Parliament Called Upon (Again!) to Work Harder

 

Gordon House
Photo by DJ Miller

Speaking in Parliament this week, Leader of Opposition Business in the Jamaican House of Representatives Delroy Chuck yesterday echoed a sentiment that many non-Parliamentarians have long expressed – that not enough business is being done in the Houses of Parliament.

At the end of a sitting which lasted less than an hour, Chuck said “enough business is not being done in The House, but let us hope that next week will be a full session. Apart from next week, let us make sure that we deal with these Private Members Motions and utilize the sittings of The House in a more fulsome way.”

The Gleaner’s parliamentary affairs column The Gavel also drew attention this week to what it called

“the lacklustre manner in which the Parliament has been attending to the people’s business.”

This came a year after the Gleaner’s editorial which called for an end to the “doziness” in Parliament and expressed the optimistic wish that “with its members having taken their oaths, the legislature will immediately get down to serious work, eschewing its laziness of the past. That is, we expect the House and Senate will sit more often, for longer hours and pass more laws than they did during the life of the last Parliament.”

The editorial writer’s expectations have surely been dashed!

CARIMAC lecturer Fae Ellington and Douglas Orane, former Senator and the chairman of Grace Kennedy, are among those calling for Parliament to sit more frequently, with Orane noting that there is a “direct correlation between the number of times that Parliament meets and the number of bills it is able to pass.”

Parliamentarians argue that they need more resources, including better research facilities . There have also been calls for a new Parliament building which I wrote about in an earlier post here.

We need more sittings of Parliament, better facilities and expanding physical facilities. Maybe even constitutional reform. There are a lot of possibilities and a lot to discuss.

Before all that, however, I would like to see us make better use of the time we have now. Sure, better research facilities would? should? result in more informed debates (assuming they are used).  But can our Parliamentarians, particularly those in the Lower House, really say they are doing all they can at the moment? Can they really say they read the Bills properly (or at all), try to digest and understand them? Reading the Bills and doing some basic research on the Internet would be a good start. The laws and policies of many other jurisdictions can be found online. That can be done from their living rooms and that alone would allow for more informed interventions in the House.

Why can’t they sit longer? Why can’t they have more debates on issues of national importance? Why can’t more of the Private Members’ motions be taken?

More sittings that last less than an hour won’t help solve that problem. I do think we need more sittings. But until we have a commitment from the Parliamentarians to sit longer and work harder, I am not sure that additional sittings will help.

Five Wishes for Better Political Leadership for Jamaica in 2013

Gordon House – seat of Jamaica’s Parliament
Photo by DJ Miller

Here are some qualities I would love to see to a greater extent in our political leaders.

1. Leaders who can see through their orange and green coloured glasses that not everybody criticizing them belongs to a rival political party. Some of us just disagree with your policies or direction. Full stop.  Hell, with barely 50% voter turn-out in the last election, there’s a 50-50 chance that whoever is criticizing you isn’t voting for any of you, anyway.

2. Leaders who take the time to understand the criticism aimed at them. When Jamaicans complain about your pay or perks, it is coming from years of disillusionment at what politicians have done to our beloved country.  You may not have been personally involved, but don’t ever forget that for the sake of power, politicians have torn Jamaica apart with political tribalism and killed our children, our brothers, sisters, mothers, fathers and friends with political violence. Whatever you have or have not done individually, memories of the havoc wreaked by your fellows are still fresh.

In addition, you have failed to deliver even moderate sustained prosperity to our nation and you have spectacularly failed to deliver an equitable education system.  When people complain about what seems to you to be a measly sum of, say $4 million, it is coming from Jamaicans, many of whom are struggling to find lunch money or bus fare, who have no option but to use the under-resourced and over-crowded hospitals you have given us while you fly off to Miami for treatment. Some of your critics have to send  children to the ill-equipped schools which is your legacy to us, and many of our children leave school as illiterate and innumerate as the day they started. So instead of responding with arrogance and disdain, how about listening carefully to what people are really saying, and answering in a tone of respect and understanding with a real and empathetic attempt to explain your (sometimes reasonable) position.

3. Leaders with a vision for Jamaica. Vision 2030 or not, very few of us have a sense that there is a targeted vision for Jamaica, that a clear direction has been charted and that we are moving with steady determination towards a real goal. We have no real hope that in our lifetimes, Jamaica will see an economic turnaround that will bring real benefits to all society, not just your friends the rich businessmen. Have you ever really, really listened to I-Octane’s “My Story?”

