We reproduce hereunder the statement made by the Speaker of the National Assembly, Kailash Purryag, in response to an editorial that appeared in our issue of Tuesday 11 July.

Honourable Members

I have an announcement to make in relation to an article captioned ?au jour le jour ? la transparence opaque? which appeared in the issue of l'express, of today, 11 July 2006.

The article refers to Parliamentary Question B/839 from the Honourable Second Member for Rivière-des-Anguilles and Souillac, Mr Mardemootoo, addressed to the Honourable Deputy Prime Minister, Minister of Tourism, Leisure and External Communications, asking for certain information relating to Air Mauritius Ltd at the sitting of the Assembly of 27 June 2006. This is what the article says in paragraph 3 and I quote:

?Ram Mardemootoo a tenté d'insister: "Mr Speaker, Sir, may we know from the proposed overall projects set up by the Steering Committee?? Le Président de l'Assemblée l'a interrompu volant au secours du ministre qui avait choisi de rester muet?.

Honourable Members

The comment in so far as ?Le président de l'Assemblée l'a interrompu, volant au secours du ministre qui avait choisi de rester muet?, in my view, tantamounts to a reflection on my conduct in that I intervened to help the Honourable Minister and may constitute a breach of section (6)(1)(s) of the National Assembly (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act.

Honourable Members

The House would appreciate that I never came to the rescue of the Honourable Minister as it is purported in the article. In fact, the Honourable Minister having chosen not to answer the Parliamentary Question from the Honourable Mardemootoo, I ruled that no supplementary questions would be allowed. This is sound parliamentary practice, in as much as, there being no answer from the Honourable Minister to the main question, it follows that supplementary questions cannot be entertained.

I wish here to refer to Erskine May, Parliamentary Practice, 23rd edition, which lays down at page 354 (oral answers and supplementary questions) that:

(I quote): ?An answer should be confined to the points contained in the question with such explanation only as render the answer intelligible, though a certain latitude is permitted to Ministers of the Crown; and supplementary questions, without debate or comment, may, within due limits, be addressed to them, which are necessary for the elucidation of the answers that they have given?. (Unquote)

Furthermore, I quote from the same paragraph : ?A supplementary question may refer only to the answer out of which it immediately arises?.

Again at page 352 Erskine May lays down that : ?An answer to a question cannot be insisted upon if the answer has been refused by the Honourable Minister and the Speaker has refused to allow supplementary questions in these circumstances?.

In the case at hand, the Honourable Minister did not answer the question and limited himself by stating that the question related to the day to day management of Air Mauritius Ltd and that he considered it inappropriate to deal with such matters in the House.

From what follows therefore, I could not allow supplementary questions as the question was not answered.

It is obvious that at no time did I in the exercise of my duties as Speaker of the House, demonstrate any form of partiality or still less to ?voler au secours du ministre qui avait choisi de rester muet?. By not allowing the supplementary question from the Honourable Mardemootoo, I was merely applying the rules that guide the parliamentary procedures and practices in this House.

Honourable Members

I would like to believe that the comment regarding the Speaker of the House expressed in the said article of l'express, may have arisen out of ignorance of parliamentary procedures and practices.

For the dignity of the House, I could not have allowed the matter to go uncommented, but I am not pursuing the matter any further. However, I wish to state that I will not allow any similar recurrence in the future.

Thank you for your attention.