LINES OF COMMUNICATION

Prime Minister Patrick Manning’s approach to the isue of the demolition of squatters’ homes at Union Hall, including his publicly voiced response to statements made by National Housing Chairman, Noel Garcia, ignores established and long accepted lines of communication. And while Union Hall’s being in his constituency of San Fernando East may have triggered his intervention, nonetheless his repeated dismissal of the principle of lines of communication and with it Westminster convention should be viewed as unfortunate. Although Manning may have assumed that his warning at Thursday’s post Cabinet news conference of possible action by Government, should the NHA not act in accordance with what he described as Government’s stated policy, bore the mantle of Cabinet, he should have left that caution for his Minister of Housing, Dr Keith Rowley.

This could have passed on by Dr Rowley to the NHA Chairman, via the Permanent Secretary, or the Chairman could have been summoned to a meeting. Had the Prime Minister followed established lines of communication he would have contacted the Housing Minister with respect to the demolition of the squatters’ homes. The Minister of Housing would have been required to speak with his Permanent Secretary, who then would have contacted the Chairman of NHA. Although the ultimate responsibility rests with the Prime Minister, nonetheless his authority must not only be delegated to the Minister concerned, but must be seen to be delegated. There is an example of a situation involving then British Prime Minister James Callaghan and his Foreign Minister, David Owen, published in the Sunday Times Magazine in September 1978, which illustrates the point.

“When a message arrived from Julius Nyerere of Tanzania,” the Sunday Times reported, “the Prime Minister started to outline a response. Then he stopped, told Owen to do what he thought best, and said: ‘We can’t have two people playing the same hand’.” In the same manner, Housing Minister Rowley should have been allowed to play his hand with respect both to the demolition at Union Hall and to the comment made by NHA Chairman, Garcia. But aside from the question of delegation of authority or lines of communication, because Union Hall falls within Manning’s constituency of San Fernando East there was always the danger that his intervention at Union Hall was open to the perception that it had taken place because his constituents were involved.

There is yet another side. The public may perceive that Mr Manning’s personal intervention had arisen because he had a major difference with Dr Rowley on how the demolition issue, albeit in Manning’s constituency, should have been handled. And the public may have perceived this whether Dr Rowley had prior knowledge or not of the action. Meanwhile, the Prime Minister’s publicly voiced sarcastic dismissal of the original notice of demolition having been given to the squatter community in Union Hall in 2001 was regretabble.

Admittedly, a fresh notice should have been given to the community, several of whose members had moved in relatively recently, but Manning’s comments should have been properly made in Cabinet and/or privately to Rowley. As we pointed out in an earlier Editorial, there should be a humanitarian approach to the demolition of squatters’ homes. We do not hold that this approach was followed by the National Housing Authority. Nonetheless, this was no reason for the Prime Minister to have opened himself to the charge, however unwarranted, that he had somehow undermined his Housing Minister’s authority and had been playing politics.