“Respect to all who sell bag juice
Who sell it to help dem youth
A whole heap a hell dem go through…

Man a suffer too long
Yeh man a suffer too long
Live in a di ghetto too long
Man a suffer too long.”

Listen to it again. One more time. That’s why we need a vision and visionary leaders.

Inside the Parliament of Jamaica (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

4. Leaders who do real work in Parliament. Our Parliaments have been singularly unimpressive. Many in the Lower House are efficient only at warming benches. There is scant attention given to careful scrutiny of the Bills that are brought to the House. Debates are stunningly superficial and often lacking  much evidence of research and thought (save for a very few speakers), and the desk-thumping that passes for participation apparently serves only to wake up the somnolent. I must note that the Upper House has traditionally been light years ahead of the Lower House in this regard. This is why it has been so disappointing to have seen over the years Senate appointments made on the basis of party loyalty only, resulting in Senators who bring little in the way of intellectual rigour to the Upper House. Which brings me to Number 5.

5. Leaders who put Jamaica before party. No, we don’t think all of you do this. In fact, we are sure you don’t put Jamaica first when we see ill-advised appointments, clueless Cabinet ministers, the constant and costly re-invention of the wheel just so that you can say such and such a programme was all yours, the dithering on matters of national importance, the refusal to make hard decisions that will cost you at the polls. So while you spend decades and generations thumping desks in Gordon House, our beloved Jamaica becomes choked with garbage, squatter communities mired in poverty abound, stray dogs roam the streets and our beautiful, bright children lose their way permanently.

There are some politicians whom I think have some or all of these qualities. However, they are usually not the ones in the most senior positions of leadership. But there is some hope.  What do you think? What kind of political leaders do you want to see? Who gives you hope? 

The JPS Case – Summary and Analysis

 

photo by DJ Miller

Dennis Meadows et al v Attorney General of Jamaica, Jamaica Public Service and Office of Utilities Regulation  (before Sykes J.)

Summary: The Court ruled that whereas the license granted to the Jamaica Public Service Company (JPS) is valid, the term of the license which grants it exclusive rights to transmit electricity is not valid. The Office of Utilities Regulation (OUR) did not act unlawfully in the matter.

Issues: statutory interpretation,  Pepper v Hart, exclusive license,  ”always speaking” statutes

Analysis

There has been much jubilation over the Supreme Court decision in this case. In my view, such celebration is premature. My conclusion is entirely apart from the fact that this case is almost certainly going to be appealed,

What the court said was that as the statute now stands, the Minister does not have the power to grant an exclusive license which will prevent other applications from being considered.

The court specifically points out two ways in which this problem (if it is seen as such) can be overcome.

• The court says that although the government may indeed have a policy of preferring single licensees, the Minister must still consider other applications, and then make a decision on those applications in accordance with policy. The court says that since the Act allows the Minister to grant more than one license, other applicants have a legitimate expectation that their applications will be genuinely considered. In other words, the Minister can grant a license to one applicant, and may have a policy that only single licenses will be granted. However, the Minister must still genuinely consider any other applications that may be submitted.
• The other solution for the government would be to amend the relevant statute, that is the Electric Lighting Act, to give the Minister the power to implement the government policy of having single licensees, that is, give him the power in law to grant exclusive licenses.

Therefore, I would argue, no matter what the higher courts may decide that the law states, the critical issue here is going to be whether the government decides to stick with its current policy or whether it wishes to change tack. If it does wish to maintain its policy of a single licensee, then it simply has to make the changes alluded to in the judgment and proceed.

It may indeed be that the government decides to use this case as an opportunity to change its policy, but we should await that decision before breaking out the champagne.

 

Photo by DJ Miller

Facts:

The claimants sought the following declarations from the Supreme Court:

1. That the 20-year all-island exclusive electricity license granted by the Mining and Energy Minister to JPS under section 3 of the Electric Lighting Act on 30^th March 2001 is illegal, null and void and of no effect. The license was extended for an additional seven years.

