By Robert Hart, Staff ReporterIT'S GREAT to see that a Bill recognising the rights of spouses to an equal share of property after the break-up of a marriage is finally ready for consideration in the Houses of Parliament.
But the attitude of some parliamentarians in the discharge of their duties on the committee that reviewed the bill was appalling.
The final report issued last week revealed a disgraceful attendance record on the part of most of those involved.
DISREGARDED COURTESY
There were 13 members on the committee, seven Members of Parliament and six Senators. Only five of them made it to more than half of the 13 meetings. To make matters worse, some members completely disregarded the common courtesy of apologising for their absences. The prize for greatest offender is a toss up. On the one hand, there's Olivia 'Babsy' Grange, Opposition MP who didn't come at all. But, hey, she was 'nice' enough to send seven apologies.
And then there's the Minister of Health John Junor. He graced the Chamber with his presence just once, but neglected to send apologies for eleven of the twelve times he was absent. In fact, Mr. Junor showed up for the first time at the 12th meeting and, ensuring the committee wasn't fooled into thinking his commitment had been revived at this late stage in the game, told his colleagues he would not be able to make it to the next meeting because of his hectic schedule.
The Family Property (Rights of Spouses) Act is an important piece of legislation. So why was the attendance record so poor?
The deliberations, initially slated to wrap up in two weeks, took four months! One meeting had to be cancelled for lack of a quorum and diligent interest groups which came to make submissions were forced to return when no one showed up to hear their views. And not to mention the constant repetitions with the helter-skelter appearances, which served to slow the process.
All credit is due to the committee's chairman, Senator A. J. Nicholson, who made it to every meeting and soldiered on despite the limited contributions of some of his colleagues.
Their behaviour betrays much about how the elected representatives and appointed Senators regard their duties. Just about every five years the people of Jamaica elect individuals to represent them at the parliamentary level. But some of those very MPs don't seem to realise that they are not solely charged with the responsibility of seeing to the needs of their constituents. They have been given the task of representing the country on a whole.
Now that is not simply a matter of showing up on a Tuesday afternoon to vote whichever way the partisan wind blows on the latest issues in the House of Represen-tatives. Seemingly many do not have the slightest appreciation (or interest) in the weight of the Bills and other policy matters which come before them. It is therefore of little surprise that they seem to have a problem with the diligent process of reviewing legislation at committee stage. For working out the kinks in Bills at that stage requires thought, energy and a commitment to the issues involved. Apparently this is too much to ask of our paid representatives.
THE FAMILY PROPERTY RIGHTS
The Family Property (Rights of Spouses) Act has been on the books since October 1999 to be exact, and should have been before the House a long time ago. In fact, the Bill is largely based on recommendations made by the Family Law Committee that was appointed in 1975. That's almost 30 years ago!
The Bill is an important one. It has been described as a seminal piece of legislation. Among its main features is the legal recognition of common law spouses who have lived together for at least five years. It also entitles a spouse to an equal share of the "family home" on the breakdown of marriage or termination of cohabitation.
If the Act were passed into law, it would prevent an individual from simply casting aside the old (spouse), without a fair distribution of assets, and bringing in the new. The rules of engagement for many ordinary Jamaicans will be affected and yet the people entrusted to take care of business were so lax.
Persons should have known they would not have been able to attend regularly and decline appointment. It is understood that Ministers and MPs have other commitments, but if they are appointed, and accepted to serve on House committees they must attend and participate. It's an important part of their duty as elected representatives of the people. Jamaicans must demand performance from their parliamentarians.
Email comments to robert.hart@gleanerjm.com
