D-day for the bills

TOMORROW is Decision Day for the Police Reform Bills. The package of legislation will finally be debated in the House, after provoking a long-running war of words between the Government and the Opposition and agitating the country’s population for several months. As an exercise in democracy, we are pleased that the debate will be broadcast live over television and radio. But the subject of the session also demands it, since no other legislative measures within recent times have generated such intense public interest as this effort to radically reform the Police Service.

The bills and the debate will make history for several reasons. The first, of course, is the legislation’s intent, which is to revolutionise the administrative structure of the Police Service, removing the old order in which authority was confused, corruption became endemic and discipline almost impossible, and replacing it with a more efficient system in which, for the first time, management will not be hamstrung and clear lines of responsibility will be established. As Sir Ellis Clarke succintly pointed out, the legislation which he and his Technical Team drafted is aimed at “cleansing the Police Service and strengthening its effectiveness.” Secondly, the debate will be unique for the fact that the bills which created so much contention between the Government and the Opposition are really the approved products of a 2001 bipartisan committee in which both Mr Panday, who was the Prime Minister at that time, and Mr Manning, then Opposition Leader, played a prominent part. How could a package of legislation, born out of bipartisan agreement, become the subject of such a political confrontation?

A fascinating feature of tomorrow’s debate, then, must be the approach of Mr Panday and his UNC parliamentarians. Will they bring their fierce opposition to the Bills into the House debate or will they now decide to cool it by offering some suggested amendments? Maybe the eleventh hour meetings between the two leaders would produce some acceptable compromises. At yesterday’s confab, we understand, Mr Manning suggested some possible changes which the Opposition is now considering. The debate is significant also because the proposed measures are intended to address not only Police Service reform but also the wider issue of dealing with crime which is the most urgent problem facing the country at present. While some have argued that passing laws will not necessarily help in solving that issue, we accept the point made by Sir Ellis, that the crime situation is essentially a matter for the Police. “No government or no other body,” he says, “can deal with crime without having an effective Police Service. So what we have sought to do is to give the tools whereby a better treatment of the crime situation could ensue.”

It is our view, and we have said it repeatedly in the past, that the Police Service is failing the country in the battle against the criminals for a host of reasons, not the least of which are a lack of commitment, poor recruitment, ineffective management, outmoded technology, and a laxity that comes from the perception that discipline is too cumbersome to be pursued. Numerous investigations and commissions have consistently revealed the weaknesses of the Service, making recommendations that have largely been ignored. Surely, the time has come for change, but will the House vote for it tomorrow?