The cry has become just too insistent.  The reported numbers of suspect killings by the police since the beginning of the year too startling to be ignored any longer.  Every parliamentarian wants to support the police in the proper execution of their duty to protect the society, but each of us faces the compelling instances of murders by the police as well as other instances of abuse of our constituents.  So this week, we passed the law that ought to begin to change this shameful culture.

It was an election promise made by the Government.  The Independent Commission to investigate abuse by the security forces will not end abuse by some of their members.  But it would give the citizens much greater redress than has existed up to now.  The Commission will have independence from the police force, control of crime scenes and the obligation to report on and conclude investigations in reasonable time.  This piece of legislation is a necessary but insufficient step towards a better balance and a culture of respect between the citizenry and the security forces.  I believe it is good law.

On Tuesday afternoon, the Prime Minister closed the debate after reporting that most of the suggestions made by members the previous week were incorporated in the Bill.  There was some contention during the committee stage as to the chain of command at crime scenes.  This was largely because the text of the proposed amendments was not available.  The House requires the technology to be able to circulate electronically, real-time versions of the texts with which we are dealing.

There was a good feeling when the Bill was read a third time near five on Tuesday evening.  Both sides had collaborated on a significant measure that can curb a serious abuse of state power.  It demonstrates the potential of the parliament when it gets beyond partisan bickering.

Private motions

Sharon Hay-Webster has been championing the rights of beleaguered homeowners at Caribbean Terrace near Harbour View ever since that community was severely impacted by storm surge.  Her motion used a localized event to point to the general thickness and inadequacy of the state’s planning and response capabilities.  Peter Phillips led a similarly useful discussion at Wednesday’s sitting on the commercialization of residential areas and the incapacity of existing law to curb the problem.  Then there was Donald Rhodd’s well-researched but too lengthy plea for attention to climate change and disaster preparedness in his north-eastern parish.

All these motions had been on the Order Paper for more than a year and were heard by a minority of members in the Chamber.  The fact that several speakers contributed to each debate indicates the importance of the topics.  Each resolution was referred to one of the Standing Committees for action and referral to Cabinet for execution.  The real question is how quickly and effectively would they be dealt with in those places. Parliament needs to seriously review its own effectiveness.  Our procedures and capacity to react do not match the urgency of our own resolve — let alone the public need.

Public Administration  Committee

Nowhere was this incapacity more evident than in the proceedings of the Appropriations and Public Administration Committee on Wednesday.  The new Fiscal Responsibility legislation prescribes the crucial engagement of this committee to monitor all public expenditure and to recommend to the House any supplementary budgets.  Dr. Hughes, the Financial Secretary, appeared before us to begin to establish operational guidelines for all this to happen.

As it now functions, the committee does not have the time or the technical support to do its expanded job.  The law now requires a full-time Ways and Means Committee of the House.      The budget would have to be recast to accommodate a research relationship with our universities and the assignment of adequate staff.  The requirements have not yet been properly thought out.  The new demands on the time of the members of this committee ought to be compensated.  This is a situation unlike anything the Parliament has crafted in its history, and there is very little time to become effective.

We learned from Dr. Hughes that yet another set of supplementary estimates would be tabled next week to clear the way for the budget presentation the following week.  It will hardly be possible for the Appropriations Committee to even look at this before it is brought to the full House.  This means that the nation’s legislature will begin a new era of fiscal oversight and responsibility by breaching its own recently established rules.

The challenge of requiring the more than one hundred agencies and public bodies to provide action plans and budgets for approval has not been fully grasped.

The Financial Secretary acknowledged that we are far from achieving this.  My position is that these institutions ought not to continue spending until they have submitted their plans and completed their reports.  But how purposeful will that be if the body to review them is not up to the task?

And yet there is no alternative.  If the Parliament misses the occasion to effectively oversee the expenditure of the public’s tax and borrowed dollar, there will be no end to the accumulation of deficits and over-runs. which are all too soon added to the bill of the citizens of Central Kingston and elsewhere.

Neither government nor opposition seems to comprehend the extent of the task our creditors now insist we carry out.  The Standing Orders Committee of the House ought to be meeting for the rest of this month to plan for this new order of business.

Electoral boundaries

Less than two-thirds of the members bothered to attend the second sitting of the House last week.  Mr. Samuda took his fair measure of teasing as the minister in charge of government while the Prime Minister and his deputy are abroad.  Samuda made sure to take the prime ministerial seat and earned himself the title of “One Day Busha” from some of his colleagues.

The main item of business was the approval of the new electoral boundaries submitted by the Electoral Commission.  There is a convention that the House approves and does not question the proposals of the commission.  In effect, this places the commission in a position of authority superior to Parliament in respect of fundamental matters to do with our democracy.  This should not be acceptable.  It is born out of the tragic partisanship of a generation ago when in fear of chaos and endless division Parliament virtually ceded this arena of its constitutional responsibility.  It has worked well and should be allowed to continue but not without question.

This was the point I understood Mr. Warmington of St. Catherine to be making.  Why ask the political parties to work out rational and apparently non-discriminatory boundaries for St. Catherine and then reject their recommendations and substitute prescriptions that do not appear sensible, he asked.

He got no answer except that the commission’s report was to be accepted without explanation.  It is understandable that he should have protested by walking out.  Many members agreed with him but were afraid to express their support.

My suggestion that the Electoral Commission be asked to explain their rationale before we adopted their report, fell on deaf ears.

The good news is that the commission’s report on campaign financing is nearly complete.

Ronnie Thwaites is an attorney at law and Member of Parliament for Central Kingston.