2. That the JPS is therefore operating without a license as required by law;

3. Alternatively, that section 3 of the Act does not empower the Minister to disenfranchise the prospective right of any person to apply for a license to transmit electricity whether for personal, public or commercial purposes;

4. That the grant of an exclusive right to JPS on the recommendation of the OUR constitutes an unlawful fetter on the discretion of the Minister and subsequent Ministers in granting a license to transmit electricity under section 3 of the Act and/or conduct the business of the transmission of electricity;

5. That the OUR acted unlawfully in recommending the grant of an exclusive license by the Minister;

6. That the all-island license is contrary to the provisions and spirit of the Fair Competition Act.

Decision

The Court refused the 1^st, 2^nd, 4th and 5th declarations, and the 6th was not pursued. The significance of the judgment lies in the Court’s decision to grant the 3^rd  declaration, that the Minister did not have the power to grant an exclusive license.

The License

The license gave JPS an exclusive right for the first three years of the license to develop new generating capacity,  and the exclusive right for the duration of the license to transmit, distribute and supply electricity. The license was granted on 30^th March 2001 for a 20-year period and extended for an additional seven years.

Statutory Interpretation

The case hinged on the interpretation of the relevant provisions of the Electric Lighting Act, an 1890 statute.

Sykes J. summarised the principles of statutory interpretation, that is the rules which govern how legislation is interpreted, which have been known as the literal rule, golden rule and mischief rule.

He stated that context has become an important aspect of statutory interpretation.

“…as time has gone on it has come to be recognized that the process of interpretation of statutes is more nuanced than previously acknowledged. Language, we now know, only becomes better understood if the context is known.

“It used to be that before the court could look at the context to interpret a statute, there had to be some ambiguity. This has now gone by the way.”

Another principle is that a statute is “always speaking” meaning that courts must interpret and apply a statute to the world as it exists today, and that it must be interpreted in the light of the legal system as it exists today. Sykes J. stated that the court expressly adopted the “always speaking” principle, although admitting to some potential problems.

“Admittedly the always-speaking principle is open to the accusation that it is a surreptitious method of judicial updating of legislation which has not been amended by the legislature. This court will acknowledge that there is always that danger but that should not deter the courts from applying old statutes to new circumstances that were not in the minds of the legislators provided that words can reasonably accommodate the new circumstances. Where this can be done without altering the substance of the legislation then the courts should do this even at the risk of being accused of amending the statute.”

 “This court expressly adopts the always-speaking principle. This court sees no reason why in the twenty first century we should be shackled by what the legislators in 1890 thought. Social and economic considerations have changed considerably. Jamaica was a colony at that time but is now an independent country with a growing population which means an increasing demand for the supply of electricity. The priority of a colonial government in the nineteenth century may not be the priority of a democratically elected government under universal adult suffrage in the 21^st century.  In 1890 the Governor was obliged to govern in the interest of the United Kingdom. In 2012, the government is elected by Jamaicans to govern in the interest of Jamaicans.”

The Electric Lighting Act

The judge said that it is important to say what section 3 of the Electric Lighting Act does not say.

“It does not say that one person cannot be granted an all-island license. Neither does the Act say that the Minister must grant multiple licenses to a multiplicity of persons. Also the Minister is not prevented from granting more than one all-island license. Indeed the Act could hardly have said any of these things because the Minister cannot know how many applicants there will be.

“The section permits the Minister to grant licenses to a person to supply electricity within any area. On the face of it, persons and companies can receive licenses for any area. There is nothing to say that the areas cannot be contiguous to each other.”

The Meaning of “Area”

There were submissions as to whether the Minister had the power to grant an all-island license as the Act speaks to the Minister being able to grant a license “within any area.” The claimants argued that area meant something less than the whole and therefore an island-wide license could not be granted. But Sykes J. did not accept this submission and ruled that:

“…section 3 gives the Minister a discretion to grant to one person an all-island license for generating distributing and supply electricity. The section also permits the Minister to grant more than one all-island license to generate, transmit and supply electricity. The Minister may also grant more than one license for a part of the island. In the 21^st century there is no compelling reason to interpret area to mean only something less than the whole.”

Can the Minister grant an exclusive license?

The Act allows the Minister to grant licenses, and to impose regulations on the license. The court said that since the statute allows for multiple providers of electricity, anyone who wishes to do so should be able to apply for a license.

“If this is so, then it means the Minister needs to hear and consider that application even if he has a stated policy on the matter. He is free to declare the application in accordance with the policy but that policy should not be so inflexible that it prevents applicants from having their applications genuinely considered.

