Terrelonge's disappointment - MP unimpressed with the quality of debates in the House
Published:Wednesday | October 17, 2018 | 12:00 AMLivern Barrett/ Senior Gleaner Writer
One first-time lawmaker yesterday made it public that he was not impressed with the "quality" of the discourse he has seen in the nation's Parliament.
Further, Alando Terrelonge, member of parliament for St Catherine East Central, believes the time has come for Jamaica to revisit the issue of "limitations on parliamentary service".
"When I became a member of parliament, I thought we would be having robust discussions on national interests even within the House [of Representatives] itself," said Terrelonge, who was speaking in Gordon House during a meeting of the Public Administration and Appropriations Committee (PAAC) of Parliament.
"And Mr Chairman, you come into the House, and the quality of the debate is poor [and] things are not being debated properly," he said.
"I don't know, Mr Chairman, [if there is] that high level, that high standard that you would expect of a Parliament discussing matters to really move not just issues of economic growth, but also social growth. I don't find that we are tackling some of the social issues to truly make Jamaica the great place it ought to be," Terrelonge continued.
The criticism triggered an exchange with Mikael Phillips, the second-term member of parliament for Manchester North West.
PARTICIPATION LEVEL
"When I hear members of the committee (PAAC) talking about their disappointment in the House, that same member has never participated in a debate or submitted a private members' motion to lift the standard of the debate," Phillips charged.
"That is not true," Terrelonge fired back.
"I am one of the few members' who have a private members motion in my name ... . There have been several debates in the House in which I have participated," he said.
The comments came as Government and Opposition members of the PAAC argued about how the committee should operate.
Government members, citing Section 73 of the Standing Orders of Parliament, expressed the view that the PAAC could only deliberate issues that have been referred from the full House.
The opposition members disagreed, asserting that the committee was mandated by the Standing Orders to examine the budgetary expenditure of government agencies and accused their counterparts of using the argument to muzzle them and thwart the work of the PAAC.