terms of reference and the rumored monthly consultancy amount, but coalition members did not raise integrity objections then.

“Is it integrity when it is convenient, or integrity at all times?” York asked.

The MP said he had previously stated, and continues to state, that he does not agree with what Minister Brug did. However, he said the issue must be handled consistently and not selectively.

“I do not have an issue saying Minister Brug is correct or Minister Brug is wrong. I stated it then, I stated it when he was in Parliament the other day, and I state it again: I do not agree with what the Minister did,” York said.

At the same time, York said the Prime Minister must also answer questions about his own conduct and the broader functioning of government. He questioned whether the Prime Minister’s involvement in VSA-related matters, particularly the Healthcare Professional Registry and the Mental Health Foundation project, blurred the line between coordination and interference.

York said he understood the Prime Minister’s explanation that the healthcare registry was a project he had long worked on before becoming Prime Minister. However, he argued that if the Prime Minister wanted direct control over health-related legislation and policy, he could have taken responsibility for the VSA portfolio.

“If the Prime Minister cares so much about all things medical, then the Prime Minister should have become the Minister of VSA and let someone else be Prime Minister, instead of still wanting to meddle with it,” York said.

York also asked in what capacity the husband of the Minister’s Chief of Staff attended construction-related meetings connected to the Mental Health Foundation. He said Parliament needs clarity on whether the individual was present as a representative of VSA, SZV or another entity.

The MP further questioned whether persons connected to the URSM board have received contracts, assignments or positions through the Prime Minister’s Cabinet. He asked the Prime Minister to disclose who, if anyone, from the URSM board has been contracted, how much they are being paid, what assignments they received, and whether a terms of reference or vacancy was published.

“The people need to know because we hear discussions about nepotism and favoritism and all these things,” York said.

York said concerns about conflicts of interest and procurement cannot be applied to one Minister while being ignored elsewhere in the same government. He said contracts involving persons connected to political appointees or their relatives have reportedly occurred in other ministries as well.

“Rule for one, rule for all,” York said. “If you are going to send one home, then everybody has to go home, because more than one person is doing it.”

The MP also pointed to what he described as unresolved matters within the Ministry of General Affairs, including legal affairs, civil servant indexation, jubilee payments, GEBE matters and the promised household subsidy. He questioned why the Prime Minister was heavily involved in another ministry while important matters in his own portfolio remain unresolved.

“All these things are pending, Madam Chair, but the Prime Minister sees it fit to help another Ministry in their endeavors when his ministries are in shambles,” York said.

York said Parliament has more urgent national matters to address, including revenue generation, government expenditures, traffic, infrastructure and other concerns affecting residents directly. Instead, he said Parliament has spent hours debating internal coalition issues.

“We spent four hours discussing internal issues, and the Council of Ministers is coming to Parliament for Parliament to solve a Council of Ministers problem,” he said.

York said the matter has now reached a point where the public must ask whether the issue is truly about integrity, governance and public service, or whether it is about political disagreements and egos.

“Is it about egos? Is it about, I cannot work with you? Or is it about whether you can do a good job for the country?” York asked. “Because ego is going above country right now.”

He concluded by repeating that if integrity standards are to be applied, they must be applied across the board to all Ministers and all government actions, not only when politically convenient.

“It cannot be that today it is an integrity issue, but for every other Minister, just because it is convenient, it is okay,” York said. “If these things were brought up last year, during that Mental Health Foundation meeting, I would have had nothing to tell the coalition right now. But to see that 75 to 80 percent of what is being discussed today was already discussed in a designated meeting called for that last year, and no one said anything, do not waste my time now.”

‍