Patterson (left) and Seaga
Balford Henry, Senior Parliamentary Reporter
TWO issues dominated Parliament during 2000: Corruption and the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ).
Certainly there were others appealing to various tastes, but these topics appealed to all and, during the year, they triggered the most discerning debates, heated exchanges and noisy uproars inside the Chamber, sometimes overflowing into the public in the gallery.
These lesser matters included: The Montego Bay Street People issue; The Telecom-munications Bill; and, a variety of criminal justice reform measures brought to Parliament by the Minister of National Security and Justice K.D. Knight.
But, as stated initially, it was the question of corruption, as well the Government's intention to take Jamaica into the Caribbean Court without an indicative referendum, which claimed the spotlight during the year.
The issue of corruption was actually a carry-over from the previous year's Budget, when Opposition Spokesman on Finance Audley Shaw revealed breaches in Government's pay policy as it concerned certain senior public servants.
The issue is still in vogue. At the Public Accounts Committee hearings this year, it was revealed that the public officers involved had refused to accept the roll back in salaries suggested by Ambassador Herbert Walker. They said that their contracts were backed by the force of law.
Mr. Shaw persisted with his onslaught this year during his Budget contribution, raising the issue of Government consultants, especially in the banking sector, earning above normal salaries. However, this was not met with half as much public emotion as the previous matter and actually fizzled out. But that did not deter the Opposition spokesman's probes.
He moved on to the question of the award of contracts, especially those handled by the Provident Societies, mainly in terms of low cost housing, as well as by the Government itself, where he detected widescale granting of contracts on a consistent basis to known PNP activists.
Mr. Shaw questioned the by-passing of the National Contracts Commission, in the awarding of the contracts, as was the case with the awarding of the furnishing contract for the new Ministry of Finance and Planning building at National Heroes Circle. He suggested that the Government take the auditor-general's advice that proper procedures be followed in terms of all contract involving public funds.
Mr. Shaw's latest issue, that of English Sports Information Processors Limited/Jamaica Call Centres Limited, has raised a serious matter in terms of Government's consistency in policy.
Contract debate
In November, the House debated a report from Con-tractor-General Derrick McKoy, deploring the manner of awarding a contract for furnishing a new Ministry of Finance and Planning building. Minis-ter of Finance and Planning, Dr. Omar Davies, defended the policy of barring companies from receiving Government contracts, after they have breached treasury laws. This was accepted by the Oppo-sition. The only question left hanging was, for how long would they be barred? Dr. Davies suggested that the Op-position and the Government get together to discuss the issue.
Well, everyone thought that was that, but earlier this month, with the issue of English Sports' acquisition of US$1.5 million in Government funds, Mr. Shaw revealed, albeit outside Parliament, that the company was delinquent in paying over at least $5 million in statutory deductions withdrawn from its employees' pay more than two years ago.
We are assured that the corruption issue will not leave us soon and will be again on the agenda immediately the House resumes next month. Mr. Shaw has already tabled questions in the House, asking Minister of Industry, Commerce and Technology, Phillip Paulwell, to explain the terms and conditions of that loan and we can expect another battle royal over his responses.
It is fair to say, however, that despite the constant taint of corruption, Prime Minister P.J. Patterson has made some genuine attempts to deal with the matter. There is some cynicism about how effective his measures will be, but there is no doubt that he genuinely wants to, at least, reduce the perception of corruption. In November, he made his most decisive move in a statement in the House, in which he revealed a number of new measures.
He not only encouraged speeding up the process of having the National Contracts Commission in place to handle the award of Government contracts, but he also agreed to expedite the then dormant Corruption Prevention Act, by removing the controversial "muzzle" clauses, opposed by the media. He explained though that removing the clauses didn't mean a "free hunting season" for the media, as there were still sanctions in other Acts.
