THE atmosphere at Gordon House on Friday was tense, as the upper chamber had its first sitting since the controversial “flexi-rape” issue which has enmeshed Leader of Government Business Senator AJ Nicholson.

Senate President Floyd Morris, in a statement at the very start of the sitting, warned the members of his intention to keep a tight rein on their conduct, and reminded them that the public was looking on.

“The people of Jamaica are outside and they are watching and they are expecting certain conduct from us as members of this honourable Senate,” Morris said.

“I am therefore imploring members to make sure that we treat each other, across the aisle, with the greatest of respect. I am also going to make sure that the standing orders that guide the operations of the Senate are observed,” he stated.

“Last week, when I indicated that I am going to enforce the standing orders, members on both sides of the aisle gave me the thumbs up. So, I am asking members to pay attention to the standing orders and to just make sure that we relate to each other in a respectful manner,” he added.

However, there is speculation that Senator Morris could hold the reins so tight that he chokes the natural flow of the conduct of business in the Senate. In fact, the high possibility of that happening was demonstrated when Leader of Opposition Business Senator Tom Tavares-Finson rose to respond, and was told by the president to take his seat.

Tavares-Finson asked the president if he could be allowed to speak, and was sternly told, “No.”

Morris: I am not going to allow anyone to speak.

Tavares-Finson: May I enquire of you, president, with the greatest of respect, whether you intend to respond to the letter that I wrote you…

Morris: Senator Finson, please take your seat.

Tavares-Finson: So, you are not going to permit me to deal with it?

Morris: I am not allowing no one to speak, and I have asked you to take your seat… I have asked you to take your seat, and it is the same thing that I just spoke about…

Tavares-Finson was asking about a letter he had written to the president last week, presumably dealing with alleged threats made against Opposition senators by Nicholson in e-mails to them after the issue became viral on social media.

It was also noticeable that none of the Government members stayed behind for lunch in the Gordon House lounge, which was normally the case in the past, although the Opposition senators did.

Nicholson absent from Senate on Gov’t business

Incidentally, Senator Nicholson was absent from last Friday’s sitting, and this was highlighted through an interaction between the Leader of Opposition Business Senator Tom Tavares-Finson and Justice Minister Senator Mark Golding, who acted as leader of government business.

Tavares-Finson noted that Golding was speaking from a seat other than his own (the seat of the leader of government business).

“He has not sought permission to do so, nor have we had an apology from the minister (Nicholson), indicating whether or not he intends to be here. Or, is it a situation where the future is casting its shadow into the present?” Tavares-Finson asked.

“This has happened on many occasions before, where the minister who is leader of government business in the Senate is the minister of foreign affairs and foreign trade, and he has to travel regularly; and on those occasions he has often asked me to take over his role for the sitting that he is missing, and this is one such occasion,” Golding explained.

Senator Golding then asked permission to speak from Senator Nicholson’s seat, which was approved.

“We have never made announcements of individuals’ absence, publicly,” Senate President Floyd Morris pointed out.

PM’s transport order issue sent back to Senate committee

Despite several weeks of deliberations, the Senate is still unable to bring closure to the issue surrounding an order issued by the prime minister in June, which removed regulation of the public transport sector from the Office of Utilities Regulation (OUR).

Chairman of the Senate’s Regulations Committee, Senator Navel Clarke, sought permission on Friday to remove the items in the committee’s latest report, which includes the OUR order.

Senator Clarke said he wanted to discontinue the debate which he started in the Senate the previous week, and have the issues raised in the report sent back to the Regulations Committee for further consideration.

However, Opposition member Senator Kamina Johnson Smith was concerned that the committee had already acknowledged that its power is limited and that any further action, in respect of the regulations, need to be taken at the level of the Senate.

“So, I am surprised by this suggestion this morning,” Senator Johnson Smith said.

However, Senate President Floyd Morris said that he would have to proceed with the motion brought by the committee chairman.

The Senate proceeded to approve the motion. However, it is unsure what referring the issue back to the committee can achieve at this time.

The committee has already cited a breach in the way the order was handled. The committee has already accepted that the lack of consultation between the Office of the Prime Minister (OPM), from which the order was issued (and signed by the prime minister), and the OUR, during the process, was in breach of the requirements for the issuing of the order.

The committee’s report stated that the process “constituted an unusual or unexpected use of the powers conferred by the order under which it was made”. It expressed concern about the exclusion of the OUR from any consultations leading up to the decision, and made it clear that “even though there was no evidence that there were any legislative breaches, the entity, as the economic regulator, should have been consulted”.

The committee recommended that the breach should be brought to the “special attention” of the Senate.

Senator Clarke said two Fridays ago that the committee would be seeking an annulment of the order, based on the legal advice he had received from Parliament. However, Government member Senator KD Knight said that the committee had not taken a decision to seek an annulment.