Parliament’s diminished role in Jamaica’s int’l relations
IN MY view, Jamaica’s Parliament does not play an effective role in the formulation of the country’s foreign policy, in decision-making, and oversight. I have long felt that our Parliament, though following the Westminster model, does not function as effectively as it should. I believe that this is a matter which should be considered in the constitutional reform process now in progress.
This matter came further to my attention as I listened to the April 17 meeting of the Internal and External Affairs Committee (IEAC) of Parliament, which had invited a delegation from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Foreign Trade to examine the OACPS/EU Samoa Agreement. I found this session disappointing. First, it was taking place after the signing of the Samoa Agreement; the attendance seemed poor to me; and members’ engagement with the ministry did not indicate a sound knowledge of the agreement. This is in spite of the text of this agreement being in the public domain, online, for over a year, at least, and all the controversy surrounding its signing, not only in Jamaica, but throughout the Caribbean.
I will note that where the Samoa Agreement is concerned, of the 15 members of the Caribbean Forum (CARIFORUM) of the Organization of African, Caribbean and Pacific States (OACPS), 12 countries have now signed. Of the OACPS, 69 countries have signed, and the Samoa Agreement is being provisionally applied.
PARLIAMENT COMMITTEES
Committees of Parliament are considered to be very important in the governance process as they allow members of parliament (MPs), especially those not holding ministerial posts, to participate in the work of government and in decision-making.
The Standing Orders of the House of Representatives states that “the Internal and External Affairs Committee shall have the duty of – (a) examining all matters relating to the foreign policy of the Government, and analysing the implications and likely effect thereof on Jamaica; (b) examining treaties and other international agreements and advising the Parliament of their likely impact on Jamaica; and (c) examining matters relating to national security and the administration of justice and making recommendations to the Parliament thereon.”
This committee should be actively looking at issues of importance to Jamaica arising in the regional and international arenas. These include agreements being negotiated by Jamaica and critical issues on which Jamaica must take positions. A lot has been happening at the regional and international levels as multiple crises have been unfolding which impact Jamaica. Yet, from the April 17 discussions, this IEAC was meeting for the first time in a year to consider the Samoa Agreement for which negotiations commenced in 2018, concluded in 2020, and was opened for signature in November 2023. Jamaica signed in December 2023.
The I EAC was considering discussing the situation in Haiti at its next meeting.
I am informed that this committee has eight members from Government and Opposition, including the chair. On April 17, however, only three members were in attendance barely making the quorum to allow holding of the meeting.
I am told that Parliament has a total of 27 committees and is limited in the physical space and time available for meetings. There is difficulty in scheduling as with 63 members, some holding ministerial posts, members are serving on several committees.
PAST PROCEDURES
From what I am told, in the 1960s and 1970s, Parliament had a more prominent role in deliberations on international matters. Ministry papers were regularly tabled in Parliament reporting on regional and international meetings attended or to be hosted, agreements to be signed, positions to be taken, and international organisations to be joined. Thus, there was a level of transparency and MPs were informed. The ministry papers tabled would provide information to the House enabling debate and facilitating Parliament’s ability to hold the Executive (Cabinet) accountable.
In current times, it is not my impression that many ministry papers on international matters are tabled in Parliament.
In the past also, the foreign minister was a member of parliament (MP) and would address Parliament during the Sectoral Debate. In more recent years, ministers have come from the Senate, and do not participate in House debates, unless there is a minister of state who is an MP.
NEW PARLIAMENT BUILDING
I am among those who support constructing a new Parliament building to allow MPs to have proper offices and meeting spaces. Such spaces would allow parliamentary committees to meet more frequently. There could be simultaneous meetings. Technology could be more fully employed allowing remote participation. There is also need for MPs to be sensitised, participating in workshops and seminars.
MPs would also benefit from having administrative and research assistants to assist them in finding documents, reviewing briefing and ministry papers, and gleaning information, so that they are better informed about the subjects before them for deliberation.
Parliamentarians are representatives of the people and, in a democracy, should play a more effective role in decision-making, not just on international matters. Better pay, working conditions, and greater involvement should require them to attend Parliament consistently as a duty to their constituents and the nation. For now, better use could be made of technology.