Seaga said the JLP had fundamental problems with the Bill. Phillips, right, is concerned that the Opposition was at this late stage raising concerns.
Vernon Daley, Staff Reporter
LAST WEEK Opposition Leader Edward Seaga and his Jamaica Labour Party (JLP) forced the Government to suspend debate on the Charter of Rights Bill in the House of Representatives.
Mr. Seaga said the JLP had "fundamental" problems with the Bill, which is to replace Chapter III of the Jamaican Constitution dealing with the rights and freedoms of citizens.
Both the Government and Opposition are now to have further discussions on the Bill which will include consultations with civic groups and individuals who have also expressed some concerns about the proposed legislation.
There is nothing wrong with dialogue on an issue that is so crucial but the situation shows up a deficiency in the parliamentary committee system.
Too often matters which go before these committees have to be further discussed after the committees have met, argued the issues, and sent their reports to Parliament for consideration.
The Charter of Rights Bill, for example, has been before a joint select committee since 1999. The committee, which includes both Government and Opposition Members, had 24 meetings over the period. Members of the public as well as civic organisations were also invited to make submissions to the committee on the Bill.
However, even after extensive discussions, there were still "fundamental" issues unresolved. Well, wasn't the purpose of the committee to resolve these fundamental issues?
Speaking to reporters after last week's debate was suspended, Mr. Seaga did not specify the major concerns the JLP had with the Bill. However, he disclosed that his party would be consulting with civic groups to gauge their concerns.
Again, weren't these groups given a chance to participate in the deliberations of the committee? Why is it that we are now only hearing about these concerns several months after the report of the Joint Select Committee was tabled in the House?
There is nothing wrong with further discussions but more needs to be done to utilise the avenues of Parliament provided for ferreting out issues relating to legislation.
House Leader Dr. Peter Phillips, who also spoke with reporters after last week's debate was suspended, was justifiably concerned that the Opposition was at this late stage raising concerns about the Bill after it had gone through a parliamentary committee on which some of its members were represented.
Supporters of the People's National Party (PNP) suggested last week that Mr. Seaga was seeking to delay the passage of the Bill, so that he could claim authorship of it if the JLP comes to power later this year. On the other hand, JLP supporters claim that the PNP wants to rush the Bill to passage so that it can list it among its "solid achievements" in time for the general election due this year.
However, there is more here than straight politicking. Members of these committees as well as the public seem to be falling down on their responsibility to give the necessary attention to important matters that come before the committees for consideration.
There are far too many cases of parliamentarians from both sides of the House being selected for committees but not turning up for even one meeting. This level of absenteeism, which is very prevalent, diminishes the quality of debate.
Also, because of a shortage of parliamentary recorders at Gordon House, the minutes of meetings are not produced in good time. This makes it difficult for even parliamentarians who are regular attendees at meetings to keep track of decisions taken.
Also, there is seemingly not enough effort by committee members on both sides of the House to compromise on issues so there can be consensus on the reports they send to Parliament.
Another crucial area of the committee system which needs to be improved is the level of participation of the public. A number of civic groups do make their contributions on major pieces of legislation that come before the Parliament.
However, more of these groups and individuals need to get involved while matters are before the parliamentary committees. On numerous occasions, matters have had to be subjected to a new round of discussions because these groups fail to avail themselves of the opportunity to make their contributions while the committees are sitting.
It is only when Parliament is about to debate or sign off on major pieces of legislation that some of them seem to spring to life.
This PNP administration is more than deserving of the pummelling it has received from public commentators and political opponents for its stewardship of the country over the past 13 years.
Its human rights record is nothing to boast about; crime and violence have grown out of control under its watch; and the economy is far from full recovery, despite the insistence of Finance Minister Dr. Omar Davies that his macro-economic policies have put the country back on track.
However, despite these failings of this P.J. Patterson-led administration, there is one undeniable contribution that it has made to Jamaica and the development of its parliamentary democracy: that is the opening up of the Parliament to both the people and the press.
This is to be applauded, for it's critical to good governance, principles of transparency and accountability.
Before 1989, only sittings of the House and the Senate were open to the public and the press. The parliamentary committees, which play such a crucial role in fleshing out legislation and public issues, met behind closed doors.
The people were therefore locked out of hearing and participating in the early deliberations, that went into shaping legislation and government policies.
The Government, in one of its rare moments of clear thinking, decided to reverse that after returning to power in 1989. Now all the parliamentary committees are open to the public. The Standing Finance Committee, which is a committee of the entire House that reviews the Budget allocations, was the last to be open to the public. That was done last year.
Under this new dispensation of openness the public is not only allowed to observe the sittings of parliamentary committees, it is also invited to make contributions and recommendations on matters being discussed.
The parliamentary committee system provides a very useful forum for ironing out disagreements and concerns relating to legislation that come before Parliament for consideration.
However, there has to be a collective will to ensure that the system works. Parliamentarians need to take the work of committees more seriously than some of them currently do and the public needs to do more in presenting its views on issues before the committees.
