BY BALFORD HENRY

Observer senior reporter

balfordh@jamaicaobserver.com

POLITICAL Ombudsman Bishop Herro Blair’s office came under fire Thursday from some members of Parliament’s Human Resources and Social Development Committee (RSDC), who felt that the office should be closed.

The members felt that Blair’s office had become redundant with the significant reduction in political tribalism and should, at least, be repositioned as a voluntary post within the Electoral Commission of Jamaica (ECJ).

Blair had responded to a request from the committee by providing data on the employment of personnel at his office, as well as a report on the complaints it has received, its procedures and activities, including investigations into politically linked violence since the 2002 General Election.

But, Government members of Parliament (MPs) Dr Dayton Campbell, Richard Parchment and Joylan Silvera and Opposition MP Shahine Robinson felt there was no further need for an ombudsman they felt was only needed at election time.

“We shouldn’t be paying $10 million to someone who has nothing to do in between elections,” Dr Campbell said, suggesting that the office be subsumed into the ECJ in keeping with the Government’s austerity measures.

But, Opposition MP Olivia ‘Babsy’ Grange, who has stoutly defended the retention of the office since the motion was tabled in the House of Representatives to boot him, continued her defence Thursday stating that while there was nothing wrong with reviewing the office and the structure, MPs should be “more objective and careful” in their remarks as “many lives have been saved” as a result of its interventions.

“Members should not come with an agenda. We should allow ourselves to be open to presentations from others. We don’t have to be so dogmatic and strident in opposing the office. Let us make an objective decision,” she insisted.

But, the Government MPs objected to the suggestion that they had come to the meeting with an agenda against the ombudsman.

“I object to the view that I have come here with a hidden agenda. It is an unfortunate statement,” Dr Campbell said.

Parchment said he was speaking his conscience, based on what had been presented to the committee. Silvera, meanwhile, felt that it was full time for the tenure of the ombudsman to come to a close.

“I think this is the final chapter of the political ombudsman. He has had his value then and there, but we have matured as a nation since,” he added.

Robinson, meanwhile, sided with the three Government MPs, agreeing that there was a need to review the role of the ombudsman’s office and some “serious” adjustments” made to its operations. “This is the time to look at its role and its function and take a definitive position on the way forward. We are not focusing on the personality, just the role and functions of the office,” Robinson said.

Government MP Denise Daley sided with Grange, noting that the Ombudsman had not appointed himself to the position and, therefore, the members needed to be careful in terms of how they handle the issues.

But, Committee Chairman, Opposition MP Rudyard ‘Ruddy’ Spencer, was able to keep a lid on things, recalling that there was a time when the office was essential to free and fair elections, but leaving the question open as to its currency.

“There was a time when we really needed an ombudsman. Whether or not it is absolutely necessary now is the question. We have got to hear from the wider public and, after we hear from them, we can deliberate,” he said.

Spencer also pointed out that advertisements had already been published in the press more than a week ago, seeking submissions from the public on the subject. However, no submission had been received up to Thursday.

“I can’t understand how nobody has responded,” Spencer reacted, pointing out that more advertisements would be published tomorrow and the committee would try to wrap up discussions in two weeks time.

The committee is considering a motion moved in the House of Representatives by Opposition MP Everald Warmington seeking to have Parliament review and revise the terms of and objectives of the Office of the Political Ombudsman to determine its relevance to the existing political structure, and if its $18.6-million annual budget is justified.

The Office of the Political Ombudsman was established in 2002 with responsibility for investigating political issues during elections.