THINGS THAT MATTER: Reflections on the Senate
“The Senate is a talk shop”
“The Senate is a waste of time”
“The Senate is a waste of money”
“The Senate is just a place for politicians who want another try at being elected as an MP”
“The Senate is just a rubber stamp
“The Senate should be abolished”.
These are just some of the cynical comments made to me in the six years I’ve had the honour and privilege of serving in the Barbados Senate.
The basis for this cynicism appears to be two-fold. First the nature of much of the debate – political posturing or philosophical pontificating, but mostly the former, sometimes with quasi-personal allusions and an aliquot of rancour. And second, the failure of debates in the Senate ever to make a difference.
Let’s take the second point first. Our legislature is what’s known as a bicameral legislature - two chambers - the House of Representatives, known as the Lower House, to which proposed legislation goes first; and the Senate, known as the Upper House, to which it goes after passage in the Lower House. Like the Senate in the USA and the House of Lords in Britain, its role is to provide checks and balances, and such a bicameral legislature is the usual rule in most Western democracies, including most CARICOM member states.
A few days ago, in the Senate, Independent Senator John Watson pointed out that the composition of our Senate makes it impossible for any bill or resolution ever to be reconsidered or amended because there are, according to our constitution, twelve government senators and only a token two opposition senators, so that even if all seven independent senators agree with opposition senators that a bill was defective or weak or untidy or badly drafted or unconstitutional or uncalled for it would still be automatically passed 12 to 2 plus 7, because no government representative ever disagrees with the party position. He called for a review of the constitution and proposed that government senators should be reduced from 12 to 10 and opposition senators increased from 2 to 4.
With seven independent senators thinking and voting independently, there would at least be a possibility that all seven might vote with the opposition, so that 7 plus 4 = 11 versus 10, and there would be at least a theoretical possibility, however slim, of a bad bill being returned for re-drafting and correcting or improving. The point was made following the independent senators all recommending review of the recently passed controversial Police Amendment Bill 2017, which nevertheless went whizzing through without the recommended delay for further review.
A thoughtful editorial in the Barbados Today on-line newspaper followed, in which it was suggested that Senator Watson’s proposal did not go far enough. It said:
“We agree with Mr Watson that the Upper House needs some balance, but we do not think his recommendations go far enough. Although we are a young democracy – or probably because we are such – it is critical that we have proper checks and balances in place. We cannot allow the elected representatives to simply push through any legislation they wish to, particularly when it is convenient for them to do so, without proper oversight. We saw it during debate on the amendment to the Police Act. The independent and Opposition senators were uncomfortable with some of the changes and pleaded for the measure to be delayed while the public gets a say and changes are made. Yet Government, with its majority, pushed it through nonetheless.”
In fact, there are apparently only two instances in living memory of a bill not being passed by the Senate: The Family Law (Amendment) Bill 2014 was first proposed under the BLP administration and sent back for review, to return with changes two administrations later. And the draconian Antiquities Bill was sent back by the Senate nearly a decade ago and has never returned. Of course, objective debate requires informed senators, may need research, and should be divorced from political passion. This makes the role of independent senators crucial. They are appointed by the Governor General to provide expertise and experience in specific fields, e.g. health care, law, the church, trade unions, business, agriculture, education and so on, which may not be represented among political appointees.
The Barbados Today editorial continued:
“We could be tempted to suggest that we do away with this body, which is seen by some as a repository for some who have failed at the polls, with the exception of those appointed by the Governor General in his/her own deliberate judgement. The very make up of our Senate already makes it a Government rubberstamp”. And it concluded:
“If we are to have an effective Senate, it must represent the public, not the interest of political parties. It must be able to question and challenge the measures that come before it, and send a Bill with which it is uncomfortable back to the Lower House for recommended improvement.”
It’s worth noting that in Britain the House of Lords, in spite of its composition of privilege, has sent back bills that would have disadvantaged the disadvantaged further! One very famous British billionaire celebrity flew back from the USA in 2015 to vote against a Lords amendment that would have delayed George Osborne’s tax credits cut for three years. Despite his vote the amendment passed, to the great relief of millions of pensioners and a victory for democracy and the bicameral legislature!
And now to the first point – the political nature of most debates. It is frankly disappointing to hear the soap box style debating that often dominates parliamentary sessions. Standing orders are much of the time ignored, with debating wandering wildly and widely away from the subject at hand, while those seeking election boast at inordinate length about what the government or they personally have achieved. A classic example is the Appropriation Bill or Estimates debate, when three days of Senate are spent ostensibly debating the Estimates. In fact, there was only rare mention of the pros and cons of the actual Estimates in the Lower House until the Friday, when only limited discussion took place on a minority of heads. In the Senate much the same happened. Indeed, since the figures were essentially the same as the last year’s and the previous year’s – with merely a tweak here and there - perhaps there was little point! However, review of the estimates under Health, Tourism and Culture, areas of my own expertise, as well as conceivable over-estimates in some specific areas, indicated clearly to me the need for both parliamentary and public discussion. But alas, this is not to be, when political posturing is so much easier.
When I produced the 375th Anniversary of Parliament film series for CBC TV, several former parliamentarians and senators, on both sides, spoke in favour of a unicameral legislature, with the Governor General appointing independent members. It would indeed save the cost of the token honoraria to 21 senators and the catering for 2.4 lunches every month! I confess that I agree with Senator Watson and Barbados Today on the value of a Senate, to provide checks and balances, but a change in the composition is needed and the mandate that senators stick to the topic (Standing Order 35) and abandon soap box politicking should be enforced.
Bouquet: To Mrs. Jenny Marshall for generously lending her beautifully restored historic house and gardens at Lower Greys for the National Trust’s fund-raising Open House on Wednesday afternoon this week, with the “Lively Lecture” at 3 pm, and fabulous rum punch, art and crafts along with the exotic garden’s many delights.
(Professor Fraser is Past Dean of Medical Sciences, UWI and Professor Emeritus of Medicine and Clinical Pharmacology. Website: profhenryfraser.com)