EDITORIAL - An insomniac's delight

 Occasionally, Everald Warmington contrives a compelling argument, such as his observation this week about the utter boredom and general lack of usefulness of Parliament's so-called Sectoral Debate.

"I can't," Mr Warmington told the House, "subject myself to the type of torture and rubbish that they call presentations, whether from ministers or backbenchers."

Except, perhaps, for sufferers of insomnia, who may have found value in the mumbling drone of, say, Noel Arscott, the local government minister, we expect there to be much public sympathy for Mr Warmington's view. Indeed, it shows in the House; in the many empty seats on both sides of the aisle and in dozing or distracted MPs.

But the torture Mr Warmington endures is not merely, as he correctly perceives, a problem of format. It is a symptom of poor management and inappropriate structure of the legislature that results in insufficient opportunity for genuine and spontaneous debate and interventions by others than frontbenchers.

In fact, it was partly to cure this defect that the Sectoral Debate was conceived. Coming after the annual Budget Debate when a handful of key ministers and opposition spokesmen weigh in on the Government's economic programme, it is intended to give ministers an opportunity to report on their portfolios, and other members, issues in their constituencies. In a few cases, there are worthwhile, illuminating interventions.

But mostly, it is like famished people at the rare sight of food. They grab and gorge. They may end feeling satiated, but the rest of us understand that, really, they are bloated on hot air.

It is in that context that we agree with Mr Warmington on how the time set aside for this talkfest can be better used by the legislature.

"We should bring bills and policies and programmes for the betterment of the Jamaican people and stop wasting time with the Sectoral Debate," he said.

major problem

A major problem, of course, is the restrictive rules on the conduct of debate in the legislature. They give great sway to the Government and its ministers and far too little leeway to the Opposition and backbenchers to engage on matters of policy or issues that affect their constituencies. The rules for asking questions of ministers, including the prime ministers, are more ramparts of protection rather than a mechanism for the sharing of information.

The current prime minister, Mrs Portia Simpson Miller - with her insistence on following the letter of the law with written questions and long lead times for answers - uses it as such.

We believe that the Parliament would do Mr Warmington's critique justice with a radical overhaul of the Standing Orders, allowing greater opportunity for interventions by members, speedier debates of private and opposition motions, and more robust, thoughtful discourse by MPs.

The opinions on this page, except for the above, do not necessarily reflect the views of The Gleaner. To respond to a Gleaner editorial, email us: editor@gleanerjm.com or fax: 922-6223. Responses should be no longer than 400 words. Not all responses will be published.