Since last October’s walk-out by the Opposition over Juliet Holness’ attempt to limit their questioning of environment minister Matthew Samuda about the government’s preparations for the imminent passage of Hurricane Melissa, House Speaker Juliet Holness hasn’t had a frequency of bust-ups with the minority that marked her earlier period in the job.
At least, not while she has been in the chair.
That, on its face, is a positive development, especially if it signals that Mrs Holness is growing in the role, and that she is no longer approaching her speakership with seeping partisanship, the woodenness of an automaton, or like a schoolyard disciplinarian. We hope that the evolution, if that is what is, is permanent, and that it continues.
These gains notwithstanding, there is great merit in the advice this week to Mrs Holness by Phillip Paulwell, the leader of Opposition Business, that she resign from parliamentary committees where her presence is not strictly necessary, but could bring her into the partisan fray. Indeed, beyond the truth, or otherwise, of specific accusation that triggered Mr Paulwell’s, his suggestion goes to a fundamental principle of the position that Mrs Holness occupies that the Speaker must not only be impartial, but be seen, and perceived, to be so.
Or, as Mr Paulwell framed the argument in Parliament during his contribution to the sectoral debate on Tuesday: “The role of the Speaker is, by constitutional design and long-standing convention, one of strict impartiality. The Chair exists above the partisan divide as the guardian of fair process for all members, government and Opposition alike.”
UNPRECEDENTED
His concern, Mr Paulwell said, was raised by Speaker Holness’ presence “in contentious committee meetings in a manner that has been perceived as lending support to the government’s position”. This, he claimed, was unprecedented in Jamaica’s parliamentary history, and posed the danger of bringing “the office of Speaker into disrepute”.
In parliamentary committee membership lists published in October, the month after the general election, which returned the Jamaica Labour Party (JLP) to office, Mrs Holness was named as chairman of four standing select committees. Those for:
* Constituencies and Boundaries;
* Standing Orders;
* Private members’ bills; and
* The Constituency Development Fund.
She was also listed as a member of the Public Administration and Appropriations Committee (PAAC), a recent session of which, where Mrs Holness tangled with its chairman, opposition member, Peter Bunting, may have been the proximate cause for Mr Paulwell’s call on Tuesday.
The Standing Orders, the rules governing the operations and management of the House of Representatives, mandates the Speaker’s membership and chairmanship of two committees – Standing Orders Committee, and the Committee on Privileges. Generally, except for the House Committee, which is to be chaired by the leader of government business, Parliament chooses (usually on the recommendation of party leaders) the members and chairmen of committees.
In Speaker Holness’ case, there is no compelling reason for her to sit on any committee other than those designated in the Standing Orders and, at an outside, for the oversight for private members (Opposition and backbenchers) bills. And, of course, she has a place on the Caucus of Women Parliamentarians, which has recognition in the Standing Orders.
ILL-ADVISED
It is ill-advised that the Speaker has a seat on the PAAC which is often engaged in cut-and-thrust (sometimes partisan) over government policy and its execution by the public bureaucracy. Nor is it sensible that Mrs Holness chairs the committee on the CDF, a fund that allocates J$20 million to MPs annually – and additional amounts to respond to specific developments – to spending on projects in their constituencies. The CDF allows MPs to parade with taxpayers’ money as if it was their own and helps to perpetuate politics of patronage.
Indeed, it is with good reasons, that in most Parliaments, and in particular the more mature ones, that Speakers extremely rarely sit on committees, except for those concerned with the oversight of the management of the physical structures and the remuneration of parliamentary staff and MPs.
Indeed, as the fourth edition (2025) of the Canadian parliament’s handbook on procedures and practices – a sort of interpretation of the Standing Orders – notes: “To protect the impartiality of the office, the Speaker abstains from all partisan political activity. They do not participate in debate or attend party caucus meetings.” And except in the very limited circumstances previously mentioned, neither do they participate in committees.
The situation is similar for Speakers in the UK, Australia and New Zealand.
The Gleaner’s Editorial Board believes that this is a worthy system, which should be adopted by Jamaica’s Parliament and entrenched in the Standing Orders.
At the same time, the Parliament should return to the system that was instituted by former prime minister, Bruce Golding, of all committees, except those that naturally fall to the Speaker, be chaired by Opposition members. This, too, should be entrenched in the Standing Orders, rather than left to the whim or benevolence or grace of a prime minister.
