As Deputy Prime Minister Cynthia Pratt introduced the Police Services Bill in the House of Assembly yesterday, members of the Police Staff Association [PSA] held a press conference to outline their objections to the proposed legislation.
Bradley Sands, Executive Chairman of the PSA, which represents 2,000 junior police officers, said there are various clauses in the Bill that his members are not willing to accept.
“We have various concerns from the membership about the Police Act. The act is now before parliament and there was no proper consultation with the junior ranks of the force. The government speaks a lot about consultation and the fact that they are a consultative government, but they have failed to consult us before the bill was laid and debated today,” Mr. Sands said.
The association is particularly concerned that the Bill does not include provisions for insurance.
In last year’s budget, $8 million was allocated for insurance for all law enforcement agencies.
However, Mr. Sands said that promise was merely “lip service” and he is now reiterating the call for better insurance coverage for police officers.
“Please give us better insurance which was promised over and repeatedly, because there is nothing in this bill that deals with insurance,” he said.
During yesterday’s debate, Montagu MP Brent Symonette asked Minister Pratt if proper consultation had been carried out before the bill was brought to the House of Assembly.
Mrs. Pratt said the bill had been in circulation for a long time and insisted there was widespread consultation on the proposed legislation.
However, the deputy prime minister admitted that she did not meet with the various officers because is not customary for ministers to consult individual parties.
Mr. Sands pointed to other areas of concern as it relates to the Police Services Bill.
“When you look at this police act and examine it carefully, you might not know that police officers that are injured in the line of duty, after 28 sick days leave their salary is (cut) and they are placed on seven eighth pay,” Mr. Sands explained while waving a copy of the bill.
He also pointed to section 91 of the bill, which states there is a compulsory retirement age of 45 for junior officers.
Mr. Sands said that the minister has the power to terminate a junior officer’s service at age 45 and the Commissioner of Police can retire an officer at the age of 50.
He said this compulsory retirement is not fair, considering that higher-ranking officers are allowed to work until the age of 65.
“We are against this clause because we feel as if no minister should have this power to retire an officer at 45 because this is wrong,” Mr. Sands said.
The association also objects to the portion of the bill that deals with the revocation of an officer’s pension if they are convicted.
“Section 93 of the act states [that] when officers reach their pension and find themselves involved with the law and you are convicted and sentenced to prison, even if it’s a common offence like assault, the minister can determine if pension is revoked,” Mr. Sands explained.
“It is wrong, after you have achieved and worked hard for 30 plus years for the minister to take away your pension. You already earned your pension and so no one should have the right to take away your pension. Your conduct after you leave this job has nothing to do with the pension you have already earned.”
Mr. Sands wanted the government to suspend further debate on the bill until the relevant parties were consulted; however, the bill is now in the committal stage.
By: Bianca Symonette, The Bahama Journal
