Joint Select bodies ready to roll

Political differences dominated a press conference dealing with the role and function of three Joint Select Committees yesterday.

The press conference which was held in the Committee Room of the Red House started out with Chairman Ramesh Deosaran dispassionately explaining that they would have the power to call officers and ministers of  Government, to ask for documents and to investigate complaints from the public about the performance of ministries, Public Service Commission and statutory bodies. But the briefing ended with a vigorous argument which went on beyond the press conference between UNC MP Robin Montano and PNM MP Fitzgerald Hinds over Prime Minister Patrick Manning decision to “consort” with persons known as ‘community leaders’, such as Mark Guerra. A stern-faced Montano went to give some biographical details on Guerra. Hinds during the conference commented that “this was not the forum for that”. And Deosaran appealed for members to be more “circumspect”. But when the press conference was over, a smiling Hinds shot back: “If the Prime Minister could talk to Panday, then he could talk to anybody.”

It was the unfriendliest of all the exchanges  which took place between the Government members and the members of the Opposition. But it underscored the kind of difficulties which lay ahead for these Committees, comprising as they do of these  two adversarial elements in politics. Hinds had earlier appealed to Senator Mark and “my friends from the Opposition” to “impress on themselves and their colleagues” that “goodwill was necessary not only at the level of the committees, but at the level of Parliament”. Montano, in response, contended that he was “heartened” by Hinds’ statements. In obvious reference to Senate President’s Linda Baboolal comments, Montano stated: “Parliament is about letting the people’s representatives have their say. When the people’s representatives are shut up, the goodwill dissipates...I hope Government understands that frivolous objections of irrelevance would be met by us with such weaponry as is at our disposal”.

All the committees are chaired by Independent senators -Ramesh Deosaran, Mary King and Parvatee Anmolsingh. The Independents appeared a bit uncomfortable with some of the crosstalk. The Independents stressed that the committees were designed to bring Parliament and Government closer to the people. King said there was a conflict of interest clause which all members had to sign in order to insulate the committee from potential conflicts of interest. She added that each committee had to submit a report on each government entity and the minister had 90 days to tell the Parliament what action he had taken to address some of the problems identified by the committee. Calling on the public to get involved,  Deosaran noted that because organisations like St Jude’s, St Dominic’s would be investigated,“all the complaints of abuse and maladministration” could be addressed. He said on the question of  kidnapping, “if people feel that the police were not doing their work properly,” they were entitled to come and make their views heard.

Montano said he was looking forward to asking the members of the Police Service Commission about their tenure and about how they were dealing with crooked cops, “which we all know exist”. Asked whether he was bringing his own bias to bear on the process, Montano said he would like to think he is professional enough to control any bias. “Do you not agree that a lot is wrong in the Police Service today? he challenged the reporter. “The majority of people are not satisfied...The time has come for us to bring everything out in the open,” he said, adding that reporters “hide” behind questions. Ganga Singh, noting that the Joint Select Committees carried all the privileges of Parliament, said if people felt that there was an issue of discrimination- such as “the doctors issue” or CEPEP- “if people feel they have been unfairly treated”, they can bring it to the committee. “The spectrum is wide,” he stressed. Singh also emphasised that it was not the intention of the Committee- like some Commissions of Inquiry- to smear people’s names without the opportunity for them responding, or to be inquisitorial.

Vice-President of the Senate, Rawle Titus said it was appearing as though members were making the committees sound like a “Tribunal”. “It does not have judgmental functions”, he said, even though they would hold people accountable with a view to bringing “systematic change for development”. While everyone else said they had high expectations about the Committees, UNC’s Armin Smith seemed to be somewhat pessimistic about what the Committee could really achieve. Ministers would not want their ministries investigated and Government had a majority of members on all these Committees, he noted.  What happens when a wrong is committed? he wondered. “We mustn’t be naive” Smith said, stressing that both the Opposition and the public were powerless in the face of this reality. Saying that there should have been a committee to investigate what should be put in place “to get action” if a wrong is commited, Smith said: “To me there would be no result at the end of the day. To me we wasting we time...I think we put the cart before the horse”. Deosaran said he couldn’t bring “closure on this issue”. “People were still trying to find their feet,” he said.

UNC Senator Carolyn Seepersad-Bachan said only experience would be able to guide the Committees. She said maybe the country would learn that it doesn’t have the conventions of other Parliaments which use the Committee system, and that it needed constitutional reform “in black and white” to guide it and to say that ministers cannot be members of these Committees.