Editorial | Fixing a lazy Parliament

The Gleaner notes, and welcomes, the undertaking by the Government and the Opposition that their members will be regular, and punctual, at meetings of the legislature, including its committees, during the life of the current Parliament.

“We know that there are some members who did not attend as much as they should, but I think we’re turning a new leaf,” said Robert Morgan, the deputy leader of the House, following an orientation for members of parliament (MPs) after last month’s general election. “It’s a new parliamentary group. Everyone has been renewed in their mandate so there will be efforts.”

Phillip Paulwell, leader of Opposition Business, said the People’s National Party (PNP) has stressed to its legislators the importance of attendance at, and being on time for, sittings of Parliament.

He added: “As part of my own orientation with my members, we made that point absolutely clear. We are not going to tolerate absenteeism. In fact, we are insisting on punctuality.

“So you’re going to find on this score, (that as) Opposition members, that we’re going to be here on time; and we’re going to be here in good numbers, and very importantly, in relation to the oversight committees, we intend to be very active and vigorous.”

NOTORIOUSLY LAZY

This pledge is significant given Jamaica’s Parliament is notoriously lazy.

Normally, the House sits only once a week, for a few hours on Tuesdays, averaging around 37 sitting days a year. Yet, it takes substantial breaks over summer and at Christmas. And even then, many MPs don’t show up, or do so late.

For instance, in 2024 attendance at House sittings, though up three percentage points on the previous year, averaged only 76 per cent. At any time, on average 15 of the 63 members of the House of Representatives were likely to be absent from the sessions. Nonetheless, even this relatively low attendance rate masked the pitifully low presence of some members.

It is hardly surprising that in a good year (and if it is not under the gun by an external body like, say, the International Monetary Fund to approve specific legislation) Jamaica’s parliament may pass 20 bills, but mostly fewer. Private members’ bills/motions rarely make the Order Paper.

In New Zealand, by comparison, the unicameral parliament sits, on average, 90 days a year (three days a week for several hours), and can be expected to pass between 80 and 120 bills. Its members also find time to attend committee meetings.

The time Jamaica’s legislature allots to its full sessions, and how it uses that time, are not the only areas where there should be reform.

Additionally, Prime Minister Andrew Holness should reverse his patently bad policy which wrested the chairmanships of most House committees from the parliamentary opposition and handed them to government members. The result has been to weaken Parliament’s oversight of the executive. That is bad for governance.

WASN’T ALWAYS THE CASE

It wasn’t always the case that most of Parliament’s Standing Committees were in the control of the Opposition. That started with the 2007-2011 administration of Bruce Golding, Dr Holness’ predecessor as leader of the Jamaica Labour Party (JLP). Dr Holness succeeded Mr. Golding as prime minister for three months. It continued during Portia Simpson Miller’s PNP administration (2012-2016).

Although Prime Minister Holness attempted to revert to the old system when his party formed the government after the 2016 election, he wasn’t able to push through the changes until 2020. Only the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) and the Public Administration and Appropriations Committee (PAAC), historically chaired by the Opposition, remained in that column.

Two things have resulted from that move. Despite the government’s overwhelming majority in the previous Parliament (it had 49 or 78 per cent of the seats) the performance of the committees chaired by its members was lacklustre. Key ones met infrequently and when they met, they rarely strived for substance.

Despite Opposition chairmanships, the configuration of the membership of the PAC and the PAAC, whose mandates span how ministries and agencies utilise and account for taxpayers resources, meant that attempts to hold sessions were often frustrated.

This may have prevented awkward questions being asked. Issues that might have embarrassed the government were perhaps not revealed. But as Bruce Golding advised his successor six years ago, that approach is not in the interest of good governance. The best way to avoid embarrassment is to avoid doing embarrassing things.

“There is, of course, the possibility that the opposition chairman will use his/her position to embarrass the Government, but such is the thrust and interplay of a parliamentary democracy,” Mr Golding wrote. “It is the responsibility of the Government to seek to ensure that there is nothing about which it can be embarrassed. That is what checks and balances are about.”

While it is now in the prime minister’s gift, as leader of the majority in Parliament, to determine who leads the committees, the decision should be placed beyond the control or whim of the PM. Any PM!

It should be cemented in the Standing Orders of Parliament, as part of reforms Speaker Juliet Holness says she intends to pursue.

Mrs Holness, however, also has other work to do if she is to command full respect in the job. Her robotically wooden style, and most people’s perception that she did not transcend her party affiliations in the Speaker’s chair, led to scepticism and distrust during her previous stint.

Additionally, Speaker Holness’ attempt last year to undeservedly throw the former clerk to Parliament, Valarie Curtis, under the bus over the handling of a matter which wasn’t Ms Curtis’ doing, struck a sour note. So, too, did the Speaker’s attempt to delay the tabling of reports sent to Parliament by the Auditor General and the Integrity Commission.

Speaker Holness is however starting with a fresh slate. She still has an opportunity, if she grasps it, to become an outstanding Speaker.