IT has been the practice, despite the ethical implications, for both chambers of Parliament to endorse, without debate, motions exempting members from having to vacate their seat for having contractual arrangements with the government.

But Opposition Leader Bruce Golding last Wednesday, putting the issue forcibly on the table, said in allowing the ‘tradition’ to continue, parliamentarians were failing in their duty to the public.

Several members over the years, including Speakers, have requested and got exemptions.

The issue is not so much the fact that a member has become engaged in a financial transaction with the government, as much as the lack of debate which conceals the full extent of the contractual arrangement.

The latest of these motions was brought to the House of Representatives on Wednesday by the Leader Dr Peter Phillips, seeking approval of an exemption for government MP for North Trelawny, Dr Patrick Harris, as a shareholder in Tropical Exotics Jamaica Limited.

The company operates from the Hague property in the parish, on a government lease.

Phillips explained that the company, from time to time, enters into contracts with the Government of Jamaica for the supply of farm and fish products, as well as attractions and entertainment promotion.

Golding admitted that these resolutions are normally handled with dispatch and noted that he did not intend to disturb the tradition, but wanted to know why it is preserved.

“The tradition is for somebody to present the resolution, with no discussion, no examination, no debate and we approve it and we exempt the member from losing his seat without a full disclosure of the issues that are involved,” said the Opposition leader.

“I am not seeking to disturb the tradition in dealing with this particular resolution, but I do want to urge the House and the Leader of the House, in particular, that this is something we have to take under advisement. I don’t think that we are doing justice to the public if every time a matter like this comes up we take a view (of) ‘no discussion, let’s approve it and move on’.”

Golding continued: “If there is anything that requires, in my view, a discussion, it is any matter that could involve a possible conflict of interest involving any of the elected representatives.

I urge the government to consider adopting the approach that it is something that we should discuss at a committee level and see how we deal with situations like these in the future.”

Phillips, in responding, pointed out that the matter has already been the subject of some discussion.

He said the Vale Royal talks between the two major political parties, had secured agreement on the principle that an ‘ethics committee’ of the House should be established and that, among other things, it would be able to consider matters such as the one raised in the motion that was on the floor.

Issues involving the breach of ethics of the House, and Parliament exercising control and rights of protecting its own reputation and its own standards, said Phillips, would be preserved by such a committee.

He added that matters raised by the Integrity Commission, that warranted consideration – not necessarily matters to be referred to court but other issues which could quite properly be brought within the purview of such a committee – would be included.

“I think that what remains is that in the same way that we are dealing with other areas of agreement and fleshing it out, including matters relating to the committees of the House, the Appropriations Committee, et cetera, we need to bring this to conclusion,” Phillips said.

“I think we should also bear in mind the fact that though it (the ethics committee) does not now exist, it does not mean that there is no protection of the interest of the public in matters such as this, because parliamentarians are required to report, in their regular reports to the Integrity Commission, all their holdings and their interests in such companies, and to that extent there is some protection,” the House Leader further advised members.

“We recognise that, in effect, as this Parliament develops its tradition and seeks to respond to concerns that may be raised, we certainly should be willing to make adjustments to bring the House in line with modern standards and practices and to develop our own standards which may become a beacon to other parliaments.”

The House Committee or Standing Orders Committee will examine the issue.