By Lynford Simpson, Staff ReporterTHE ANNUAL Budget and Sectoral Debates in the House of Representatives normally run from late April to the end of July when the House breaks for summer.
As it happened last year, the Sectoral Debate was rushed, mostly because the sittings got off to late starts. At the end, the Wednesday sittings were probably close to being boycotted!
Like the previous year, some Members of Parliament again did not get the chance to make a contribution.
This, however, did not take away from the general good quality of the presentations which, in my estimation, were generally of a higher standard this year when compared to the last two years.
The majority of those who presented apparently took time out to do their research. There was the usual politicking on both sides of the House as is expected, especially in an election year. Very encouraging though were the numerous solutions to the country's problems offered by both Opposition and Government MPs, perhaps a sign that our politicians have begun to mature and are at last serious about putting country first.
Still, there were the disappointments. Some MPs would have been better off if they had not spoken.
Finance and Planning Minister Dr. Omar Davies, perhaps the man with the most difficult job after the Prime Minister, got the ball rolling on April 4 when he tabled a $210 billion Estimates of Expenditure for the 2002/2003 fiscal year. When he formally opened the Debate on April 18, he managed to keep his promise of no new taxes and in so doing avoided widespread criticism.
Prime Minister P.J. Patterson and Opposition Leader Edward Seaga both made solid, mature presentations. Their many years in Parliament, advancing years, and perhaps finally accepting that their time in politics is short, certainly guided their contributions. Both must now be thinking about their legacy. For his part, Mr. Seaga, even while lashing the Government for the country's financial woes which he said started in the early 1990s, offered workable solutions in a statesmanlike contribution.
Although he would never admit it, the Prime Minister's speech was written with an election in mind. The promise of 17 new schools for western Jamaica, a reduction in interest rates for National Housing Trust contributors and the expansion of the work programme for tertiary students speak to this fact. Aware of the battering his administration has taken over allegations of corruption, he wisely tabled a code of conduct for Government Ministers, one which he said they were obligated to uphold.
Mr. Seaga's proposed fast-tracking of US$106 million to irrigate 20,700 hectares of land which he said could yield at least an additional $6 billion in agricultural output should be taken seriously.
It was a mixed bag in terms of the standard of the presentations from the rest of those who spoke. Derrick Smith, Jamaica Labour Party (JLP) spokesman on National Security spoilt his. His decision to speak in the Budget Debate instead of the Sectoral Debate was a grave mistake. Much of what he said was not worth reporting. In fact, he did not offer much, if anything new. Perhaps next time, if he's still in Opposition, he will wait until the minister with portfolio responsibility speaks before making his presentation. As it turned out, Dr. Phillips made a superior contribution when he spoke in the Sectoral Debate where he outlined the Government's approach to tackling the crime problem.
Robert Pickersgill, Transport and Works Minister was also disappointing. As was expected, he boasted about the Government's accomplishment in its quest to create a modern road network; the ongoing modernisation/privatisation of the country's international airports among others. Nothing's wrong with that. Boast if you must. But, he failed to adequately address the Jamaica Urban Transit Company issue, weeks after a damning report from KPMG Peat Marwick painted the state-owned bus company as insolvent, and losing in excess of $3 million per day.
The Minister refused to answer questions posed by journalists at his post-Budget press briefing the following day. He prevented members of the JUTC mananagement who were present, from answering questions.
Dr. Donald Rhodd, East Portland MP, spoiled what was otherwise a beautiful presentation in which he outlined his vision for his parish and country. An excellent vision it is too: One where the family would again be the principal institution of socialisation; where every family had at least one permanently employed bread winner; every child is able to go to school up to university level; affordable health care for all; and a country where crime was at a minimal.
He spoilt it by his constant referrings to the Prime Minister and the party, which detracted from the presentation and made him look parochial. He must understand that there are ways other than the Sectoral Debate to let the Prime Minister know you are loyal to him.
Karl Samuda, JLP spokesman on Industry and Commerce was good. Without the benefit of a script he made a case for the strengthening of the economy through increased productivity.
On the other hand, Horace Clarke, PNP MP for Central St. Mary was a let down. Having indicated that he will not be seeking re-election, the man who has held several ministerial posts, used his final Sectoral presentation to laud himself. He resorted to reminding the House of all the things he ever implemented/accomplished at the different ministries, over many years. The party and the country would have been better served if he had offered some solutions on the way forward.He should have allowed someone else to sing his praises.
By contrast, Donald Buchanan, Water and Housing Minister was solid. Perhaps no minister before him has made it clear just how expensive an undertaking the provision of potable water is. He did when he pointed to the billions it would take. The decision to revamp the Operation PRIDE programme in the midst of controversy makes good political sense.
The 2002/2003 Budget and Sectoral Debates have come and gone. Still to come is a general election which is now merely weeks away. It is still left to be seen which MPs may have profited from their contribution to the different debates. Did they promise enough? Time will tell.
