By Lynford Simpson, Parliamentary Reporter
I WAS shocked to hear some two weeks ago, a suggestion from the Privileges Committee of the House of Representatives that the media be barred from the next sitting of that committee.
I was equally shocked that Michael Peart, Speaker of the House, was seemingly insistent that the media be barred next time around. I expect far better from Mr. Peart who, in the eyes of some of my colleagues, has now come across as anti-media.
What was not surprising, and I'm going by what was written by The Gleaner reporter who covered the last sitting of the Privileges Committee, was the fact that it was O.T. Williams who first questioned the presence of the media at that sitting.
"Mr. Peart was supported in his view (that the media should be barred from the next sitting) by Deputy Speaker of the House, O.T. Williams, who had actually raised the issue of the media's presence at yesterday's committee meeting," said The Gleaner of May 1, 2003.
As far as I'm aware, the local media now cover most, if not all of the parliamentary committee, including the Standing Finance Committee, one of the last to be opened up. In fact, media houses are usually informed of upcoming meetings. So it was with the last sitting of the Privileges Committee - we were invited to attend.
If Mr. Williams is still upset with sections of the media for reporting on his public gaffe when he was sworn-in last November, following the General Election a month earlier, then I can understand why he would not want journalists near him. What I can't understand however, is how so many members of that committee, including some on the Opposition benches, could so readily welcome the suggestion to keep the media out when next they meet later this month.
Hats off to Olivia "Babsy" Grange and Clive Mullings who did not share the views of their colleagues
PRIVILEGES
As its name suggests, the committee handles matters relating to the privileges extended to Members of Parliament. It is currently looking into recent events involving Industry and Tourism Minister Aloun Assamba, and Andrew Holness, JLP MP for St. Andrew West Central. The two were obstructed on their way to attend different functions at Parliament.
In the case of Mr. Holness, he was prevented from driving up to the Parliament building last August during Independence celebrations which included two visiting Heads of State. More recently in April, Ms Assamba was obstructed on her way to the State opening of Parliament. On both occasions, the police were reportedly rude, even after being told who the MPs were.
The Privileges Committee is of the view that the information to be introduced at its next sitting may be "too sensitive" for public release. This, as the police officers in question, Mr. Holness and his driver, in addition to Ms. Assamba and her personal security officer will be summoned to the next meeting. At that point, each person will be asked to explain the circumstances leading to the incidents.
Noting that what was likely to come before the committee ..."Can best be described as confidential, Peart said: "We are not likely to get full statements (if the meeting was open to the press)." He added that Police Commissioner Francis Forbes would be invited to explain the security arrangements for Parliament and there was a risk in having such information publicly revealed.
Even with that explanation I can only agree with Mr. Peart and his colleagues in part since there is a simple solution that will not convey a wrong message.
I covered the six-week Commission of Enquiry into the beating of some 300 prisoners at the St. Catherine Adult Correctional Centre three years ago. There were points in the proceedings when the learned judge simply asked the media to stay outside while a certain witness testified. The aim was to protect the witness. At other times he merely asked us to report in such a way so as to not reveal the identity of a particular witness.
Where a breach occurs, the judge, or in this case Mr. Peart, who is also Chairman of the Privileges Committee, could recommend that the particular journalist be barred from future sittings.
OPEN ADMINISTRATION
The governing People's National Party (PNP) prides itself on being an open administration and to a large extent this is true.
It is this party that has opened up most, if not all, of the parliamentary committees to the media, thus keeping the public informed of the debates/deliberations that take place inside Gordon House. It is a major irony then that some members of this party are bent on barring the media from a sitting of one of these said committees.
The Standing Finance Com-mittee was one of the last to be opened to media a couple of years ago and already the impact is tremendous. It gives the Opposition the chance to query the Government on how the Estimates of Expenditure for the ensuing year will be spent.
Although the Jamaica Labour Party has not fully capitalised on this opportunity, hardly forcing a review of the figures from the Government, the public at least is kept informed.
It was as recently as May 2, at a function inside the Jamaica Conference Centre, downtown Kingston, to mark World Press Freedom Day (May 3) that Prime Minister P.J. Patterson reminded the country of the openness of the PNP. He also boasted that it was his administration that had recently passed into law, the Access to Information Act.
I urge the Prime Minister to have words with Mr. Peart before the next sitting of the Privileges Committee. If it is necessary then the journalists attending could be asked to leave the sitting at different points. This would be the preferred modus operandi. Anything else and our politicians may be viewed as anti-media with something to hide.
If the media are banned from one committee, what is to stop them from banning us from others?
BROAD-BASED SUPPORT
At the time of his death, Dr. Ken McNeill (PNP), father of Wyekham, who currently serves as a junior minister for tourism, was lauded as a man who believed in the committee system. Today, legislation that are eventually passed into law in both Houses of Parliament are first shaped in the several parliamentary committees where they are conceived. These committees usually attract broad-based support as both sides of the House and members of the public are allowed to make contributions.
FOOTNOTE
Despite the view held by Derrick Smith, Leader of Opposition Business in the House, that I've not sufficiently familiarised myself with the contents of the Standing Orders governing the House, thus unable to be fair in my criticism of the JLP, I maintain that the questions posed by the Opposition during the sitting of the Standing Finance Committee last month, were far too parochial.
To argue that PNP members did not ask questions makes no sense. Did Mr. Smith expect one member of the PNP to embarrass his/her own party? If so, then it explains why he's still sitting on the Opposition benches after 14 years.
I maintain that the Standing Finance Committee is not the place for such questions and the two days were a grand waste of time. To Mr. Smith and the JLP I say next time reserve those questions for the Sectoral Debate.
If Mr. Smith does not agree with me, I urge him to look again at the presentations from his colleagues during the recently concluded Budget Debate - JLP Leader Edward Seaga, Edmund Bartlett, party spokesman on Tourism and Audley Shaw, spokesman on Finance. Those were not parochial presentations and that's the way it should be. They spoke to issues of national importance, issues that affect all of us and not just their own constituents.
For those who don't know, the Standing Finance Committee is made up of all 60 MPs. Their job is to scrutinise the Estimates of Expenditure and suggest possible changes, before the Finance Minister opens the Budget Debate a week later.
To Mr. Smith, if you want to be parochial and concentrate on your constituency, wait for the upcoming Sectoral Debate.
Email comments to lsimpson@gleanerjm.com.
