THE PARLIAMENTARY debate on the Montego Bay street people scandal was an anti-climax. In that sense it was no more satisfying than the official Commission of Enquiry Report which was its main subject matter.
That it took place at all is commendable even though the initial reluctance suggested an ill-advised attempt to avoid the proper course. House Leader Peter Phillips had offered the spurious reasoning about a debate on the judgement of a quasi-judicial body infringing on the separateness of the judiciary from the parliamentary function.
We believe the Minister was persuaded by our reminder that the rules of the House permit debate on any matter except for certain constitutional exceptions relating to taxation and revenue.
As it turned out the original Opposition motion from Miss Olivia Grange was combined with one from Minister Arnold Bertram. It sparked a vigorous and rancorous debate which ranged from misgivings about the failure of the Enquiry to find the true culprits behind the scandal, to commitments about improving the welfare of street people.
In a letter to the Editor last week Dr. Carolyn Gomes, criticised severely the cut-and-thrust of the debate as "disgraceful behaviour". The liveliness, however, is quite normal in a forum which often behaves with decorum and great dignity; but it is also a cockpit of contention and dissent. As Winston Churchill once said, "To jaw-jaw is better than to war-war".
The more pertinent lament is that neither the forensic nor judicial processes could exorcise a scandal that shamed the nation.
The opinions on this page, except for the above, do not necessarily reflect the views of The Gleaner.
