Hansard, the printed transcripts of parliamentary debates, will show that on that day Parliament sunk to a new low.

The president, in an unprecedented move, rose from his chair during deliberations on a bill to amend the Trade Act, banging vigorously with the gavel to quell a verbal dispute that should form the basis of a case study on how not to conduct oneself in the Senate.

Debate in Parliament, particularly the review chamber of the Senate, should be robust and characterised by strong clashes of conflicting opinions. It is not a place for those devoid of the intellectual capacity to engage in sharp and rigorous discourse.

The exchange between at least two senior parliamentarians, who are also experienced lawyers, left a sour taste in the mouths of many Jamaicans who witnessed a no holds barred 'tracing' match which swelled into a near brawl after at least two other members on the Government side joined the verbal mêlée.

This latest incident only serves to deepen what appears to be growing rancour between some members on opposite sides of the aisle.

Dorothy Lightbourne is leader of government business in the Senate and minister of justice and attorney general. In fact, she is one of the longest-serving senators in the Upper House at this time, along with her counterpart, Senator A.J. Nicholson, and Navel Clarke.

Missed opportunity

Lightbourne missed a wonderful opportunity on Friday to engage her Opposition colleagues in an attempt to strike a compromise on what was then a proposed amendment to the Trade Act.

The bill has since been passed with two amendments following a divide called by the Opposition and subsequent vote along party lines, which went in favour of the Government side, which had superior numbers.

A sticking point in the bill was an amendment to section 16 of the Trade Act, which sought to increase custodial sentence for persons who refused to appear before the Prices Commission and present documents as set out in the summons.

It was proposed to move the penalty from three months to two years in prison for non-compliance.

Opposition Senators Mark Golding and K.D. Knight disagreed with the provision, saying the increased penalty was draconian for an offence that was not criminal in nature.

Lightbourne insisted that the sentence was meant to be punitive and, as such, would remain in the bill.

The Gavel is of the view that the inflexible position taken by the leader of government business on a proposal by the Opposition that would not do violence to the intent of the bill did not facilitate what could have been an amicable compromise. Indeed, the suggestion by Knight to double the penalty to six months was the basis for a compromise between the two sides. The contending parties could have reached a middle ground of one year in prison for the offence.

Instead of striving for concession, Lightbourne took Nicholson to task for a question he asked, calling his query nonsensical.

The Gavel endorses a statement made by the president that "The language being used across the floor is not parliamentary and that will cause reactions from other people".

War of words

Lightbourne's description of Nicholson's question as "nonsensical", which triggered Knight's response, labelling her remarks as "idiotic", contained enough fuel to ignite a war of words. And so it did.

The Gavel makes no apology for stating emphatically that since the appointment of a new Senate nearly two years ago, the decorum and dignity of the Upper House has eroded sharply. Years ago, the Senate jealously guarded its esteemed profile as the elite or crème de la crème of Parliament. This once-venerable position is now in abeyance. Indeed, the rapid pace at which some members of the legislature have increasingly plunged the Senate into disrepute can no longer be ignored or winked at.

It is not the first time that The Gavel has had to take aim at senators for unfortunate public utterances in what is deemed to be the highest court of the land.