Reparations again dominated last week’s sitting of the House of Representatives. Leader of the House, Dr Peter Phillips, informed the speaker just prior to the resumption of the debate on Tuesday that Prime Minister Portia Simpson Miller would be participating this week.

According to the house leader, the prime minister has indicated an interest in participating in the debate. But she thinks that the matter is of such critical importance that she would like to conclude some of the consultations that she has already begun, both within and outside Jamaica, before making her contribution.

In fact, he revealed that Simpson Miller has been meeting with critically interested sections of the community, including Rastafarians, on the issue.

“And she has begun, but not yet concluded, consultations with her Caricom colleagues on this matter of reparations, and she would like to delay making her contribution until she has proceeded further with those consultations,” he explained.

He said he was grateful to Opposition MP Mike Henry for agreeing to postpone the conclusion of the issue until Tuesday to facilitate the prime minister.

. Minister of education and youth, Maxine Henry-Wilson, is to table a Ministry Paper on the report and recommendations of the committee of enquiry which examined the 2006 Grade Six Achievement Test (GSAT) on Tuesday.

The committee comprised Carlton Samuels, chairman, chief information officer at the University of the West Indies (UWI); Milton Samuda, attorney-at-law; and Radley Reid, former principal of Campion College.

They were appointed by the minister on the instructions of Prime Minister Portia Simpson Miller, following the controversy which surrounded the delay in the publication of last year’s GSAT results.

There were claims of a compromise of the process and that information was leaked. But the committee said it saw no evidence of a compromise and no leakage.

However, the committee found serious problems arising from the shortage of grade seven spaces in high schools, especially traditional high schools to which most parents wanted their children to be assigned.

They found that the situation was so bad in region six (Clarendon and St Catherine) that the regional director was assigning students, who passed the GSAT, to spaces in junior high and all-age schools, a practice which was halted by a stop order from the chief education officer.

The committee has warned that the situation could even become worse next September, with the need for about 3,000 – 4,000 more spaces. One of the puzzling things about the report was that it was made to the minister from last October, and is being tabled nearly four months later.

But according to the minister, although it was presented to the Cabinet, it was not released publicly until, “I was satisfied that appropriate remedial measures were being taken”.

The remedial action include: a look at increasing the compensation for the examiners; reassessment of the timing of the examination; and plans for a sustained public education programme.

Recommendations for alternative financing for school buildings and a requirement that all new housing developments should include infrastructure provisions for schools are to be referred to the Cabinet. But it seems that the minister will not have much to say about the recommendation that GSAT students include a non-traditional high school among the preferred choices.

. Leader of Government Business in the Senate, A J Nicholson, was concerned Friday that although Opposition parliamentarians sat on the joint select committee which studied the Proceeds of Crime bill and reported to Parliament, several criticisms have been raised in the debate.

Nicholson was particularly harsh on Opposition spokesperson on legal matters, Senator Dorothy Lightbourne, who was a member but who, in the Senate on Friday, raised concerns about the risk of trampling on fundamental human rights in seeking to seize property and earnings allegedly obtained from criminal activities.

Senator Lightbourne pointed out that she had not signed the report, neither had she attended more than two meetings and neither was she present when these issues were agreed.

Of course, that is no excuse, and Senator Nicholson drove home the point, noting that she could have made a minority report.

He suggested that two camps had been created within the Opposition – one, including committee members Derrick Smith, Delroy Chuck and Arthur Williams, as well as Trevor MacMillan; and the second, including Senator Lightbourne, Clive Mullings, Chris Tufton and Anthony Johnson who have some reservations.

Senator Lightbourne was the only member of the committee who raised objections during the debate on the report.

The bill was passed without any changes. It will go back to the Lower House on Tuesday for final approval, then to the Governor-General for his assent after which it will be gazetted.

Grange suggests national commission to review reparations

Opposition MP Olivia ‘Babsy’ Grange has suggested that Parliament appoint a national commission to review the case for post-slavery reparations.

Making her contribution on February 20 to the marathon debate which started on February 6, Grange suggested that, “a national commission composed of parliamentarians, experts and a cross section of society, with a secretariat and staff to facilitate day-to-day operations, be established”.

