Yes, the boring Sectoral Debate is over!

By Dionne Jackson Miller

I have no apologies for referring to the annual Sectoral Debate as boring. The debate allows each member of the Lower House to make a speech in Parliament. Cabinet Ministers use most of the time to make announcements. Opposition spokesmen criticize government policy and put forward ideas of their own. Backbenchers who have no portfolio responsibilities speak about the problems and progress in their constituencies. And yes, it is boring!

I would also add that the debate, which begins after the Budget Debate, and ended last week, is also unnecessarily long and drawn out. More to the point, however, is its dubious usefulness, especially for the backbenchers.

Make it Shorter

The Parliamentarians themselves recognize the need to make the contributions shorter, and we’ve actually had that promise in the past. Leader of Government Business in the House of Representatives Phillip Paulwell has again acknowledged that the presentations are too long. He said, in closing the Sectoral Debate that the debate will have to be “more structured and time-sensitive” and that a process of reform will be discussed with the Opposition for implementation next year.

As it stands, it is common for speakers to exceed the allotted time for speaking and for the House to allow them additional time. This should be stopped. Our MPs need to learn the art of brevity. Time limits must be set and adhered to – perhaps 15 minutes for back benchers and 20-30 minutes for portfolio Ministers.  Every single announcement and every single point doesn’t have to be made in one speech.

Speaking for the Constituency

The major defence of the Sectoral Debate has been that it allows Members of Parliament to represent the interests of their constituencies. Cabinet Minister Horace Dalley made just that point in one of the closing presentations, as he noted criticisms of the process, stating that: "…this is the only time that members have a chance to speak on the needs on their constituencies and …developments in their constituencies." 

I think we all understand the role of MPs.  But when Mr. Dalley says that the Sectoral Debate is the only time MPs have to speak on the needs of their constituencies, it begs the question – to what end? I actually don’t have a difficulty with MPs being allowed an annual opportunity to speak about their constituency needs in Parliament, but I do take issue with the current structure and form.

What happens after the MPs come and spend the Parliament’s time talking about their constituencies? How have the constituents benefitted? It’s doubtful that most of them will even know that the presentations were made since newsrooms pay relatively little regard to the presentations other than those of Cabinet Ministers. They certainly pay almost no attention to the back benchers, given the necessarily parochial nature of their contributions.  

Take a closer look at two contributions this year, that of MP for South West St. Ann, Keith Walford and that of  Pearnel Charles, who represents North Central Clarendon. Walford’s presentation – shorn of all the thanks – included the following:

-       An update on road repairs and a call for more repairs;

-       Water problems;

-       More help needed for farmers;

-       Difficulties caused by the closure of post offices;

-       Communities without electricity.

Pearnel Charles represents North Central Clarendon. Charles is also spokesman for Labour and Social Security, and the majority of his presentation was spent on his portfolio issues. He did however speak about the lack of running water as a big problem in his constituency.

Let me be clear, I am by no means belittling the very real difficulties – such as lack of running water and limited access to postal services – faced by thousands of Jamaicans. I am merely questioning the extent to which the Sectoral Debate helps to solve those problems.

There is no follow-up mechanism that I know of, no referral of common, broad issues to any of the House committees for deliberation, and perhaps questioning of responsible government agencies. There is simply the annual venting exercise via the Sectoral Debate. Now the MP has represented – what then? Any hard-working responsible MP would already have been writing directly to said government agencies and actively seeking answers and action directly. So what purpose does the Parliamentary speech serve?

I am not suggesting that the Sectoral Debate be re-structured so as to shut out the issues and concerns affecting the average Jamaican. Rather I suggest that Parliament pay more than lip service to the problems being enunciated by its Members and devise a useful strategy for appropriate response and follow-up.

The debate might still be boring – but if it could be shortened and made more pointed and effective it would then serve a useful purpose. I’d settle for that. 

Dionne Jackson Miller hosts the radio current affairs programme "Beyond The Headlines" on RJR 94 FM and "All Angles" on TVJ. She is also an attorney at law. She is pursuing a Master of Laws degree at the University of London, and has tutored in Constitutional Law, and Media Law and Ethics at the University of the West Indies.