Speaker’s Rulings — Personal Reflections—Member’s Right to Object

Yesterday a number of members raised points of order about personal reflections. I ruled on this matter on Tuesday. In my ruling I pointed out that “Members’ freedom of speech should not be curtailed, unless members’ remarks are offensive on the face of it or are strongly insulting.”

The Leader of the House made an allegation about another member’s support of a past political regime. Such a statement is not offensive on the face of it. It may not have been correct, but that is not for the Speaker to judge and the Speaker cannot intervene on that basis.

In a later supplementary question a further allegation was made. This allegation referred to a matter that had been the subject of a personal explanation. Where a member makes a personal explanation denying something, the member’s word must be accepted and it is improper for another member to pursue the matter. The Chair will look to protect the member. On this basis the Leader of the House was asked to withdraw and apologise, and he did. I note that Mr Locke was subsequently given leave to make a further personal explanation in which he denied supporting the political regime in question. Further references of the type made initially by the Leader of the House would now not be in order.

Subsequently, allegations of “cheating” and “stealing” were made against the Government. Ministers took exception. The Government consists of members. Therefore, a term cannot be applied to the Government that cannot be applied to other members generally—Speaker’s ruling 47/6. The allegations that were made imputed improper motives on the part of the Government. They were a personal reflection in the terms of Standing Order 116. Ministers, upon taking an objection, were entitled to the protection of the Chair.