PARLIAMENT’S recent dissolution to accommodate the August 27 general election has left behind an unfortunate trail of unfulfilled promises.

For example, after nine months investigating the Sandals Whitehouse hotel’s US$43-million overrun, the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) tabled two reports – a majority report from government members and a minority report from opposition members – but neither report was debated.

Fortunately, those who were following the issue, as covered meeting by meeting by the press, have been able to grasp some of the issues and the explanations. But the media’s coverage of the Parliament and its committees is never enough to fill the gap left by Parliament’s failure to fulfil its obligations.

There should have been a debate on this issue before the house was dissolved, and a decision taken on the reports, their findings and recommendations.

Last December, when the government decided to postpone the local government elections by a year, Local Government Minister Dean Peart said the postponement would allow time to advance the process of local government reform.

A Joint Select Committee (JSC) was appointed, on December 20, to consider and develop proposals for the reform process. However, the committee did not have its first meeting until June 2007.

At that first meeting, Peart, as chairman, gave the committee just under four weeks to complete its deliberations – a process which had started from 2003 when the first House committee on Local Government reform was formed.

This committee finished its work within the four weeks and tabled its report, but it still was not debated before the dissolution.

In early February, the House of Representatives debated the issue of reparations, based on a resolution from Opposition Member of Parliament Mike Henry. The issue was so current that it drew the attention of both Prime Minister Portia Simpson Miller and Opposition Leader Bruce Golding.

A special select committee, chaired by the Minister of Culture, Aloun Assamba, was immediately appointed to review the matter.

The prime minister was expected to speak in the debate. The Leader of the House, Peter Phillips, said Simpson Miller would do so after she had met with her Caricom colleagues and other persons, including representatives of the Rastafarian community.

Eventually, Phillips’ deputy, Fitz Jackson, told the House that the prime minister would make her presentation after the committee had sat and the report was being debated, instead.

The committee did not sit for some five months until July, at which time Parliament was about to be dissolved and therefore no report could be prepared.

These are just three recent examples of how the House of Representatives has failed to perform, especially over the past year.

But the problem dates back to the start of the last session in 2002.

Does anyone recall the hullabaloo which greeted the naming of a joint select committee in 2002 to review the interim report of the National Ganja Commission?

Well, that committee ended its deliberations in February 2004. Nearly four years later, the report of that committee is still on the Order Paper waiting to be debated.

But, there are also a number of government business matters which were left on the Order Paper.

These included the time-consuming Charter of Rights bill. Although a report from the Joint Select Committee has been tabled since April, Parliament has been dissolved again without the report being debated despite its importance in terms of the rights of Jamaican citizens.

As far as Private Members Motions (PMMs), moved by Opposition MPs or government back-benchers, are concerned there were 13 still on the Order Paper at the time of dissolution.

Among these were:

. Clive Mullings’ motions seeking to have the sessional committee on economy and production investigate the practice of bill payment agencies charging customers for utility bills payments;

. Sharon Hay-Webster’s motion seeking to have a joint select committee work with the Charter Review Commission to prepare a new charter for Kingston and St Andrew;

. Audley Shaw’s motion for the House to call on government to implement a major programme of capital development in mined-out bauxite areas;

. Mike Henry’s motion of no confidence in the administration of Air Jamaica and for an immediate report to Parliament on the status of the airline;

. Everald Warmington’s motion for the completion of construction of some 129 housing units promised to victims in Old Harbour Bay of Hurricane Ivan by former Prime Minister P J Patterson in 2004; and

. Pearnel Charles’ motion asking that, as a matter of urgency, the government allocate $200 million to provide cheap drinking water for the people of Mocho, Clarendon.

But, if all that is not bad enough, the last two pages of the Order Paper is full of private members motions which had been referred to select committees for years, some of which have not even met since they were named.

These include:

. James Robertson’s (St Thomas, West) proposal for an investigation into the level of Hurricane Ivan flood damage in western St Thomas tabled from 2003;

. The Green Paper on Flexible Work (week) Arrangements (FWA) which was tabled in 2001 and which was considered urgent in light of the need to increase production;

. The committee appointed to examine issues related to security, defence and the justice system and to review the performance of the security forces and related agencies, which was appointed in June 2005;

. The committee appointed in June 2006 to review the Corruption Prevention Act and the operations of the Corruption Prevention Commission and make recommendations to Parliament on changes that may be necessary to ensure that the objectives of the Act are fully achieved; and

. The committee appointed to examine, “as a matter of urgency”, the financial and operational state of Air Jamaica, its future prospects and the plans being pursued by the airline’s management and to make recommendations appropriate to the country’s economic interests.

These are just some of the issues which it was hoped would have been resolved during the recently concluded session. Unfortunately, they were not. Now, Parliament must look forward to a new session, with new members and, possibly, new leadership and new policies and no guarantee that these issues will be priorities, or even important enough to return to the Order Paper.