“It is one thing to say that a decision will be made in accordance with a policy but it is quite another to grant a license to a previous applicant in terms which effectively guarantee that no other application will be considered regardless of its merits.

“The statute does not give the power to the Minister to grant a license on terms which effectively bar any other applicant from being considered. This, in the opinion of this court, is the problem with the current license to JPS. The Minister has committed himself and his successors to a situation in which there is no possibility of change for the required twenty years (which has been extended) even if technology or a new company has a better and cheaper way of of doing some of what JPS is now doing.”

The judge noted that the sequence of events demonstrates the “dangers of the Minister’s approach” noting that an initial 20-year license was extended for another seven years. If that approach was correct, the court asked, what would prevent the Minister from granting a 100-year or 200-year exclusive license?

The court said that since the Act contemplated that applicants have a legitimate expectation that their applications would be genuinely considered

“The legitimate expectation arises from the words of the statute. They have the right to apply. To have the right to apply without a further right to have it genuinely considered would be meaningless.”

The court said, therefore, that while the Minister may have a policy regarding granting licenses, and then after hearing an applicant,  declines to grant a license in light of the policy, this will not be wrong once the Minister has exercised an “honest and bona fide exercise of discretion.”

What is not permissible, is adopting a position which would result in other applicants not being considered at all.

The court noted that JPS stressed the significance of its investment in the provisions of electricity but said that:

 “…as important as economic considerations are, the rule of law is even more important. Since we are developing a society based on the rule of law then the law must be followed. The Minister cannot exercise a power that in law he does not have.

The way out of the problem (if it is seen as a problem) is to amend the law to give the Minister the powers he needs to implement the policy of the government.”

 

The Role of the Office of Utilities Regulation (OUR)

The claimants argued that the OUR had recommended an exclusive license and had therefore acted contrary to section 4 (3) (a) the OUR Act which states that the OUR “shall undertake such measures as it considers necessary or desirable to (a) encourage competition in the provision of prescribed utility services.”

The opening words of the license stated that the Minister was granting the license “having regard to recommendations of the OUR” but did not specify what the recommendations were.

In fact, a letter dated March 15, 2001 the OUR expressed its opposition to the Minister’s proposal to exempt JPS from the Fair Competition Act, but the Minister ignored the recommendation. The Court therefore held that the OUR had done nothing unlawful.

The Use of Parliamentary Records and Pepper v Hart

The claimants attempted to rely on Pepper v Hart, a House of Lords case which dealt with using statements in Parliament to help interpret statute. Sykes J. indicated his discomfort with that case, and with the concept of using a statement made by one Minister in Parliament to try to interpret what the Parliament as a whole intended in passing a statute.

“Pepper v Hart is not a case which should be followed without extreme care and caution…It is well known that ministerial, assignments are often the product of political considerations rather than  the person’s actual expertise in a particular area. The Minister may not know much about his portfolio prior to his assignment. His statements to Parliament are often prepared by advisors and senior civil servants, Sometimes the legislation comes after extensive public discussion. All this shows that Pepper v Hart is not without difficulties and should be avoided.”

 

 

 

What the Standing Orders (Jamaica) Say About Questions That Should NOT Be Asked

Gordon House
DJMiller photo

 

 

From time to time, we hear objections to questions being asked in the Jamaican House of Representatives, on the basis that they are not in keeping with the Standing Orders. In my last post here, I looked at what the Standing Orders say about the manner of asking questions in the House.

In this post, let’s continue to look at how questions are to be asked (or not!)

Section 16 PROHIBITS asking questions that:

•  raise an issue already decided in the House, or which has been fully answered during the current session, or for which an answer has already been refused;
• seek information about matters which are, by their nature, secret;
• raise issues that have come up in a Committee, but which have not yet been reported to the House in a  report;
• raise matters related to a Commission of Enquiry or which are within the jurisdiction of the Chairman of  a Select Committee;
• raise matters dealing with the character or conduct of any person except in his official or public capacity;
• reflect on the decision of a Court of Law, or which is likely to prejudice a matter being tried before a Court;
• reflect on the character or conduct of any person whose conduct can only be challenged in a substantive  motion under section 35, which deals with the conduct of speeches;
• ask whether statements in the press, or made by private individuals or unofficial organisations are correct;
• for which the answer can be found in an official publication;
• which refer discourteously to, or seek information about the internal affairs of any territory within the Commonwealth or a friendly foreign country;
• deal with the actions of a Minister for which he is not responsible to the legislature;
• seek, for matters of argument, information of past history;
• raise questions of policy too large to be dealt with in the limits of answer to a question.

