Senior Reporter
jesse.ramdeo@cnc3.co.tt
Political analyst Dr Winford James has dismissed claims by the Opposition that the Government deliberately wound up the Budget debate in both the House of Representatives and the Senate to prevent Opposition members from contributing.
The Opposition has accused the Government of using procedural tactics to stifle scrutiny of the national Budget, alleging the debates were prematurely concluded in order to avoid further questioning on key fiscal measures.
“The Government has conducted the Budget debate in the Senate in a similar manner to the way in which they conducted it in the House of Representatives, which demonstrates a seemingly deliberate avoidance of the scrutiny and accountability required in the process of genuine debate,” the Opposition claimed.
However, James yesterday said the Opposition’s position “does not appear credible,” noting that parliamentary procedure provides mechanisms for members who wish to speak.
“If the Government prevented them from participating in the debate, then that is a different thing, but it does not appear to be so,” James said.
“They (Opposition) would have preferred the Government act in a particular way, and the Government did not. If they wanted the Government to account, then it is up to them to beg of the presiding officer to allow them all to speak.”
He explained that the Opposition could have lobbied to hold the Government to account.
“If there had been an objection to that request, their case would have been far stronger,” he said.
James added that parliamentary debate operated within clearly defined rules and timeframes, and that both Government and Opposition members are expected to use those provisions effectively.
The Opposition maintains the conduct of the debate was an erosion of democratic engagement. But James said without procedural action during the sittings to support those claims, the narrative remains weak.
