Phillip Paulwell,Minister of Industry, Technology, Commerce and Energy. - Rudolph Brown/Chief Photographer
For nearly six hours on Tuesday, the House of Representatives debated a motion to censure Minister of Industry, Technology, Commerce and Energy, Phillip Paulwell, for negligence and gross dereliction of duty.
The spirited debate was interspersed with several interventions from government members, who rose on points of order to challenge statements or assertions made by their Opposition counterparts.
At the end of the animated exchange, the motion was crushed by the government side which used its superior numbers in the Lower House to defeat the yes vote of the Opposition. The vote to censure Paulwell ended with 29 against (no), 17 for (yes). Thirteen members were absent.
The following are excerpts from the debate in Parliament:
Audley Shaw
"I take no pride and no pleasure in having to move this motion of censure but there comes a time in the governance of a country when people must be held accountable either for their actions or their inaction - people who are vested with the responsibility of public trust, people who are paid by taxpayers of this country to carry out and to discharge their responsibilities in a responsible, a prudent and proper manner in order to ensure that the public is best served. Those are the issues on which I rise on this motion of censure.
"There are several issues involved here which lead back to the case of ministerial neglect, gross dereliction of duty and plain downright mismanagement. I'll start Mr. Speaker, by looking at the issue of certification of cement.
"The Government of Jamaica owned Caribbean Cement Company. Before we sold it, we the people had the cement company under a certification programme and we did so in order to ensure and to guarantee the consistent quality of the cement that was being produced there. It was renewed annually after verification.
"Despite written recommendations from the Bureau of Standards on December 18, 2003, for the Minister to exercise his authority under the Standards Act and declare that the production of cement must conform to the certification programme of the Bureau of Standards the minister failed to respond to that letter three years before this catastrophic incident (cement debacle - bad cement released into the market). And to this date the Caribbean Cement Company is still uncertified.
Quoting from the letter Mr. Shaw said: "The general sentiments of some members of the Standards Council and indeed the Bureau of Standards is for the Minister to exercise his authority under the Standards Act and declare that the production of cement must follow the certification mark programme of the Bureau of Standards. I am formally requesting that you agree for the Bureau of Standards to take immediate steps to have this executed and that you declare cement as an item to be certified under the certification programme."
Noting that the lack of a certification by the JBS resulted in the release of non-conforming cement into the market Mr. Shaw said: "The Minister's failure to act in a matter of such grave importance, ensuring the safety and integrity of the cement being produced was rank ministerial negligence and a dereliction of duty."
According to Mr. Shaw the JBS in a note to the minister on March 2, 2006 said: "500 tonnes (cement) withdrawal done by CCCL may represent only a fraction of failed cement on the market."
"Despite being adequately briefed, the minister on the 14th of March provided false information to Parliament when he said the faulty cement was limited to the period February 23 to 25Éit is a damning indictment of the minister who had clear knowledge of the situation. The Minister is guilty of misleading the House of Parliament".
K.D. Knight
Rising in defence of Minister Paulwell, Member of Parliament for South Eastern St. Catherine, K.D. Knight challenged the motion dismissing its intent.
On the claim that Minister Paulwell misled the House Knight said:
"We have to look at misled. That is, that he distorted the facts, or is it that the statement was inaccurate and so misled. In which event, if it is the latter, then I don't think much rests there to deal with It appeared to me as the mover spoke that heavy dependence was placed on a purported memorandum, note or other, emanating from the Bureau of Standards."
"The minister cannot recall that memorandum. Others, who were expected to have been able to recall it, cannot recall it."
"There is not one piece of evidence referred to that showed, or tends to show that the minister distorted the facts in order to mislead the Parliament of this country. And if that is not established then the prayer must fail."
Commenting on how the minister handled the crisis in the construction sector as a result of the shortage of cement, Mr. Knight argued that "if the minister has taken this matter to Cabinet, had reported exactly how Cabinet decided to deal with it, how can you say that he is negligent? Or that he is in gross dereliction of duty?
Dr. Paul Robertson
"I reject that anyone could come into this House and even suggest that what the minister was doing had anything to do with negligence, lack of care. I don't buy it, and I join with my colleagues in asking that this motion be absolutely rejected because it has no basis in reality."
Dr. Horace Chang
"There can be no doubt that there was failure on the part of this ministry and this minister in carrying out his responsibility to this nation and we can take credit for some of the things that have gone well but that does not justify his failure for having presided over a national crisis in the construction industry, a most vital part of the economy and in the process misinformed this House on vital questions relating to the industry. For that reason, I support this motion and seek to carry forward the prayer, that the minister ought to resign or be censured by this Honourable House."
Andrew Gallimore
"Tens of thousands of construction workers, who have not been able to have an income for the better part of nine months, the providers of hardware items, steel, windows these people have paid dearly for the action or inaction of the Minister. The damage has been done to their lives and their businesses and they will never be repaid for this."
Clive Mullings
"We need not go over channelled ground. This is a fundamental issue, and this issue can only be dealt with by the minister doing the honourable thing and resign".
John Junor
"I have watched him as a young Cabinet minister fight his way, because that is a fact, fight his way to bring Jamaica into the state that we are with telecommunications and other issues so minister you have full support here and I will respectfully ask, that this vote be taken now after the member from Manchester North East speaks, and that we on this side vote resoundingly no."
Ernie Smith
"We are saying, in a nutshell, that the minister has a national responsibility and duty to protect the consuming public of this country and if his portfolio area incorporates a number of statutory bodies, government agencies, the buck stops with him."
"In relation to the cement catastrophe, the minister was under a duty to protect the welfare of the consuming public. Now, wherever the minister fails in that regard, even in respect of one iota act of negligence, he is guilty of negligence. That is what the motion charges."
In closing the debate, mover of the Resolution, Audley Shaw said:
"While I thank members on both sides of the House for their contribution to the debate I have to say Mr. Speaker, and it is by no means a partisan point I
am about to make, that I am disappointed in the presentations from the members on the government side. I am disappointed because they have not answered the charges that have been laid down.
