THE People’s National Party (PNP) parliamentary group is to meet this morning to decide if it will boycott today’s sitting of the House of Representatives where Prime Minister Andrew Holness is scheduled to deliver his contribution to the 2024-25 Budget Debate.

But there is no word on whether PNP president, Opposition Leader Mark Golding, will be allowed to complete his budget presentation during today’s sitting of the House.

Golding’s presentation to the budget debate was aborted on Tuesday after Government members, led by Holness, walked out of the Chamber forcing a premature end to the sitting as a quorum, which is 16 members and the Speaker, was not present.

Following the early end to the sitting, Opposition Member of Parliament Julian Robinson told the Jamaica Observer that the PNP parliamentarians would have to determine their next move.

“I mean, the budget debate continues. It’s supposed to continue Thursday. But clearly we are not going to be comfortable coming to listen to the prime minister when they have rendered the Parliament unable to hear the rest of the speech of the Opposition leader. So we will sit down as a parliamentary group and determine how we move forward,” said Robinson.

Up to late Wednesday, there was no official word from the Opposition on whether its members would be in the House but senior members of the party confirmed that there was a split in the ranks about what should be their next step.

“There are mixed views so we continue to have discussions about it. A decisions will be made this morning,” one senior member of the Opposition told the Observer.

In the meantime, Government sources told the Observer that they were checking Parliament’s Standing Orders to see if there are any provisions for Golding to complete his presentation.

“But we really don’t think that he should be allowed to. He was urged to withdraw his comments which would lead to the Government side returning to the chamber and allowing him to continue on Tuesday. I personally believe that he should be referred to the Ethics Committee of Parliament so that action can be taken against him.

“It was really descending into the gutter with his comments about the Speaker [St Andrew East Rural MP Juliet Holness] and he compounded it with his comments at the press conference later,” said one Government source.

The rumpus started on Tuesday close to the end of Golding’s presentation when he charged that when former Speaker of the House Marisa Dalrymple-Philibert was forced to resign as a result of an Integrity Commission investigation, “the move to replace her with the wife of the prime minister, so that the head of Parliament is now the spouse of the head of Government, really does not sit well with the tradition that the Speaker must act independently of the Government of the day”.

With the Government members fuming and walking out for what the prime minister described as “low and desperate”, the sitting ended shortly after with representatives of both sides issuing a flurry of media releases and taking to the airwaves to defend their positions.

Minister responsible for Gender Affairs Olivia Grange, who was the acting leader of government business in the House on Tuesday, led the charge from the Government’s side.

“Like all members of the House who are not ministers or parliamentary secretaries, she [Juliet Holness] has the right to be considered for the post of Speaker. The two-term Member of Parliament, who also served as Deputy Speaker, was elected to the Speaker’s chair on merit — not because of her spouse. It is wrong, and harks back to a bygone age, before women’s empowerment, to say that she, or any woman, should be disqualified from any post because of the job of her spouse,” charged Grange.

But the PNP’s Women’s Movement argued that it is evident that the conflict of interest arising from the spousal relationship between the Speaker of the House and the prime minister is a matter of concern that cannot be overlooked.

“This conflict would persist regardless of the genders involved, as the issue lies in the inherent conflict between the roles of Speaker and prime minister,” said the Women’s Movement.

“Furthermore, we must not conflate legitimate discourse on matters concerning our nation with accusations of misogyny. Any attempt to do so would only hinder efforts toward achieving genuine gender parity and equality. Our goal is to ensure equal opportunities and equal accountability for all representatives, regardless of gender,” added the Women’s Movement.