Ottley, Lewis, Irion, Lacroes: Motion pointed to communication gaps, leadership expectations

GREAT BAY--During the vote motivation segment of today’s parliamentary meeting, four Members of Parliament, Omar Ottley, Lyndon Lewis, Ardwell Irion, and Francisco Lacroes, provided their reasons for voting in favor of the motion of disapproval against Prime Minister Luc Mereclina connected to the government’s handling of the Fire Department matter.

Although each MP approached the issue differently, their statements converged on several themes: frustration about how information and communication have flowed, concern that the matter has reached a level that requires clearer direction, and insistence that Parliament’s role includes applying pressure when essential services and public safety are at stake.

MP Omar Ottley

Ottley stated that his full support for the motion of disapproval was his way of saying he does not approve of how the situation is being handled, and he argued that things could be approached differently. He focused heavily on what he described as a lack of communication, and he pointed to an inconsistency he said he observed between the Prime Minister’s remarks and the language in what he characterized as the latest letter. In Ottley’s framing, the public heard that commitments had been made, yet he said the written communication suggested that no commitment could be made, and he argued that those “lines” need to be filled in.

Ottley said the motion was meant to apply pressure and inject urgency, adding that even if it did not pass, the fact that it was presented should “put a fire under your foot” and move the process forward. His motivation positioned the motion as a tool to demand clearer direction and firmer execution, particularly because the dispute involves essential services that affect safety and public confidence.

MP Lyndon Lewis

Lewis emphasized that he was motivated by direct exposure to the concerns of Fire Department personnel and union representatives, including engagement beyond the parliamentary setting. He said that as a one-person faction he has had to make his own determination, and that his decision was not about whether he and the Prime Minister are “friends,” but about the country’s business and how it is handled.

Lewis characterized a motion of disapproval as distinct from a no-confidence measure, describing it in practical terms as similar to a warning letter, a signal that the situation requires a different approach and stronger attention to the public interest. He stressed that people come first, and he argued that accountability includes not only what is said but also how actions are carried out. He also stated that Fire Department personnel present last week felt they did not have the support of their Prime Minister, and he framed his vote as part of Parliament’s duty to ensure the Prime Minister and cabinet remain accountable and that frontline workers receive full support and respect.

MP Ardwell Irion

Irion grounded his support for the motion in what he described as the position and frustration of the Fire Department personnel and the union, stating that their dissatisfaction is a key driver of why the matter has reached Parliament in this way. He rejected the idea that the motion was simply political theater, and he argued that the call for action is coming from the workers and their representatives, not from MPs inventing a crisis.

He presented his vote as a message of performance expectations, summarizing the intent as a push to “do better.” In his remarks, he also took issue with arguments that similar parliamentary tools would be dismissed as useless, maintaining instead that the motion reflects a demand for improved handling and a stronger push toward resolution, consistent with the concerns being raised by those closest to the dispute.

MP Francisco Lacroes

Lacroes supported the motion while delivering using a medical analogy to argue that leadership must present and execute a clear plan. He outlined what he said is the proper procedure for handling a patient: starting with an intake conversation to understand the problem, moving to technical examination, then diagnosis, and finally a treatment plan. In his view, this is what is required in the Fire Department dispute, and he argued the country needs a clear plan of approach to get the matter under control.

He stated that the Prime Minister has had significant time to establish that plan and warned that delaying the situation further risks serious consequences at times when emergency services are needed most. Lacroes said he expected a more direct effort to open communication and de-escalate after it became clear a motion was being brought forward, and he criticized what he described as an unsatisfactory response. He framed the matter as frightening when viewed through the lens of real-life emergency risk, and he said that is why he supported the motion.

‍