THE House of Representatives took a one-week break last week from debating the Bill seeking to amend the Representation of the People Act (ROPA) to allow for the registration, regulation and funding of local political parties.

However, the debate is expected to resume tomorrow and probably concluded, although it is likely that a number of MPs will want to make contributions.

There has been no explanation for the break, but it must have had something to do with the outburst from Opposition MP Everald Warmington (South West St Catherine) against the provisions.

Warmington confirmed Saturday that he intends to call a “divide” on the most controversial provisions, at least to identify the members who support the proposals, for posterity.

However, the Government should have no problem putting together a coalition, including Opposition members, to ensure that the Bill is approved.

The Government has traditionally relied on the convention which has crystallised in Parliament over the years, that recommendations of the Electoral Commission of Jamaica (ECJ) are debated, but not varied.

“It is a show of the maturity of our democracy that we have always accepted, as a custom, the recommendations of the ECJ,” Leader of the House of Representatives Phillip Paulwell, who is piloting the Bill in the House, pointed out when he opened the debate on September 30.

“Indeed, Mr Speaker, you should know that this Bill …had its genesis, not on this side, but by a submission that was approved by the previous Cabinet, and we want to commend them for the foresight and the expected consistency for the support that I anticipate will be forthcoming,” Paulwell added, reminding members that the effort also had the support of the previous Administration.

Government back-bencher Dr DK Duncan, who sits on the ECJ, also pointed to the need to preserve the convention in dealing with the amendments.

However, the fact is that, as Paulwell explained during his opening salvo, there is a need to separate political party registration and funding, from campaign financing, which will follow.

The Bill currently before the House should not be confused with the campaign financing Bill, as Paulwell explained. However, there is also an element of financing for the political parties in this Bill.

There is a lot of emotion attached to the issue of campaign financing, but there is less passion in debating the current Bill because what it is really proposing is the provision of financing for the political parties based on a traditional issue, which was raised by the Oliver Clarke-led Jamaica Parliamentarians Salaries Review Committee report of November, 2003.

In its report, the Clarke committee noted that Parliament pays the housekeeping expenses for MPs operating constituency offices, but felt that the budget was far too low for such an exercise.

The committee felt that Parliament should provide a constituency office for each MP, and meet their housekeeping expenses. However, the committee admitted that the recommendation would take some time to win public approval, due to the cost involved.

“Parliament should equip, at its cost, each constituency office with basic necessities: desks, chairs, filing cabinets, computer, fax, printer, Laws of Jamaica on CDs and Internet,” the committee suggested.

The Clarke committee also recommended that:

“…where possible, the State provide a constituency office (as separate from an MP’s political party office) for each member of parliament.

“If democracy is to prosper, it is essential for an MP to provide a point of contact in the constituency for all constituents. This office is not to be used as a political office for party purposes. The constituency office must be located in an area of the constituency where all constituents — regardless of party affiliation — feel free to visit.

“Members of Parliament should sign an agreement developed by Parliament concerning the proper use of the constituency office and state clearly hours at which the office will be open and other appropriate details of value to constituents.

“Parliament should decide how MPs are to be sanctioned, if they or any supporter contravene this code of proper usage.

“The political ombudsman could be the office that would rule on any challenges in respect of such agreement and, in particular, the location and use of the constituency office. Each MP should be required to report on the activities carried out in this office, as a part of the proposed annual Accountability Report. The provision of these offices should be phased in over a five to 10-year period”.

Parliament, as is its usual practice, failed to follow up on these recommendations over the past 11 years, since the report was tabled, and this is probably due to a lack of resources provided in the annual budget.

However, now there is a greater need for each MP to have a constituency office, and the attempt to address this issue seems very timely.

The problem with this Bill, though, seems to be that, while it focuses extensively on ensuring that the registered parties fulfil their obligations in terms of how they use the resources to be made available by the Government, there is little or no interest in ensuring that the resources are used for the benefit of all constituents and not just those who support the MP.

The Clarke committee had insisted that a constituency office supported by public resources must be located in an area of the constituency where all constituents — regardless of party affiliation — feel free to visit.

The Office of the Parliamentary Ombudsman (OPO) should be able to play an important role in overseeing the activities of these offices, especially ensuring that constituents from opposing parties or candidates are assured access free from fear and intimidation, and are always treated with the courtesy and fairness one would expect from any office paid for by the taxpayers.

It is interesting that a number of the MPs who saw no need for the continuation of the Office of the Political Ombudsman, a commission of Parliament, are now solidly in favour of Government support for the constituency facilities.

Their primary argument was that the political ombudsman had nothing to do between elections. But, maybe the foresight of the political leaders who agreed on creating the office is being revealed, in that it would not be limited to a preoccupation with election violence and discrimination, but also with the routine of ensuring that, as a facility paid for by the public, it should be run democratically, without intimidation or victimisation, and any such action can be reported to OPO to be investigated and reported to Parliament.

Therefore, going into this period of registration and the funding of the political parties, the OPO should have a schedule worth its allocation.

The Government said in January this year that it is not inclined to accept any proposal to dispense with the OPO, despite calls for it to be scrapped. However, since Bishop Herro Blair’s retirement in June last year, we have heard of no steps to appoint a successor.

Paulwell said in January that the Cabinet had discussed the issue and was “not disposed to accepting the abolition of the post”. He promised that consultations would begin shortly after that to identify a successor to Blair, who had been appointed in 2002.

The appointment of a new political ombudsman must be given as much attention, at this time, as the appointment of a Registrar of Political Parties because, while it is obvious that the registrar’s job will be primarily focusing on the fiduciary duties of the ECJ, the OPO would be able to protect the democratic rights of those who are paying for these services.