Parliament was dissolved on Friday, paving the way for the the February 25 general election.

However, more than the fact that it was the last sitting of the Parliament which began in 2012, the members focused on paying tribute to the Speaker Michael Peart, who was retiring from representational politics after 22 years as the member for Manchester Southern.

The outgoing Speaker’s career may not seem as exciting as it could be. However, it is interesting to take note that Manchester Southern had been a troublesome seat for years prior to his emergence in 1993.

The seat is best remembered as the one which embarrassed the Manley family, when the results ended up in court in 1972. Douglas Manley, brother of Michael Manley, lost it when the court reversed the results and awarded it to Arthur Williams Snr, two years after the election, on the basis that votes were tampered with.

The seat was won three times by Williams, father of outgoing Opposition Senator Arthur Williams Jnr, and three times by Douglas Manley, in successive general elections between 1967 and 1989. There was one intervening period, when Lloyd Bent (Jamaica Labour Party) was MP between 1983 when the People’s National Party (PNP) did not contest the general election, and 1993 when Peart first won it.

But last Tuesday marked the end of what has been referred to as the Peart Dynasty, which began with the patriarch former Labour Minister Ernest Peart winning the then Manchester Western seat after it was established in 1959. The Speaker’s brother, Dean, won Manchester North Western in 1989 and held it until he retired in 2011.

Report exposes glaring deficiencies in Senate Standing Orders

One of the most serious deficiencies of Parliament has been the lack of clarity in its Standing Orders, and the inability of the speakers of the House and the presidents of the Senates to either understand them or relate to conduct during meetings.

The speaker and the president ought to be able to rely on the advice of the clerks. But often it would seem that even their advice is also affected by the obscurity of some of the rules.

This is surely a primary contributor to the inability to avoid the kinds of uproar which Gordon House has been experiencing recently, and which is bound to get worse as a general election approaches.

There is no doubt that order in both Houses is most dependent on the quality of both the chair and the leadership on both sides of the aisle. But, both Houses of Parliament also have a duty the ensure that these rules remain relevant and enforceable.

It is obvious that the rules are not only archaic and unenforceable but that, in some cases, Parliament has even introduced new practices which have not been included in the Standing Orders, which are the rules of the House, and only lead to confusion and tension in the chamber.

Interestingly, Deputy President of the Senate Angela Brown Burke opened a debate on the report from its Standing Orders Committee, which had been reviewing the matter since 2012, in which the committee admitted that some of the newly introduced practices were not even inserted into the Standing Orders.

She noted that the amendments being proposed were the result of 28 meetings of the committee, since a motion from Opposition Senator Arthur Williams requesting a comprehensive review of the orders which was approved in May, 2012.

So, over the past four years the Senate’s Standing Orders Committee had been grappling with the review, while the Upper House began looking like the Lower House as it, too, became engulfed in indiscipline and lack of decorum.

The Senate committee’s report admitted that there is lack of clarity in terms of dealing with the contents of statements from ministers, as well as in dealing with the contents of statements from ministers.

One glaring discovery was the fact that, as the committee admitted, the Standing Orders still require that all meetings of Senate committees should be held in private.

This is a frightening development, because what it means is that if the Senate president feels like blocking or removing the Press from its committee meetings, he has the right to do so, despite the practice that allows the media in, unless otherwise requested by the Senate.

“However, it has long been the practice of committees to meet in public, unless the matter under discussion requires otherwise. Consequently, the committee recommends that this overdue and very important amendment to the Standing Orders reflect the practice,” Senator Brown Burke informed the Senate.

The committee also found that the rules relating to answers to questions needed “modernisation” and, in terms of procedures relating to Bills, the Standing Orders did not reflect the practice which has evolved over the years.

It is amazing that, in those circumstances, the president of the Senate has been boasting that he is being guided by the Standing Orders.

The Senate does not even have an Ethics Committee, which must be very surprising to the concerned reader, given the distinction credited to that House.

Maybe the senators did not feel that was necessary as the perception, dating back to the Legislative Council days, was that the Upper House was above blemish. But, that garnish has been tarnished by incidents which have been occurring recently in the Senate.

It is about time they form an Ethics Committee to deal with complaints about the ethical conduct of members, as well as alleged breaches of parliamentary privilege.

Opposition Senator Marlene Malahoo Forte, who had the most serious confrontation with the chair last year when she failed to produce a copy of reference material during the debate on the Caribbean Court of Justice Bills, raised several concerns.

One of her concerns was that she was denied the opportunity to respond, with a “personal explanation” during the conflict with the president, Senator Floyd Morris, over the reference material.

Senator Malahoo Forte insisted that she should have been allowed a “personal explanation” based on Standing Order number 18, which states:

“With the leave of the president and by the indulgence of the Senate, a member may make a personal explanation, although there be no question before the Senate; but no controversial matter may be brought forward nor may debate arise upon explanation.”

She noted that although this is also supported by May’s (regarded as the ‘bible’ of Westminster parliamentary practice), her colleagues in the Senate denied her the opportunity to respond to president’s rulings last year. According to her, this was “in circumstances where justice required that I be allowed to do so”. She also spoke to the issue of “controversial matter“, as raised in the Standing Order:

”Sometimes the very issue that is in question, is in itself controversial, and I wonder again how the use of a provision like this might deprive a member of an opportunity for a personal explanation?” she asked.

Debate on the Standing Orders Committee’s report was, however, suspended to “a date to be fixed” after Senator Brown Burke proposed that members be allowed time to study the proposals. This followed a request from the mover of the motion, Senator Williams, for time to digest the report’s findings and recommendations.