Remaining five PNM MPs were ready for budget debate

PNM MPs Symon De Nobriga, from left, Colm Imbert and Marvin Gonzales at the party's press conference at Balisier House, Port of Spain, on October 18. - Photo by Janelle De Souza

The Opposition says the government failed in its duty to present its plans and policies for the next fiscal year, as ministers were obviously not prepared to do so during the 2025/2026 budget debate on the morning of October 18.

Opposition members added that they did not put up another speaker for the debate because they wanted to reserve their speakers to respond to senior members rather than UNC backbenchers.

So said Arouca/Lopinot MP Marvin Gonzales, MP for Diego Martin North/East Colm Imbert, and Diego Martin Central MP Symon de Nobriga at a PNM press conference at the Balisier House, Port of Spain, on October 18.

They did not expect the government bench to be so unprepared to continue the debate and were surprised when the government bench chose to wrap it up instead. Therefore, the government collapsed its own debate and ran away from being held responsible.

Gonzales explained the PNM has 13 seats in Parliament, 12 contributors since Arouca/Maloney MP Camille Robinson-Regis was unwell, while the government had over 30 members, including senators, to contribute to the debate.

He said around 2 am the Opposition realised only two senior ministers participated in the debate while seven PNM MPs responded.

He pointed out the ministers of Homeland Security, Defence, Education, Housing, Works and Transport, Public Utilities, Energy and Energy Industries, and Rural Development and Local Government did not contribute to the debate.

Waiting on senior ministers

He believed the strategy of the UNC government was to let all the PNM MPs speak so they would not have a chance to respond to “buss mark stories” or ministers "scandalising" or breaching the Standing Orders.

“With only five members remaining, we decided, after the member for Claxton Bay completed his contribution, we would not put in another speaker so that the government can run the 20-plus speakers that they still have to participate in the debate. And at least we can use the last remaining five members of parliament of the PNM to respond to some of the government members, especially the senior ministers, who did not participate in the debate.

“So we did not put in a speaker, expecting the government, as a responsible government that we believe it should be, (to) put in or add more speakers, especially their frontline government ministers. They refused to do that, and the speaker called upon the Minister of Finance to wind up. The Minister of Finance was not even ready to wind up.”

He said the PMN contributors “stripped apart” the budgets and made valid points, yet the Finance Minister did not respond to any of the points.

Imbert added that “important” ministers were supposed to present their plans and programmes for the fiscal year and it was the Opposition’s job to critique what was said.

He said the Minister of Finance’s decision not to respond to the various discrepancies in the numbers provided and the severe impact of the various new taxes highlighted by opposition members, as well as the ministers’ decision not to contribute, deprived the opposition and the population of an account of what they planned to do.

“It is out of embarrassment that they failed to do what they are supposed to do in a budget debate, which is to educate, inform, and clarify the budget measures. The PM did not have her opportunity to expatiate and tell us what’s going on with the thousands of retrenched workers. I think they are embarrassed and that’s why they tried to turn it around.”

Gonzales also pointed out the Prime Minister did not attend Parliament even though she was, according to the Finance Minister, expected to explain what would be done for the thousands of forestry, URP and Cepep workers who were fired earlier this year.

Flawed process

Gonzales also described Beckles being referred to the Privileges Committee of the Parliament following her response to the budget on October 17 as a distraction from her budget presentation.

He said the opposition bench was “taken aback” when the deputy Speaker informed members she received a motion of privilege by Padarath against Beckles, that she decided a prima facie case of contempt had been made up, and referred the matter to the Committee of Privileges for consideration, especially since none of it was done according to the Standing Orders.

Gonzales pointed out several irregularities with the referral. Among other things, Padarath was supposed to read out the motion of privilege on the floor of the Parliament. But, the opposition checked the records and leave was not sought to raise the matter in Parliament by Padarath.

During the deputy Speaker's reading of the ruling, the Clerk of the House tried to get her attention without success.

“This is not just a procedural flaw. This is not a procedural irregularity. It is a scandalous disrespect for Standing Orders of the Parliament of TT and a public lynching of the Leader of the Opposition and a member of Parliament in the Republic of TT immediately following her response to the budget.”

Such a breach of the Standing Orders, he said, was an attack on democracy, and the PNM will address it.