Ken Jones, Contributor

Jones

It is tax-gathering time again and the pressured payers are hearing that some privileged parliamentarians are to suffer a pruning of their precious perquisites. It is said that those who get their housing free and have their utility bills and domestic services paid from the public purse will soon be required to find their own furniture, except for a 'fridge' to cool their comestibles and a stove on which to have their meals prepared.

If the Golding rule is in fact to be observed, it will be the first adverse amendment of a practice that has flourished and proliferated over the past 40-odd years. When Jamaica became politically independent, it was the view of the new rulers that respect was due and would be enhanced by living in the style and fashion set by the departing colonial masters.

This type of social mobility was legislated by and for politicians in 1964. According to Ministry Paper #30, signed by then Finance Minister Donald Sangster, a certain standard of accommodation was expected of ministers of government; and that it was the exception rather than the rule that Jamaican ministers could "afford appropriate residences from their own resources." The ministry paper also provided payment for "maids, gardeners and chauffeurs of ministers".

Maternity home

A year before, the Government had voted an initial £50,000 to build a prime minister's residence called Jamaica House. The then Opposition spoke strongly against the move, but only because Bustamante had refused Vale Royal as the PM's official home.

The PNP thought that if Vale Royal was good enough for the British colonial secretary, it should suffice for a Jamaican prime minister. In fact, that party had, in 1959, refurbished the building for such an eventuality. Busta disagreed, saying he had hoped to make it into a maternity home but had found it too small for the purpose.

Robert Lightbourne also rejected the Opposition's proposal. Making a snide remark about the refurbishing, he said: "Vale Royal was once a lovely old house, but with the addition of a few carbuncles, it has become a monstrosity."

The motion for building Jamaica House passed by 20 votes to 10 in 1963; but 10 years later, after all the expenses of construction and elaborate furnishing as the PM's official residence, the PNP came to office and gradually transformed it into offices. It has never again been used as a residence and succeeding prime ministers have opted for alternative accommodation, including their own private dwellings.

'Furniture scandal'

A high official in the Civil Service testifying at an investigation said: "Through the 1960s and 1970s and up to the late 1980s, there was not much demand for furnishing or furniture from ministers. But then we had elections in 1989 and the office was literally overwhelmed by suppliers. The first time we saw them was when they presented bills for goods supplied to residences. We were literally overwhelmed by these people."

A check revealed that, in 1989/90, the furniture bill for ministers was $3,253,000 as against the budget allocation of $600,000. In two years, the ministers spent $4.1 million against allocations totalling $1.2 million

Matters came to a head in 1991 when news broke about extravagances, which came to be known as the $11-million 'Furniture Scandal'. In this case, the auditor general revealed that ministers' free government houses were being lavishly furnished by the occupants at great public expense.

It had been suggested that $200,000 was a sufficient maximum, but ministers had generally ignored the guideline. One junior minister had billed the Government for $600,000 to furnish a three-bedroom townhouse at Poinciana Place in Kingston. A partial list of the items showed three mahogany bedroom sets (with side tables, dressers and desks), a dining table and chairs, a stove, a freezer, an occasional chair, a floor polisher, ceiling fans and an ironing board amounting to about $250,000.

Then Prime Minister Michael Manley was upset. On invitation, he visited the house to view the furnishings, called for the relevant files and then asked the police to investigate. It turned out that many costly items paid for were never delivered and this resulted in the arrest and conviction of the government employee responsible for the purchases.

In his defence, the minister said he had signed invoices for goods without examining them. He then asked to take unpaid leave of absence from his duties and later resumed, although a judge had declared that as an attorney, he should have been more careful in affixing his signature to documents. Then there was evidence that the house provided for the minister of finance had incurred an expenditure of over $820,000 for repairs and furnishing, including a satellite dish bought without prior approval.

Upgrade

This was supplied by a former PNP candidate who claimed that the minister was blameless since it was he, the supplier, who had persuaded the minister of the need to upgrade his surroundings with teletronic devices. Obviously, the system for protecting the public purse was frequently and blatantly ignored, particularly by a political directorate that did nothing to repair the damage or to prevent future abuses.

A former prime minister, Edward Seaga, once promised that in the future " ... a JLP Government would not provide houses for Government ministers. A state allowance would be paid to each one and he or she would have to make his or her own arrangements ... " Sounds harsh.

And now, the Golding rule: Ministers must find their own furniture. Sounds tough. But somewhere between these two positions, there must be a fair and satisfactory solution. The multibillion-dollar question is: What does the Opposition, still bitter about the pruning of the pensions, have to say about the pruning of the perks?