A question shall not solicit an opinion, or the solution of an abstract legal question or a hypothetical proposition.

Many people believe that it is time for a comprehensive review of the Standing Orders, and we will look at that in the future. Watch out for my next post on the Standing Orders. Which, if any, of these would you want to see revised?

Related articles

• What the Standing Orders (Jamaica) Say About Asking Questions (newsandviewsbydjmillerja.wordpress.com)

What the Standing Orders (Jamaica) Say About Asking Questions

The uproar which took place recently in the Jamaican Parliament, which of course you would have read about here, actually originated with a question being asked by the Member from North West St. Elizabeth J.C. Hutchinson, of Agriculture Minister Roger Clarke. It has been accepted by all concerned that the Standing Orders of Parliament were breached during the resulting pandemonium (and how!) But what do the Standing Orders actually say?

The Standing Orders of the House of Representatives (there are separate Standing Orders for the Senate) have very detailed provisions governing how questions should be asked of Cabinet Ministers.

http://www.japarliament.gov.jm/images/pdf/STANDING-ORDERS-OF-THE-HOUSE.pdf

In the first place, section 14 states that a question can be put to a Minister in relation to any subject within his area of responsibility.

The way in which those questions may be asked, however, is strictly regulated.

Let’s take a look at section 16. This provides that:

-       The right to ask questions is subject to some general rules. The sole judge of the interpretation of those rules is the Speaker.

-       Questions may be asked to get information on a question of fact within the Minister’s portfolio, or to ask for official action.

-       Questions are not to include the names of any persons or any statements of fact, unless they are necessary for the question to be understood.

-       If a question contains a statement of fact, the Member asking the question is responsible for its accuracy.

-       No question can be based on a newspaper report or unofficial publication.

-       Members are not to address the House upon a question, and a question is not to be the pretext for a debate.

-       Each question should only refer to one subject and questions are not to be excessively long.

-       Questions are not to contain arguments, inferences, opinions, imputations, epithets, hypothetical questions or ironical expressions

You can also check out my first post on the Standing Orders.

Next Time – what kinds of questions are not permitted

Related articles

• What’s Wrong With Our Jamaican Parliament? (newsandviewsbydjmillerja.wordpress.com)

What’s Wrong With Our Jamaican Parliament?

Inside the Parliament of Jamaica (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

How is it that some of the legislators  we elected to the Jamaican Parliament  are incapable of disagreeing on thorny issues without getting into a chaotic and abusive shouting match?

Jamaica’s Parliament is probably one of the most ordered places in the country, theoretically at least, in that there is a detailed set of rules (the Standing Orders) that govern almost every aspect of behavior in both Houses of Parliament.

They cover situations ranging from the language to be used (“the English language”) the need for Petitions to the House to be “properly and respectfully worded” to what should happen if two Members rise to speak during a debate (“the Speaker shall call upon the Member who first catches his eye”).

http://www.japarliament.gov.jm/images/pdf/STANDING-ORDERS-OF-THE-HOUSE.pdf

And to make it even more puzzling, many Parliamentarians are lawyers, who are trained to disagree agreeably, to call your opponent in court “mi learned friend” even when you think he’s a pompous ass, and to defer to judges with a polite “Guided, Milady” even while you plan your appeal on the grounds of the judge’s mistakes.

Others are successful professionals in other fields, or business operators, and would never, ever think it okay to respond to critics or opponents in the way we see them do in Parliament.

I wrote a post shortly after the new session of Parliament began, entitled “It’s Not Church!” The crux of my argument was that while we want civility, that can co-exist with lively exchanges, banter and spontaneity.

Unfortunately, that is not what we are talking about here. It is clear when someone has lost control or is refusing to exercise any self-control and that, too often, is what we see in the Jamaican Parliament. It is also clear when the comments and shouting have crossed the line into abuse.

http://m.jamaicaobserver.com/mobile/news/Hell-in-the-House—Parliament-ends-sitting-in-confusion–disorder_11881968

Isn’t there something wrong with a display that would result in some of the following comments:

“But this fiasco on TVJ News showing the sectoral debates is EMBARRASSING. Look at these grown – leaders of our country – squabbling.”

Or this…

“Seriously??? This is our parliament?”