He also promised legislation to give the Corruption Prevention Commission, which is to be appointed under that Act, coverage over Parliamen-tarians in addition to civil servants. He also promised a "strong and well trained investigative agency" with police powers to work with the Commission.
Mr. Patterson also quickly moved to disband a police investigative unit headed by a civilian, Roderick "Jimmy" McGregor, which had been accused of illegal wiretapping and promised legislation outlawing this type of action.
Fulfilled promises
He did fulfil nearly all of these promises: The Corrup-tion Prevention Act was passed; a Bill amending the Parlia-mentm (Integrity of Members) Act was passed bringing the Parliamentarians under the coverage of the Corruption Prevention Commission, as well as the Integrity Commission, and allowing the Commission to refer matters to Director of Public Prosecutions and Parliamentary Leaders to refer them to the House's Privileges Committee.
Also, the Wiretap Bill, officially titled The Interception of Communications Act, with maximum fines for breaches of $5 million, was tabled. It requires the police to seek the permission of the court to wiretap citizens' telephones.
However, Mr. Patterson failed to deliver on one promise which had left ears perked since November. This was his undertaking to table the report from the Integrity Commission, naming the Parliamentarians who had failed to submit their annual declaration of assets. His explanation was that the tenure of the Commission had ended in November and he had to await the appointment of a new Commission by the Governor- General, before the report could be issued.
He warned the Parliamenta-rians that those who had not yet submitted their declarations should do so in the meantime. Although their names would still be included in the latest report, which is already drafted, they would have an explanation of late declaration.
Opposition Leader Edward Seaga was not too pleased with the Prime Minister's remedies. He suggested that they were not only inadequate, but were aimed at "distracting the anger of the people."
Mr. Seaga also suggested that the Prime Minister, instead of utilising so much of the country's energy on the issue of the CCJ should, instead, concentrate on more pressing problems like crime and education.
A resolution moved by Mr. Patterson seeking the House's approval of the establishment of the CCJ was the basis of the discussions in the House, as was the case with a similar resolution tabled in the Senate by Attorney-General A.J. Nichol-son.
Mr. Patterson insisted that he would not agree to an indicative referendum to decide whether the court should replace the English Privy Council. But, he was agreeable to a referendum to entrench the CCJ in the Constitution two or more years from now.
Despite the strong Oppo-sition from the Jamaica Labour Party (JLP), supported outside of the House by several civic groups including Jamaicans For Justice and the Bar Association, the People's National Party (PNP) used its majority in the House of Representatives to win the vote on the resolution by 24 to seven.
The Government did the same thing in the Senate, except that they came embarrassingly close to needing the vote of Senate President, Senator Syringa Marshall-Burnett, to decide a divide on a Motion from the Leader of Opposition Business, Senator Oswald Harding, subjecting the approval to a referendum.
All 10 PNP Senators voted against Senator Oswald Hard-ing's resolution, while the two Independents, Senators Douglas Orane and Trevor Munroe, sided with the Opposition. The result was 10 for and nine against, but one JLP senator, Anthony Johnson, was absent. The Independents abstained on the vote on Senator Nicholson's resolution which the Govern-ment won 10 to seven.
The issue will be prolonged into the next legislative area, as a number of other pieces of legislation relative to the formation of the Court are to be brought to the Parliament by the Prime Minister.
Street people scandal
Another issue of significance during the year concerned the Montego Bay street people. Encouraged by the human rights group, Jamaicans for Justice, Opposition Members pushed for a Commission of Enquiry into the issue. Prime Minister P.J. Patterson fought off the challenge for as long as he could, but was eventually forced to relent and name a Commission.
When the Commission's report came to Parliament, the Opposition would be just as disappointed as JFJ, as it failed to point a finger in terms of who was responsible and should be punished for the regrettable act of transporting the street people to St. Elizabeth to dump them.
Opposition Member of Parliament Olivia Grange pushed for a debate on the report, but despite the discouragement of the Government MPs, Leader of Government Business, Dr. Peter Phillips, suggested that Miss Grange was "labouring under the misconception" that there was a requirement for debating reports from Commissions of Enquiry tabled in the House.
