Opposition Senator, Colonel Trevor MacMillan, wants the Government to establish a Joint Select Committee of Parliament to review all past reports and make recommendations for more effective policing.

A motion tabled in the Senate Friday by Senator MacMillan read:

Whereas there is great public concern about the level of crime in Jamaica and the ability of the security forces to deal with the problem. During the last six years, four years were record-breaking years for the level of murders, with a reported cleared-up rate of between 30 per cent and 50 per cent. The current year has started at a rate of 4.2 murders per day for the first 18 days;

And, whereas a recent poll has shown that over 50 per cent of the JCF (Jamaica Constabulary Force) is perceived as corrupt;

And whereas there have been numerous reports and recommendations in the past 20 years to deal with the reorganisation of the JCF and the crime problem;

And whereas the Police Officers Association and the Police Federation have publicly brought to attention the lack of resources in the JCF;

And whereas the police need the full co-operation of the citizens, but have a great deal of difficulty in getting this co-operation due to the JCF’s human rights record;

And whereas the JCF Act and the regulations made thereunder are out of date for policing in the 21st century and urgently require updating;

Be It Resolved that this Honourable Senate calls on the Government to establish a Joint Select Committee of Parliament to review all past reports and recommendations, and to examine and make recommendations to Parliament regarding all aspects of the operations, administration, recruiting and training, disciplinary procedures, passing of laws to enable more effective policing and any other factor that impacts on the ability of the JCF to carry out their duties in the 21st century.

Finance ministry mishandling Capital Development Fund, says A-G

Auditor-General Adrian Strachan has listed a number of flaws in how the Ministry of Finance has been handling the Capital Development Fund (CDF), which is financed by the bauxite levy.

In his 2005/2006 report tabled last Tuesday, Strachan pointed out the following:

Investment

The proceeds of a Jamaica Local Registered Stock, with a face value of J$142.3 million and which matured on August 17, 1999, was not paid into the CDF by the minister of finance until September 4, 2001. It was noted that no interest was received on the amount for a period of two years. This resulted in loss to the Fund of approximately $40 million in interest income.

Dividend Declaration

During 2001, the board of directors of the National Investment Bank of Jamaica (NIBJ), a subsidiary of the Fund, took the decision to pay a dividend of $7.3 million to the accountant-general. However, this contravened the provisions of the Bauxite (Production Levy) Act, 1974.

SHARES – Caribbean Cement Company

Net proceeds of $600.7 million were received for the sale in 1999 of the Caribbean Cement Company shares held by the National Investment Bank of Jamaica. Of this amount, $401.6 million was paid over to the Ministry of Finance and Planning in breach of the Act.

Omar seeks approval to withdraw $2.5 billion from Capital Development Fund

Finance Minister Dr Omar Davies last Tuesday said that he was seeking approval, under the Bauxite Production Levy Act, to withdraw $2.5 billion from the Capital Development Fund (CDF) to support the 2006/2007 budget.

He noted that the revenue estimates at April 2006 made provisions for $3.9 billion to be transferred from the CDF to the Consolidated Fund, which finances the budget.

He also advised the House that at March 31, 2006, the CDF contained just under $370 million. Between April 1, 2006 and October 1, 2006 some $2.3 billion was received from the bauxite levy and deposited in the CDF, bringing the total to $2.7 billion. The CDF currently has $2.6 billion from which Dr Davies will withdraw $2.5 billion.

This would be the second withdrawal for 2006/2007, as $175 million was previously withdrawn to go to the Jamaica Bauxite Institute (JBI).

Dr Davies said that the funds had assisted projects in several constituencies in the bauxite sector, including St Ann south-east, south-west and north-west; St Catherine north-west and south-west; Clarendon south-west, north-west, south-east, north-central and central; St Elizabeth south-east and north-east; and Manchester north-west, north-east, central and south.

Davies pointed out that north-east Manchester is represented by the Opposition’s spokesman on finance, Audley Shaw, while south Manchester is represented by the House speaker, Michael Peart. However, north-central Clarendon and south-west St Ann are represented by the JLP’s Pearnel Charles and Ernest Smith, respectively, both of whom joined Shaw in a very passionate condemnation of how the funds from the bauxite levy were spent.

They also criticised the Government for not taking a Private Members’ Motion from Shaw, which has been on the Order Paper for several months, asking for a major programme of capital development in mined-out communities financed by 50 per cent of the levy.

They felt that the areas from which the bauxite was mined were not benefiting from the mining as they should, although the resource was being depleted at a fast rate.

They were supported by the leader of the opposition, Bruce Golding, who accused successive governments of failing to fulfill the commitment given by the late Prime Minister Michael Manley, at the institution of the levy in 1974, that the funds would be used for capital investment, with special emphasis on the areas from which the ore was extracted and which are in need of rehabilitation.

“That has never really been the approach that has been taken,” Golding said. “I am not seeking to make a political point, because I believe that successive administrations have been guilty of it,” he said. “But it would be interesting to track the funds to determine how much of the yield from the bauxite levy has in fact gone into capital investment and how much of the funds have, in fact, been spent in the areas that visually have not benefited from bauxite production but have been ravaged by it.”

Golding said that he believed that a percentage of the proceeds from the levy should be dedicated in a way that could not be modified or interfered with.

“Now, I know it is good to say that well, here is a list of the constituencies that have benefited from the fund. It has benefited to what extent? Build a postal agency here; fix a little road over there,” said Golding.

“When I was discussing this with some of my colleagues earlier this afternoon, one of them suggested that, ‘yeah, but if you are to dedicate inflows in that kind of way, what is going to happen when the tourist communities get up and say, ‘hey well, we want a percentage of the tourist revenue’.

“But there is a difference. There is an important difference. In the tourist resort areas, we are putting something in there. We are adding to what they have. In the bauxite areas, we are going in and taking out something that they have always had. and when we have taken that out, we have taken out from them a part of their productive capacity.”