oranges'' when it comes to measuring the quality of debates between the Upper and Lower House, Members of Parliament yesterday said.

Their comments come in the wake of statements made in the Upper House on Monday. As Senators -- who are appointed -- prepared to rise for the summer, a ripple of self-congratulation flowed through the chamber, with more than a few members pausing to reflect on how objective, constructive, and positive their debates had been in contrast to those of their elected kin in the House of Assembly.

But it's a bit like comparing apples to oranges, Acting Opposition Leader and a former Senator himself, Eugene Cox, yesterday told The Royal Gazette .

"Sitting around that round table (in the Senate) is like being with a group of friends and debating an issue. It tends to promote a camaraderie, unlike in the House where you're sitting across the floor from each other.

"(The House) is more confrontational, and we've had some pretty critical debates this session, and some were emotional but that's to be expected. The stakes are higher,'' said Mr. Cox.

Minister of Information and Technology, John Barritt, agreed the Senate "environment'' lends itself to a calmer debating style.

"But those who listen are better judges of the quality of the debates,'' he said.

And unlike the Senate, the House of Assembly tends to reinforce an "us-versus-them'' mentality, said Mr. Barritt.

"I don't condone people getting carried away -- and there were some excesses in the House -- but debating should be forceful and probing.

"I think though there is room for improvement, especially with some more than others.'' Environment Minister Irving Pearman said it's a fact the demeanour of Senate debates are much different than those of the House.

"There's a sedateness about the place, said Mr. Pearman ,a one-time member of the Upper House. "But they don't have the strength of emotion of actually having to represent constituents.'' "The Senate is very good at providing self-serving comments,'' added the Progressive Labour Party's Alex Scott -- another former Senator. "It's a tradition that started long ago.'' Measured to international standards Bermuda's House is actually quite tame, said Mr. Scott; nevertheless Parliament is the place where competing interests come to do battle: "It's not supposed to be a Sunday school. Parliaments were formed to replace the battle lines of old. Now instead of weapons, we do war with words and ideas.

"I think the Senators are sitting in perfumed oblivion when it comes to realising what Parliament is all about.'' Mr. Scott's benchmate, Renee Webb, told The Royal Gazette she was taken aback by the Senators trumpeting their own virtues.

"I was surprised to hear of it because I know we in the House can't criticise the Senate. We can't even refer to it; we have to call it `that other place','' she said.

Ms Webb however readily admitted the quality of debate in the House was "inconsistent''.

"We have 40 members in the House as opposed to 11 in the Senate, some of whom are more articulate than others.'' While some debates, she said, are better than others, she added: "We tend to do better with the emotional debates. They seem to hit closer to home.'' because there is more at stake in the House and the chamber's layout lends itself to adersarial debating.

SENATE SEN