I would not claim that there is no element of corruption any place within the public system.

In fact, very often when the complaints are made, they are not necessarily directed at those in political life, although sometimes they are. In each case where they are raised and where it is felt that there might even be any semblance of substance, they have been subject to a very clear and open investigation. Certainly, at the level of persons employed in particular areas where we know that there is a tendency for people to induce persons to do things, either more quickly than they should to favour somebody or to turn a blind eye to something which should not be. There still are instances of that.

However few they may be, they are still something that we must resist. In addition to the laws and the framework institutions, we have to build within the society a culture of intolerance for corrupt action, and I've always said and repeat, that in any corrupt act, two sides are involved - not only the person who receives, but also the person who gives, or who offers.

GLEANER: Mr. Patterson, to be more specific, the administration has been plagued by a number of so-called scandals such as Operation PRIDE and project loans. How does this square off with your anti-corruption stance?

PRIME MINISTER: Let's take Operation Pride as example. Complaints were made about the administration of Operation Pride and I appointed a committee to do an investigation. The committee made certain findings in a report. But even if you examine those findings, the worst that can be said about the minister in question was that he was impatient to get things done. Certainly, insofar as he was concerned, there never was any allegation that he had profited personally in any pecuniary way or form. So let's be very clear about that. When the report was presented, I asked for that report to be legally examined. We know that there is a report by the former Solicitor General, Dr. the Honourable Ken Rattray, and we know that it exonerated the minister of any culpability.

The point I would wish to make in the case of Operation Pride is: allegations were made and I ordered a full investigation and report. Insofar as ministerial responsibility is concerned, there can be no suggestion of the minister having benefited personally. Insofar as there is any suggestion of individuals or an individual benefiting in a pecuniary way, the law has been allowed to take its course. That, I believe, is consistent with my position, that wherever there is even the hint of corruption, we should pursue it, and there should be no political interference whatsoever to prevent the miscreants from being dealt with according to law. Let me use this opportunity of saying it and saying it very clearly, no where in the report is there a finding of any corrupt practice by the Minister in charge. Had that been the case, he certainly would not still be a member of Parliament on the government side. I want to be very clear about that.

Crime and the death penalty

GLEANER: Going back back a bit, before you became prime minister in 1979, you took part in the first and only debate on the death penalty. The House at that time voted to retain the death penalty; you were on the side which said no. Are you of the same mind?

PRIME MINISTER: My personal views are that we should be living in a society where the death penalty no longer needs to be applied.

Those views have not changed. I recognise, however, that I presently preside over a society where stemming violent crime is of the utmost urgency and importance. The society's view certainly by the vote in Parliament then, and by the feeling which has persisted in successive Parliaments, is that there are instances where the death penalty ought to be applied.

In fact, flowing from that debate and the decision of Parliament and successive studies that have been undertaken by the late Dr. Aubrey Phillips and others, we reached a position where it was thought both just and appropriate no longer to have one form of punishment for all homicides. We then changed to capital and non-capital offences. The irony of it is that if we hadn't changed the law as we did, the Privy Council would not have held as it did last year, that since we have altered the law from that which previously existed prior to 1962, we are in breach of the Constitution. So that Barbados, for instance, where there was no change in the law, is not regarded as being in breach of that section of our respective Constitutions, which says any law which existed prior to Independence will remain valid and in force.

This leads me directly to part of my concern about decisions of the Privy Council. For me it is not whether you are for or against the death penalty. The Privy Council says, quite rightly, a court must be free from domestic political pressure, I accept that fully. The court must also be free from international pressure and must also be immune in its considerations to a body of international opinion in applying the domestic law of any country for which it is responsible. This is why I have said, among the things that will have to be considered (by the Jamaican Parliament) is whether we are going to be amending our Constitution as Barbados has done, to in effect, allow the decisions of our legislature to be given effect in accordance with the law.

GLEANER: Would you contemplate another parliamentary debate on the issue, on the same basis of a conscience vote?

PRIME MINISTER: I think the time has come for that, and I certainly in my letter which I have issued to the leader of the Opposition, I have said one of the questions that we need to discuss is, "Should the death penalty be applicable, and if so for what offences?" And if we so decide, "What changes, if any, are necessary to our Constitution to enable that decision of Parliament to be given full effect?"

GLEANER: Prime Minister, you mentioned the Privy Council, and the need for them not to respond to international pressure. Do you think the fact that the United Kingdom has adopted the European Conven-tion on Human Rights into its own domestic law, has had an impact on how the Privy Council views matters coming from outside?

PRIME MINISTER: I entertain not the slightest doubt about that. In the Bahamas at a meeting between the foreign minister of the United Kingdom at the time and the foreign ministers of the Caribbean Community, Robin Cooke said clearly that you cannot continue to expect any court sitting on English soil to give effect to laws which require capital punishment. Let it be known that at that same meeting at which was represented dependent territories like Montserrat, Cayman and Bermuda, their laws were changed by the imperial Parliament, to remove the death penalty; so they had no choice, it was done for them. What has happened is judicial legislation, and there are at least five instances where the Privy Council has reversed itself.

Even after the Privy Council has upheld a decision in a case of capital murder, as we describe it, and you think that's the end of it, that's just the beginning, that's when the constitutional motion commences. And every case so far has been stymied as a consequence of the action on a constitutional motion which has been brought. The Privy Council has overturned previous decisions time and time after time.

