On the eve of the resumption of the bipartisan Vale Royal talks, Opposition spokesman on national security, Dr Peter Phillips, yesterday previewed the People’s National Party’s proposals on how to tackle spiralling crime, which should dominate today’s discussions.

Early reaction from the Government was that most of Dr Phillips’ proposals were welcomed. However, there seems to be little sympathy for his idea of resurrecting the controversial 1970s ‘Home Guards’ under a new name, Corps of Community Safety Officers, to support the police.

“That one seems to be out of the question,” a leading Government source said last night. However, he admitted that the Administration was pleased with Phillips’ presentation, generally, and felt it would lay the foundation for fruitful and amicable discussions today.

Dr Phillips’ most controversial proposal, presented to the House of Representatives yesterday in the sectoral debate, was for the return of the “Home Guards”, a civilian force formed in the 1970s to support the police, but which lost its independent identity in the aggressive cold war climate and was likened to a pro-government militia.

Yesterday, Dr Phillips admitted in hindsight that, “in the context of those times, the experiences of the so-called ‘Home Guards’ was not successful”.

However, against the backdrop of more than 700 murders committed so far this year, he insisted that the country could not remain a prisoner to its past.

“It cannot be beyond us, as a country, to mobilise persons of appropriate patriotic commitment and goodwill and to motivate them, on a voluntary basis, to respond to the needs of Jamaica in this time of severe challenge,” he told the House.

“We are not inviting vigilante justice, rather we seek to mobilise all who have patriotic commitment,” he insisted.

In addition, Dr Phillips, while rejecting the idea of another state of emergency, suggested a legal framework to allow for the detention of violent criminals, while the police conduct investigations into their activities.

“Too often the provisions of the Bail Act are exploited and violent criminals are let loose to intimidate and coerce witnesses,” he said. “We do not think it appropriate to invoke the powers of a state of emergency in order to achieve this objective. But we are nevertheless prepared to explore, with Government, a viable and acceptable response to this particular circumstance.”

Dr Phillips also recommended:

. tabling of the long awaited Port Security Act, expected from the early 2000s, to facilitate more effective policing of ports to reduce the flow of guns;

. speeding up amendments to the Evidence Act to allow witnesses under threat to give evidence by telecommunications link from secure, remote locations, as well as legislation to permit routine collection of DNA samples from accused persons;

. an independent investigations authority, separate from the police force, with relevant and appropriate powers to focus on transnational crimes and public corruption of national institutions; and

. greater focus by the church on crime prevention, particularly in terms of social intervention.

“There is an urgent challenge which must be confronted by the church community of faith, which has presence and influence in almost every community across the country,” said Dr Phillips. “Now is the time for this influence to be mobilised and focused on crime prevention efforts, in co-ordination with the influential programmes and agencies of the state, such as the Citizens Security Programme and the Social Development Commission.”s