PARLIAMENT'S UNWIELDY and egocentric approach to the annual Sectoral Debate has reduced what was once intended to be a forum for critical national dialogue to a session wasted by some representatives of the people who use the chamber as a place to 'cool out', browse their BlackBerry phones and engage in juvenile exchanges at times which disrupt the whole process.

Last week, the Gavel was unequivocal in its call on both leader of government business in the House, Andrew Holness and his Opposition counterpart Derrick Kellier to scrap the current format of the debate. The Gavel boldly recommended a more structured approach to the debate, which would zero in on at least five key areas of national importance. The idea was for parliamentarians to seize the gravity of the rapidly declining economic indicators and move with urgency to elevate the dialogue in a national context of recovery, development and growth.

A glimmer of hope illuminated Gordon House on Wednesday, when Central Kingston Member of Parliament Ronald Thwaites called for the revamping of the Sectoral Debate in its current form.

This call comes as no surprise to the Gavel as Thwaites has distinguished himself as one of the few MPs who has truly made his mark in Gordon House in terms of his con-sistent and hard-working approach to representing his constituents in the chamber.

losts its currency

An independent thinker and thought-provoking debater, Thwaites argued that the Sectoral Debate in its current form had lost its currency.

The following are excerpts from Thwaites' presentation to the Sectoral Debate last week:

"Mr Speaker, may I ask, are we really engaged in a debate? A debate as you and I learnt it in earlier days involves statements around a proposition ... this exercise that we are engaged in involves roughly 15 to 20 per cent of annual parliamentary time, and I don't know what flow to policy follows from the remarks exercised here. It seems to me it has become a report card of our stewardship in various areas and John Henry Newman would have called it an 'Apologia pro Vita Sua' - an apology or statement of understanding for that which we have done and that which we have not done.

"I don't think that we are achieving the aim for real sectoral dialogue and I ask you to lead in this regard. I think we need perhaps at this time no doubt in the wake of the budget, a detailed debate on educational policy for example, on agricultural policy, on aspects of governance and the public service, maybe on foreign policy.

support

"The form of this debate, and much of the proceedings of the House, in fact relate to a different time and a different motif of governance, to an outdated divisiveness. Are we here in a perpetual contest with each other, or should the contest be about the best ideas and implementation for the good of our people?"

Thankfully, the Central Kingston MP's proposal has resonated with Holness, the leader of government business, who pledged to have dialogue with his counterpart on the issue.

On another matter, the Gavel finds it quite interesting that West Central St James MP Clive Mullings received consistent thunderous applause from his colleagues on the opposite aisle of Parliament during his contribution to the Sectoral Debate while his colleagues, except for St Aubyn Bartlett, Mike Henry and Pearnel Charles, refused to applaud their own colleague.