And don’t tell me anything about physical brawls in the South Korean Parliament, eye-popping as those are.

Taiwan knows a thing or two about Parliamentary fights as well.

But you know what? I don’t care what they do in Taiwan and South Korea. We expect more from our legislators, dammit. We’ve seen the destruction,  misery and death that politics has caused to our people and country, and we’re sick of it. We are now demanding better. We’re demanding more.

But while our politicians stand in Gordon House and mouth platitudes about a new way of doing things,  when it really counts, some of them prove to us again and again that they don’t have the slightest idea what those words really mean.

Related articles

• Five provisions of the Standing Orders of the House of Representatives (newsandviewsbydjmillerja.wordpress.com)

Memo to Jamaican Politicians : Long Speeches? Bad Idea!

Public Speaking University (cover shot) (Photo credit: justinplambert)

We have just finished the Budget Debate in the Jamaican Parliament with the predictably, overly long speeches. Later this year, we’ll once again have the political party conferences and the leaders will again deliver speeches that are way too long. I just don’t get it.

The observation that long speeches, in 2012, are a bad idea seems so self-evident it is almost ridiculous to be making it. Almost, but not quite, since you, the politicians, haven’t got the memo yet.

You still seem to harbour delusions that time has stood still since the 1970s when the only broadcast media outlets were JBC and RJR, and Michael Manley was fascinating Jamaicans with his hours of oratory.

IMAGELIBRARY/576 Persistent URL: archives.lse.ac.uk/dserve.exe?dsqServer=lib-4.lse.ac.uk&a… (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Not only are today’s politicians no Michael Manley, even Manley would have had a problem holding people’s interest with three- and four-hour speeches today. If he were here  and giving speeches,  I would give him the same advice.

At any given time we all have a million things to do, different media to check and tons of information coming at us. Jamaicans are paying as much attention (probably more attention) to the NBA play-offs,  President Obama’s prospects for re-election, the latest music videos and the Diamond League, as to the ramblings in Gordon House.

Yes, ramblings, I use that word unapologetically. Who has time to listen to self-indulgent ramblings for two or three hours? It’s much more efficient to just check the papers the next day, or the newscasts for the highlights. So, we, the members of the public, really don’t have a problem. We can just turn off the live presentations. And many of us do. So what’s the problem?

Well, I confess to some amount of curiosity. What is the purpose of the speeches? Help me here. Don’t you want people to actually, I dunno, listen to you? While you’re talking? Are you really happy talking to yourself, your fans and the civil servants forced to attend Parliament? Or the green and orange die-hard fans in the National Arena?  I kinda thought the idea was to reach a broader audience. Silly me.

I’m going to go ahead and make these suggestions anyway.

1. Have real speech writers  help with the speech. AND LISTEN TO THEM!!!! Speech writing is actually work, you know. It’s a real job. I’ve heard some of your half-baked presentations by politicians who pride themselves on writing their own speeches. Often, they suck. A professionally written speech ensures structure and flow which will make it easier for people to follow. While I’m listening  (I have to, because of my job) I can just visualize the red ink pen or delete button which need to be used much more extensively.

“It’s always interesting to see how involved the President is with editing his speeches. A few hours before his first nationally televised address to the nation, the President works on edits with aides Carol Browner, David Axelrod, and Jon Favreau in the Outer Oval Office.” (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza) License on Flickr (2011-01-12): United States Government Work Flickr tags: WASHINGTON, DC, USA (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

2. Aim for an hour long speech. Hey, I’d actually suggest half an hour, but I’m sure you think that’s impossible. I would refer you to Barack Obama’s speeches, usually way less than an hour. And he is a hell of a lot better at speaking than anyone we have here.

English: Barack Obama delivering his electoral victory speech on Election Night ´08, in Grant Park, Chicago. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Say after me. LONGER IS NOT BETTER.

3. Fifteen minutes of thanking and greeting people is ridiculous. Why should we have to sit and listen to you thank everybody who has supported you in your political career? Take them to lunch instead.

4. Recognise that many of you are simply not interesting speakers, hence, shorter is definitely better. This is where it would be really good to have around you people who tell you the truth about yourselves. Dump the sycophants.

5. Realize that attention spans have gotten shorter. By the time you get to the meat of the speech, you’ve already turned off a lot of people. Forget the young people. Do you think the Twitter generation is hanging around for half an hour for you to really get started? And then for another hour or two? Why on earth would you want to turn off people like that?

