Dans une déclaration au Parlement, le Speaker a donné les raisons de son rejet de la Private Notice Question du Leader de l’Opposition.
Hon. Members,
I have to inform the House that the Hon. Leader of the Opposition, Dr Boolell gave notice of a Private Notice Question which he intended to put today to the Hon. Prime Minister. I wish to draw the attention of Hon. Members to the provisions of standing orders 21(1) and (2), respectively, which provide as follows:21(1) “The proper object of a question shall be to obtain information on a matter of fact within the special cognizance of the Minister to whom it is addressed.”
(2) “Questions may be asked of Ministers relating to public affairs with which they are officially connected, or any matter of administration for which such Ministers are responsible”
Hon. Members,
A perusal of the PNQ as submitted does not comply with the abovementioned standing orders, in as much as it contains four different subject matter directed to different Ministries for which the Hon. Prime Minister is not responsible.Besides being cross cutting, the PNQ as put was open ended, vague and lacks precision as to a particular subject matter contrary to the provisions of standing orders 22(1)(a) which provides that:
“not more than one subject shall be referred to in any one question…..”
In that respect, the following excerpts from Erskine May at paragraphs 22.3 and 22.17, respectively, are worth noting: I quote:
“In order to be admissible, an oral question should be so worded as to indicate, within broad terms, a particular subject matter.” “It is not in order to put to a Minister a question for which another Minister is more directly responsible…”
Hon. Members,
The Hon. Leader of the Opposition was duly informed that his PNQ was found to be inadmissible for non-compliance with the provisions of Standing Orders 21 and 22(1)(a).