This is why I think it is so absurd for anybody to suggest that because the Privy Council has made a decision on the CCJ (Caribbean Court of Justice) matter, all the lawyers who have advised the Government were incapable or inefficient or ought to be chastised. When the Privy Council wants to reverse itself, what it does is very often call judges to sit, not in five but in seven, and only last year the case which dealt with the question of capital punishment and the changes in the law over turned previous decisions given on the same point.

"So as I have said before, the final court is not always right, it is right only insofar as it is final"

GLEANER: What are the areas of the local justice system that you would like to see reformed and improvements made before the implementation of the CCJ?

PRIME MINISTER: Whether you are in the field of public policy or simply somebody engaged in the quest for justice, everybody, everywhere recognises the need to reform and improve the system of justice. And I say everybody, everywhere. Your newspaper carried this morning (February 10, 2005) a report of the British prime minister apologising to 11 Irish persons who were convicted as it turned out wrongfully, for offences many years ago.

And we see it happening in the United States constantly. In fact, that is one of the strong grounds why some people remain concerned about the imposition of the death penalty, because it's something you can't reverse and it's something for which you can't make amends ever.

So, let's get it out clearly. It is not a question of improving the justice system or going into the CCJ or some other final court; you need to do both. There have been considerable changes and improvements made within our justice system, particularly during the tenure of the much criticised Honourable K.D. Knight. Insofar as the justice system is concerned, including extending the right to legal representation, the right to bail, which is now specified in a law.

We need to make, obviously, some physical improvements to our court system. When I began practice, there was no Court of Appeal; we had six judges in the Supreme Court doing all the work, we now have 19 judges; we now have seven in the Court of Appeal, and still our judges are stretched.

There are several things that have to be done to improve our court system. We have started on some. The business of a judge writing down everything in long hand. It's not a static system. This argument that if you didn't do the CCJ you would have some improvement, automatically you would have a perfect domestic system, just doesn't apply, because we do have the Privy Council in place and we still have room for improvement.

Solutions to crime

GLEANER: From your vantage point for 13 years, what in your opinion is the solution for our crime problem?

PRIME MINISTER: I think there are two things that have to go hand in hand, and let me state the more obvious one first. We have to increase the capacity of our security forces, not simply in terms of numbers and of training, both of which are necessary, but also in terms of the process of intelligence gathering. In a new technological age, and in terms of their investigative methods, their ability to apprehend, to detect, and perhaps very importantly, to prevent, need to be improved.

Certainly, in terms of prevention, granted that so many of our violent crimes are committed by guns, it really means the ports of entry, airports, seaports and our open coastline. And we've been working at each of those elements and we must continue to do so. There is a second thing, and it has to do with patterns of social behaviour, and the security forces are an element in that insofar as their action triggers certain responses and certain patterns of relationship between the security forces and the civil society. But, let's just take one of the tragedies that has grabbed the entire nation: the murders of children in Kilancholy, St. Mary. I venture to say, no security force in the world could have prevented that. Sadly, but it is the case. And one hears about statements made as to what might have motivated it, which leads me to a wider consideration. Patterns of social behaviour cannot be insulated from cultural expressions and cultural forms, and we have to do everything, beginning with our children, of trying to create a more gentle society, a more caring society, a society with greater respect for fundamental values, the most precious of which is life. And dare I say, that in that effort, all of us have to play our part, and I include deliberately the fourth estate, the media. And I want to be very clear about it, I am not advocating censorship of any shape or form. I am not suggesting that you bury news because it is unpleasant, but I think some of the things whether on the electronic media or in print media, really don't serve to promote amity and respect. Very often, they breed disrespect and -- I don't think deliberately -- they fuel animosity. I just think that the entire society, not just the people in leadership positions, though they must take the lead, and by leadership I mean not just political, I mean church, I mean private sector, I mean community leadership, I mean people in civil society, Jamaicans at ever walk of life, have to say enough is enough. We've got to just avoid going one step further or we are going to go over the brink.

Disappiontments

GLEANER: Prime Minister, What are your top policy failures?

PRIME MINISTER: I would more speak about policy difficulties and disappointments, because the areas I am going to mention are ones in which we have faced hurdles, and we have overcome obstacles, but the consequence of all this is that we haven't gone as swiftly and as far as I would have liked. The first one, I would say is that we are yet to engender the kind of relationships throughout the society that would enable us as a country and as a people to achieve prosperity, to achieve harmony, to promote tolerance, and to allow the individual potential of every individual to be realised. And that, of course, follows directly from what we had to say about patterns of crime and social behaviour. I'll put that as number one. The next thing I would have to mention, would be the setback which was occasioned by the failures in sections of the financial institutions, and I notice that treatises are being written now about what caused these failures. I remember sitting on this very verandah with some of those who are writing today, who were always saying there were two classes of financial institutions, those which were indigenous and those which were not, and you should have rules which were special and liberal for those which were indigenous and stricter rules for those which were foreign.

One must reflect, in fact, that the foreign institutions not only survived but some of them have done exceedingly well and some of the local institutions are the ones that failed, and one must ask themselves, was it therefore because of government policy?

Or was it because some of them were seeking to move too quickly and too far afield into areas where the taking of risk exceeded considerations of prudent fiscal management. That would be my second disappointment The third thing would be that despite the money and the energy spent on education, we still have not got that quantum leap which is necessary in the quality of education which is required for us to successfully compete in a global economy and to develop our human resources to the fullest. And this is what makes the educational transformation report of such great importance at this time and which is what causes me to be committed in whatever time remains to me, to ensure that we really launch this transformation on a path that is sound and irreversible.

COMING TOMORROW: 'Transforming the Education sector.'