He said that the Government had given no commitment and, in any case, it would be out of keeping with the "spirit of the conduct of affairs of the House," to debate a judgment of a quasi-judicial body as a commission of enquiry, which could infringe upon the separateness of their activities.
The Gleaner reminded the Leader, however, that the Standing Orders allow any Member to propose, by way of a motion, any matter for debate in the House.
Speaker Violet Neilson and her deputy, O.T. Williams, delayed the tabling of the motion on two occasions. In the meantime, Jamaicans for Justice brought 17 of the street people to Parliament. They were denied entry by the police on the grounds that they could create behavioural problems and were not properly dressed. They were eventually allowed in, after the matter was raised in the Chamber by Mike Henry (JLP) and supported by Minister of National Security and Justice, K.D. Knight.
The Government relented, but by this time a similar motion, more favourable to the Government and the Commissioners, was tabled by Minister of Local Government, Youth and Community Development, Arnold Bertram, and given precedence. It was finally agreed to debate both motions at the same time.
During the period of delay, there were numerous uproars in the House, with heckles floating across the floor and even the public in the gallery joining in, in some instances.
Pivotal role
Mr. Knight, played a pivotal role in terms of legislation handled by the House during the year. He was responsible for about two-thirds of the Bills brought there during the year.
The most substantial were the Bills dealing with criminal justice. These included: the Family Property (Rights of Spouses) Act; the Criminal Justice (Reform) Act; the Offensive Weapons (Prohibi-tion) Act; and the Bail Act.
The Family Property (Rights of Spouses) Act is turning out to be a much more controversial issue that originally expected. The Bill seeks to change the current situation in which the laws do not allow for equitable division of property between spouses after divorce. It will also bring common law unions into the ambit of laws governing the division of property.
Ironically, it is being delayed by newer recommendations from bodies which should be wholeheartedly supporting the Bill, like the Bureau of Women's Affairs. The Bureau thinks that women have been unfairly treated in the past and, therefore, should be given affirmative action-type treatment in the Bill, to equalise with the men. It is still before a Joint Select Committee of Parliament, which hopes to have it passed before the end of the current annual session in March.
The Criminal Justice (Reform) Act, which was passed, expanded the range of non-custodial sentencing options available to the judges, including serving sentences in increments.
The Bail Act, still with a JSC, seeks primarily to ensure that persons who are arrested are able to be brought before a judge or a justice of the peace within 24 hours to decide on bail.
The Offensive Weapons Act seeks to make a number of weapons, including knives and daggers, illegal to be carried in public.
The Telecommunications Bill would probably have been the most controversial issue, after the CCJ, had it been substantially debated this year. But, the fact is that it was basically debated last year, although it was not passed until February of this year.
The Bill also triggered some emotional bouts between the Government and the Opposition. On one occasion, when the Government suggested that the Opposition should not have two "bites" at speaking on the Bill this year, its Leader, Edward Seaga, declared: "Nobody is going to silence us."
The Bill, which gave Cable & Wireless Jamaica Limited, a three-year monopoly on non-cellular telephone services was eventually passed through the strength of the Government's numbers in the House.
The Opposition at one stage threatened to take the Act to court to test its constitutionality.
The Senate played an important role in the debates on all these matters, especially through the independent Senators, both of whom gave very informed contributions to the various discussions. But, probably, the Senate will best be remembered this year for its approach to the fact that its members are not paid.
Senator Harding raised the issue during a debate on increased honoraria for members of the Integrity Commission. As he had done for the past 20 years, the senator suggested that it was unfair that while others were paid for their services to the country, Senators were not even reimbursed for many of their expenses.
He was supported by Senator Burchell Whiteman, Minister of Education, who felt that the matter should be taken up with the Government at some stage and probably be aired next year.