6. The longer your speech, the less of it will be captured in subsequent news reports. Most people get their news from TV and radio. Why have such a long speech that most of it gets dumped?

NB Many of these speeches are carried by commercial broadcast media which have to forego regular programming to do so. The abuse of the availability of free airtime with these long-winded speeches may inevitably lead to fewer entities carrying them at all. Then you  really will be talking to yourselves.

Five Provisions of the Standing Orders of the Jamaican House of Representatives

photo – Gordon House website

We hear reference to the Standing Orders all the time, as members of the Lower and Upper Houses of the Jamaican Parliament debate the country’s business. The Standing Orders are the rules made by Parliament to govern how it operates, but most people know very little about their provisions, apart from hearing Members complain that they are being breached.

The Standing Orders of both the House of Representatives and the Senate can be found on the website of the Jamaican Parliament. I will be writing a series of posts looking at some of their provisions. I will paraphrase where necessary for readability, and won’t go into some procedural points that I don’t think are of general interest. I will also raise questions, in some cases, about the provisions. Here we go!

1. The proceedings and debates of the House shall be in the English language. Every petition shall be in the English language. (So the Standing Orders would have to be amended for debates etc to take place in Jamaican patois/creole as has been suggested by Dr. Carolyn Cooper. She has also suggested that the Prime Minister address Parliament in Jamaican creole at least once per year and that the budget presentations be given in both English and patois. But I digress. That’s for another day.)

2. The Quorum of the House and of a Committee of the whole House shall consist of sixteen (16) members besides the Member presiding. (Remember the House now consists of sixty-three (63) members. The quorum is therefore about 25% of the House.)

3. If, during a sitting of the House, a Member validly raises the objection that there isn’t a quorum, the person presiding shall direct Members to be summoned. If there is still no quorum at the end of five minutes, the person presiding shall adjourn the House without question put.

4. (There has been a lot of discussion about the frequency (or lack thereof) with which the  House meets.) The Standing Orders provide that the House shall meet on Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays at 2 o’clock in the afternoon, and unless previously adjourned, shall sit until 7.30 in the evening. The House may at any time, however, by motion made and carried without amendment or debate, suspend or vary this provision. (There are further detailed provisions about the procedure for arranging subsequent sittings, which I am not going to go into. You can check the Standing Orders yourself for those details.)

5. There is a prescribed order for conducting the business of each sitting which is as follows:

Prayers

Oath of Allegiance of a new member

Call of the Roll

Statements by Ministers

Announcements

Bills brought from the Senate

Petitions

Papers

Reports from Committees

Notices of Motions given orally

Question Time

Motions that may be made at the commencement of public business requiring notice

Motions relating to sittings of the House

Motions for leave to introduce Bills

Presentation of Bills without leave of the House first obtained

Public Business

There is, however, provision for a Minister, at any time after Question Time, to move “that this House shall now adjourn” but any other Member has to follow a different procedure to do so. After public business has been entered, the Member may ask leave to adjourn the House to discuss a “definite matter of urgent public importance.”

The M.P. would have had to have given the Speaker written notification of the matter before the sitting, and the Speaker is supposed to refuse to allow this if not satisfied that the matter is one of “definite, urgent and of public importance.” If the Speaker is satisfied, the House then has to give leave or at least sixteen (16) Members have to rise to support the request.

 

Next time: Question Time 

Related articles

• Questioning the Prime Minister (djmillerja.wordpress.com)
• Time for a new Parliament building but… (newsandviewsbydjmillerja.wordpress.com)

Time for a new Parliament building but…

Our Parliamentarians have been saying for years that we have outgrown Gordon House, the seat of the Jamaican Parliament, and that we need to expand or build a new Parliament. Member of Parliament for St. Andrew North Western Derrick Smith has been the latest person to raise the issue, prompted by concerns that the Member of Parliament who represents East Portland, Lynvale Bloomfield, who is recuperating from a hip injury, would have no way to get into Gordon House, as shamefully, access to the building for the disabled continues to be a problem.

Even without visiting the library or the inner rooms, visitors to Parliament would be aware of the inadequacy of the facilities. After a few hugely uncomfortable and inconvenient visits to Gordon House, due to the tiny, cramped press gallery, I have stopped trying to go, and follow developments instead on PBCJ. The visitors’ gallery is nearly as bad.

