OPPOSITION members on Tuesday renewed calls for greater neutrality in Parliament, raising concerns about the conduct of Speaker Juliet Holness and warning that recent actions risk undermining confidence in the chair.

The issue was raised early in the sitting during the opening of the contribution as the second speaker in the sectoral debate by Leader of Opposition Business and Opposition Spokesman on Energy Phillip Paulwell, who framed his intervention as a matter of constitutional principle rather than personal criticism.

He pointed to what he described as unprecedented developments involving the speaker’s role in committee proceedings.

“The role of the Speaker is, by constitutional design and long-standing convention, one of strict impartiality… It is therefore a matter of institutional concern, one I raise with respect for the office and not for the individual, that we have recently witnessed the Speaker’s presence in contentious committee meetings in a manner that has been perceived as lending support to the Government’s position,” he said.

Paulwell urged corrective action and asked Holness to step down from all committees that “are likely to bring the office of Speaker into disrepute”.

“If we are serious about Standing Orders reform, and if we are serious about strengthening Jamaican democracy, then we must also be serious about protecting the impartiality of the chair. That protection is not a courtesy. It is a constitutional obligation, and it is one I call on all members of this House to uphold,” he added.

The concerns about impartiality then spilled over into the debate on the National Reconstruction and Resilience Authority (NaRRA) Bill, one of the most consequential pieces of legislation currently before Parliament.

Midway through the sitting, a dispute erupted over speaking time when Holness cut off Opposition Leader Mark Golding, claiming that he had run out of time and at first denied an extension, a decision that she reversed giving him an additional 10 minutes to finish his contribution.

Golding pushed back, arguing that the significance of the Bill warranted flexibility.

“Madam Speaker, I don’t think we should be parsimonious in allocating time to the leader of the opposition in his presentation on this Bill. I’m the leader of the opposition.”

However, Holness maintained her position, insisting that all members were bound by the same rules.

This exchange triggered wider criticism from Opposition members, who argued that strict enforcement of time limits risked stifling meaningful debate on legislation with far-reaching implications.

Member of Parliament (MP) for St Catherine North Western Damion Crawford warned that the approach taken could distort the balance of proceedings in the House.

“There’s a problem with Parliament if the Speaker dominates the Parliament, and that is what we are having [when] the Speaker gets more time than the speakers,” he said.

He also questioned why tighter controls were being applied during debate on a Bill the prime minister himself had described as highly significant.

Further criticism came from MP for Manchester Southern Peter Bunting, who argued that procedural rules were being used in a way that limited dissenting voices.

“I think the use of the Standing orders to curtail the important contribution of the leader of the opposition was very unfortunate though consistent with a growing practice of suppression of voices not supporting the Government. Members of parliament were not elected to come here to serve the Standing orders, the Standing orders are here to serve the parliament, and when it is used to stifle and suppress an important contribution on a Bill that is so significant to the future of this country, it is disgraceful,” he said.