Tweet
Edmond Campbell, Senior Staff Reporter
A STRONG disagreement on Friday between Opposition and Government members of a joint select committee of Parliament, considering six anti-crime bills, divided parliamentarians along party lines.
After six sittings, the committee wrapped up its deliberations on the bills and is to complete its report to Parliament in the next two weeks.
From the outset, the committee engaged in spirited debates and at times, verbal clashes ensued between committee members.
However, despite repeated calls for consensus by members of the committee on Friday, members were divided along party lines on a recommendation made by Senator K.D. Knight.
The Opposition senator suggested that the committee be allowed to propose changes to the controversial raft of legislation in its report that would be submitted to Parliament.
Bipartisan support
But chairperson Dorothy Lightbourne would have none of it. She said the committee would not attempt to amend the draft legislation, which had bipartisan support during the Vale Royal talks between the Opposition People's National Party and the ruling Jamaica Labour Party.
She said a report would be submitted detailing the recommendations of the various interest groups, as well as the views emanating from the committee.
Lightbourne's position was supported by Government Senator Tom Tavares Finson, who told his colleagues that it was not within the purview of the committee to change the legislation and send it back to the House.
But, Knight warned that the Opposition might have no option but to submit a minority report to Parliament, as he was not willing to rubber stamp decisions made during the Vale Royal talks.
He said at least two of the bills required a two-thirds majority vote in both Houses of Parliament, which meant that unanimity was crucial going forward. "What we are trying to do is to arrive at some consensus so that we can move forward and have the legislation passed in both Houses, because if we don't have that, we are in difficulty," Knight added.
The Opposition senator reminded his colleagues that Vice-Chairman of the Independent Jamaican Council for Human Rights, David Batts, was taken to task for daring to accuse parliamentarians of voting along party lines.
Party leaders
During his presentation to the committee on September 25, Batts urged legislators to vote according to their conscience on the proposed pieces of legislation and refrain from following the dictates of their party leaders.
He had to withdraw the statement after Senator Tavares Finson described his comment as "unworthy".
Continuing, Knight questioned: "Now, is it that the Vale Royal talks, having taken place, whatever comes out of those talks and ends up in Parliament, I am bound by them?
"If I am not bound by them, then I ought to be able to make recommendations for changes. They may have had some broad agreement. I am dealing with legislation and as a legislator I cannot accept simply that non-legislators and legislators at Vale Royal made some decisions which bind me," Knight said.
Chief Parliamentary Counsel Albert Edwards, who provided technical assistance to the committee, explained that the Standing Orders, which were the rules of Parliament, gave the committee the power to consider and report on the bills. However, he said in terms of reporting, the committee could recommend that a change be made to a particular clause in the bill.
http://www.jamaica-gleaner.com/glean...ead/lead4.html
A STRONG disagreement on Friday between Opposition and Government members of a joint select committee of Parliament, considering six anti-crime bills, divided parliamentarians along party lines.
After six sittings, the committee wrapped up its deliberations on the bills and is to complete its report to Parliament in the next two weeks.
From the outset, the committee engaged in spirited debates and at times, verbal clashes ensued between committee members.
However, despite repeated calls for consensus by members of the committee on Friday, members were divided along party lines on a recommendation made by Senator K.D. Knight.
The Opposition senator suggested that the committee be allowed to propose changes to the controversial raft of legislation in its report that would be submitted to Parliament.
Bipartisan support
But chairperson Dorothy Lightbourne would have none of it. She said the committee would not attempt to amend the draft legislation, which had bipartisan support during the Vale Royal talks between the Opposition People's National Party and the ruling Jamaica Labour Party.
She said a report would be submitted detailing the recommendations of the various interest groups, as well as the views emanating from the committee.
Lightbourne's position was supported by Government Senator Tom Tavares Finson, who told his colleagues that it was not within the purview of the committee to change the legislation and send it back to the House.
But, Knight warned that the Opposition might have no option but to submit a minority report to Parliament, as he was not willing to rubber stamp decisions made during the Vale Royal talks.
He said at least two of the bills required a two-thirds majority vote in both Houses of Parliament, which meant that unanimity was crucial going forward. "What we are trying to do is to arrive at some consensus so that we can move forward and have the legislation passed in both Houses, because if we don't have that, we are in difficulty," Knight added.
The Opposition senator reminded his colleagues that Vice-Chairman of the Independent Jamaican Council for Human Rights, David Batts, was taken to task for daring to accuse parliamentarians of voting along party lines.
Party leaders
During his presentation to the committee on September 25, Batts urged legislators to vote according to their conscience on the proposed pieces of legislation and refrain from following the dictates of their party leaders.
He had to withdraw the statement after Senator Tavares Finson described his comment as "unworthy".
Continuing, Knight questioned: "Now, is it that the Vale Royal talks, having taken place, whatever comes out of those talks and ends up in Parliament, I am bound by them?
"If I am not bound by them, then I ought to be able to make recommendations for changes. They may have had some broad agreement. I am dealing with legislation and as a legislator I cannot accept simply that non-legislators and legislators at Vale Royal made some decisions which bind me," Knight said.
Chief Parliamentary Counsel Albert Edwards, who provided technical assistance to the committee, explained that the Standing Orders, which were the rules of Parliament, gave the committee the power to consider and report on the bills. However, he said in terms of reporting, the committee could recommend that a change be made to a particular clause in the bill.
http://www.jamaica-gleaner.com/glean...ead/lead4.html
Comment