THE GOVERNMENT seems to be dodging a parliamentary debate on the Report of the Commission of Enquiry into the Montego Bay Street People issue.
On October third, a Private Member's Motion from Olivia Grange (JLP, Central St. Catherine) seeking to have the Report debated, was ruled out of order by the Acting Speaker, O.T. Williams, who felt that it "imputed motives" to the Commissioners. He was supported by the House Leader, Dr. Peter Phillips, and other Government MPs.
Again on October 24, Miss Grange's motion was blocked by Speaker Violet Neilson, who said that she was not given enough time to read and approve it prior to the sitting.
However, a similar motion has now been tabled by Independent Senator, Dr. Trevor Munroe, in the Senate which means that non-Government members of both Houses are determined to have the Report debated.
An interesting comment from Dr. Phillips on October third in the House, reveals what seems to be the Government's position on the issue of debating the Report.
Dr. Phillips said that Miss Grange was "labouring under a misconception: There is no requirement that any report tabled in the Parliament be subject to debate. There was no commitment given by anyone that they would be subject to debate. In fact, I believe it would be out of keeping with the spirit of the conduct of the affairs of this House, for the House to debate a judgment by a quasi-judicial body such as that of a Commission of Enquiry. To do so would only infringe upon the separateness of the activities of the judiciary and quasi-judicial operations, on the one hand, and of the Parliament," he said.
Dr. Phillips should be reminded that under Standing Order 21 of the rules governing the business of the House "any member may propose by way of motion any matter for debate in the House". This is subject to Section 55 of the Constitution which sets out exceptions relating to taxation and revenues.
The Parliament ought not to restrict the right of its own members to debate a matter of such national importance.
The opinions on this page, except for the above, do not necessarily reflect the views of The Gleaner.