The history of Gordon House explains, in part, its current inadequacy.

The website of the Jamaican Parliament explains that Jamaica’s first House of Assembly met for the first time on January 20, 1664 in Spanish Town. The Assembly later began to meet in Kingston. In 1872 the government bought a house called Hibbert House, which later came to be known as Headquarters House, to house the legislature. A new building was provided in 1962 and named after George William Gordon, an  Assemblyman, now a national hero.

The Oliver Clarke-led Parliamentary Salaries Committee looked at this issue in 2003, as part of their examination of working conditions for Parliamentarians and concluded that:

“priority must be given to the building of a new Parliament”

noting that Gordon House was never intended to become the permanent home of the Houses of Parliament as it had been built as the Council Chamber and Municipal Offices for the Kingston and St. Andrew Corporation (KSAC).

The Committee outlined the following difficulties:

1. Inadequate space for the Staff and the Members;
2. “Virtually non-existent” research facilities with a “small library over-flowing its confines;”
3. Only two conference rooms, one for the Government members and one for the Opposition;
4. No private space for MP’s to communicate with their constituents;
5. “Extremely small” and inadequate  offices for the Prime Minister, the Leader of Government’s Business in the House and the Leader of the Opposition;
6.  “… no accommodation given in respect of access and equipment for persons with a physical disability”

The Committee also cited the 1972 Ashenheim report which, 30 years earlier, had concluded that the conditions in the Parliament building were:

“in many respects deplorable, due we are told that it was conceived and constructed some twelve years ago as a temporary home for the Legislature.”

The Committee stated forthrightly that:

“It is not too much to say that if such accommodation were provided by a private company for the lowest class of its workers it would have the Trade Unions threatening the most drastic action in default of immediate improvement.”

In 2008, then Governor General Sir Kenneth Hall told the nation in his throne speech that steps were being taken to acquire land around Gordon House for its expansion.

The government’s intention to build a new building for Parliament was reiterated by former Prime Minister Bruce Golding in 2009.

Wouldn’t it be a great birthday present in this, our fiftieth year of Independence, to give ourselves a modern, useful Parliamentary building accessible to all our citizens? The 2003 construction price was estimated at $65 million. So yes, it would be great. But with our continuing high debt burden, the IMF negotiations and associated strictures, with ten places to put every dollar, with ill-equipped schools and hospitals, pothole-ridden roads and an inadequately resourced police force,  can we afford to spend this money (in today’s dollars)? Or is it time to accept that this is an investment in our country that we now have to make?

Jamaica 50 could make or break Lisa Hanna. Which will it be?

Lisa Hanna got major props from a lot of people during the Youth Debate in the run-up to the general election. People who had previously only seen her as a “former beauty queen” were impressed with her performance. She was criticized for some of her answers, but overall, she made a very favorable impression.

Her appointment as a full Cabinet Minster was further validation of her rising star status, but her political ascent could be accelerated or brought to a screeching halt this year.

The Culture Ministry is not usually a very high-profile portfolio. Culture is seen as one of the “soft” Ministries that doesn’t carry the cachet or media attention of some of the others. In an ordinary year, therefore, Ms. Hanna, as a new Minister, would have a little time, under the radar, to figure out the ins and outs of her Ministry and learn on the job.

Not this year. This year is Jamaica 50. All you can hear in every other sentence is Jamaica 50. So the celebrations spearheaded by the Culture Ministry are going to be squarely in the media spotlight.

The planning started last year with Ms. Hanna’s predecessor, Olivia “Babsy” Grange. She set up a secretariat, and commissioned a Jamaica 50 song, which, up to the start of this year was relatively unknown, as I mentioned here in a previous post.

There was always going to be pressure attached to the Jamaica 50 activities. But given Ms. Hanna’s early criticism of the JLP administration’s planning process, and Ms. Grange’s speedy defence, we can expect even closer scrutiny of the celebrations and the Minister herself.

And it’s not just the celebrations. The process is going to be just as important. With the Contractor General and Auditor General waiting in the wings, any good governance shortcuts and attempts to ride roughshod over government procurement guidelines to give jobs to Comrades are likely to be exposed. Reports of mismanagement and corruption will dull the new Minister’s  star faster than you can say Jamaica 50.

 

Ms. Hanna says the nation will soon hear the revised plans for the celebrations. She is surely aware of what is at stake, not just for the country, but for her.