  |
'Regrettable that Picardo aired his dissent in the news media, says Speaker
|
The Speaker of the Parliament, Haresh Budhrani, said yesterday that it was 'regrettable' that Opposition member Fabian Picardo should have chosen to air his dissent in the news media, quoting extensively from their respective letters concerning the decision by the Speaker to rule a question proposed by Mr Picardo as being inadmissible.
In a statement to Parliament yesterday, the Speaker said that earlier in the week he had taken the view that one of the questions submitted by Mr Picardo on the previous Thursday offended a Standing Order which reads that "The right to ask questions shall be governed by the following rules, as to the interpretation of which the Speaker shall be sole judge: a question shall not contain any argument, inference, imputation, epithet, or ironical expressions;..."
The Speaker quotes from Erskine May in support of the action he took.
This is his statement IN FULL:
Earlier in the week I took the view that one of the questions submitted by the Hon. Fabian Picardo last Thursday for oral answer by the Government during the present meeting of Parliament offended against SO 17(l)(iv), which reads:
"17. (1) The right to ask questions shall be governed by the following rules, as to the interpretation of which the Speaker shall be the sole judge:-
(iv) aquestionshall notcontainany argument,inference, imputation, epithet, or ironical expression;..."
Erskine May at page 346 of the 23rd Edition (2004) advises:
"Questions which seek an expression of opinion, or which contain arguments, expressions of opinions, inferences or imputations, unnecessary epithets, or rhetorical, controversial, ironical or offensive expressions are not in order."
SO 17(2) provides:
"If the Speaker is of the opinion that any question of which a Member has given notice to the Clerk ... infringes any of the paragraphs of this Order or is in any other respect inadmissible as not complying with the rules of the Parliament or as constituting an abuse of the right of questioning, he may direct...
(b) that it be returned to the Member concerned as inadmissible."
Far from simply directing the Clerk to return the question as inadmissible, I wrote to the Honourable Member and caused to be delivered to him by the Gentleman Usher a letter setting out my reasons for exercising my powers under SO 17(2).
Erskine May further advises at page 343:
"When a question has been refused and the Member concerned wishes to make representations to the Speaker on the matter, the practice is for these to be made privately to the Speaker and not raised by way of a point of order in the House."
The Honourable Member wrote to me later that day, not to make representations but to express his disagreement with my decision. We spoke over the telephone shortly after I received his letter and we ended a very-cordial conversation agreeing to disagree.
While the Honourable Member is entitled to consider himself at liberty to inform the news media that, in the light of my ruling, he will not be asking the particular question after all, it is regrettable that, contrary to his own recognition that "Parliamentary procedure ... provides that [he has] no alternative but to accept [my] ruling ...", he should have chosen to air his dissent in the news media, quoting extensively from our respective letters.
The Parliamentary practice that I have quoted from Erskine May is derived from the proposition that "The Speaker is the final authority as to the admissibility of questions." {Erskine May at page 342) and is aimed at ensuring that the Speaker does not have to enter into a discussion of his decision in the House, let alone in the news media some components of which are content to describe this difference of opinions as a "row" or "storm" when none exists.
When I was first appointed to this distinguished office three and a half years ago, I pledged to uphold the dignity of the House, a commitment I was happy to renew upon my re-appointment a few months ago. I believe that that objective can be best achieved by my strict adherence to the Parliamentary practices and traditions that have evolved over the centuries at Westminster as expounded by Erskine May and I would be grateful if all the Honourable Members of this august body were to assist me by doing likewise.
|
|
|
|
