AFTER a five-week summer break, the House of Representatives resumed sitting at Gordon House last Tuesday with much evidence of the excitement that usually precedes an election season.

It was evident in the contributions to the new State of the Constituency Debate. The debates has been introduced to appease back-benchers, junior ministers and Opposition MPs who missed out on the budget and sectoral debates, both of which came in for some drastic changes this year, including the removal of junior ministers from the process.

Opposition MPs in particular, did not hold back on speaking about the problems which abound in their constituencies. Government MPs, however, mounted significant political challenge as they seemed reluctant to tackle issues which may not be in the Government’s best interest.

Needless to say, the debates were affected by cross-talk, which reduced the speaking time for the contributors, despite the best attempts of acting Speaker Lloyd B Smith.

There is a threat to substance in the debate, in that, as long as the issues are treated politically, the kind of objectivity which is expected is hardly likely to emerge. While that may suit the two political parties as they get into top gear for elections, it will not address the problems affecting the constituents. This is due to the fact that the contributions from both sides will only be seen in their electioneering context and may not taken seriously by members and the public.

But that’s not the only problem. The 15-minute time limit on the speeches, with an additional five minutes available for closure, seems far too short for the members, especially back-benchers who rarely get a chance to address issues in the House.

It is really unfortunate that in a democratic, Westminster- type Parliament, members of the Senate are able to speak as long as they like, while elected MPs are limited to 20 minutes per year.

Supporters of the recent changes to the debates, including the reduced speaking time, claim that the speeches are boring. But given the fact that constituency problems are very specific and what may be irrelevant to some viewers may prove probably life-threatening for those who are directly affected.

To sum it up, State of the Constituency Debate is a good idea, as long as it is used to give national attention to problems affecting the constituencies, but if it degenerates into a pre-election political platform it will hardly achieve anything.

In addition, the duration of the speech ought to be reviewed to allow members more time, and the MPs, themselves, must remember that they are more subjected to the views of their constituents than they are to making their political parties look good.