She suggested the following terms of reference:

. to receive submissions or memoranda, hear testimony, evaluate research and studies, engage in dialogue with relevant interest groups, and undertake wide public consultations with the aim of guiding a national approach to reparations;

. to indicate what is required to create a blueprint or roadmap for achieving reparations, taking into account the social, cultural, economic and international factors;

. to recommend the diplomatic initiatives, security considerations, educational process and programme of public information that will need to be taken to establish a claim for reparations;

. to consider and report on any other matters sufficiently relating to the foregoing;

. to make such interim reports as it may deem fit and a final report within a period of 18 months from the first sitting of the committee.

“When we speak about reparations, it cannot be just a talkshop,” said Grange. “Is there a serious plan for lobbying for implementation of the 19 recommendations in the name of reparations? Has the Government given any serious thought to the issue of reparations at the Cabinet level, or at any level?”

“We need a road map to reparations, but who is willing to bell the cat? As I explored and researched this most important topic of reparations, I found that there are more questions than answers, and today I want to challenge the minds of my colleagues.

“If reparations is sought as some form of cash grant to Jamaica and Jamaicans, will it open up a pandora’s box of problems, and are we prepared to deal with them? For instance: how much money are we talking about?

“Will reparations take the form of debt relief to cover the debt presently accumulated by former and present governments? These are among the many unanswered questions,” she said.

“What about those who feel reparations should come as financial grants to each and every citizen? If so, should Jamaicans who have no slave ancestry, such as Chinese, Indians and Syrians, benefit from reparations? Because we are ‘out of many, one people’.”

Grange asked that if reparations are granted as debt relief, what of the Rastafarians’ claims?

In terms of the Caribbean implications, she asked whether, in the spirit of regionalism, Jamaica intended to seek reparations alone or in collaboration with other Caricom nations. “Will this consensus be discussed and agreed? If so, who will agree to go first and who will wait for last?”

“I am not saying forget about slavery, I am just saying let’s put that episode of history firmly in the unchangeable past and rid ourselves of the burden of its memory, by forgiving the perpetrators.”

She said that it must be noted that, “inspite of all the atrocities our ancestors faced, little Jamaica, land we love, has survived masterfully.”

The debate continues Tuesday.

Tufton wants assets seized under Proceeds of Crime Act to help police

Opposition senator, Dr Christopher Tufton, wants the Government to make a commitment that assets seized under the Proceeds of Crime Act will be dedicated to meeting the needs of the police force.

Tufton also called on the Government to immediately investigate the Trafigura funding under the money laundering aspects of the Act, to ensure that no crime was committed.

He said that once assets have been seized as the proceeds of crime, it is important that there is a position as to how they are used.

“We understand the challenges we face in fighting crime, which is the main concern of Jamaicans today,” said Tufton. “We know the limitations of the investigative capacity of the police force, at all levels. I believe that there should be a commitment of some sort from the Government, if not policy, to ensure that these proceeds are not placed in the Consolidated Fund (budget), where it disappears.”

He insisted that there must be some commitment to channeling these resources into crime-fighting, to equip, or to further equip, and to ensure the effectiveness of the police’s crime-fighting capacity.

Turning to the Trafigura scandal, Tufton questioned why wasn’t a “red flag” raised as it related to money laundering.

“We know for certain that large sums of money were transferred into an account, which before that point was dormant, and a large sum of money was taken out shortly after. The truth is that, in such a case as this, based on the money laundering legislation, it seems to me that a red flag should have gone up that should trigger some reporting mechanism and some investigative mechanism, if not for drug trafficking, certainly for money laundering,” he said.

“I put it on the table, without casting any judgment whatsoever, but I think that the question deserves to be asked,” he said.

Tufton pointed out that the Proceeds of Crime provisions relied largely on discretion, which could be dangerous. He suggested that the Government ought to take the lead in showing that there was no prejudice in determining what is to be probed.

“Has there been any investigation as it relates to money laundering in the Trafigura incident, given the fact that these transactions took place, and based on the amounts and the nature of the transactions?” he asked. “There should have been some questions asked. Some reporting should have taken place.”