“When confronted with a PQ, a Minister cannot simply hide behind the slogan ‘Bring proof’”

‘Rather, the Minister has a duty to ensure that proper investigations and follow-up action are undertaken’

Qs & As

Parliamentary Practice

By Lex

In a recent session of the House, a heated exchange between backbencher Stéphanie Anquetil and Minister Arianne Navarre-Marie brought to light not only tensions within the governing alliance but also broader questions about the role and impartiality of the Speaker. The incident, which centred on allegations of daycare mismanagement, highlighted the delicate balance between a backbencher’s right to hold the government accountable and the Speaker’s responsibility to maintain order and enforce parliamentary procedure. This Qs & As examines the key issues raised by the episode, including the proper scope of a Speaker’s authority, the treatment of allegations in Parliamentary Questions, and the safeguards necessary to preserve the impartiality and integrity of the Chair.

* A heated parliamentary exchange in December 2025 between Stéphanie Anquetil and Arianne Navarre-Marie exposed internal tensions within the governing alliance and raised concerns about the Chair’s impartiality. The dispute centred on allegations of daycare mismanagement, prompting DPM Paul Bérenger to challenge Anquetil’s line of inquiry. The episode culminated in Speaker S. Aumeeruddy-Cziffra dismissing the allegations as “hearsay” and addressing the MP in what some described as a “maternal” tone — raising the question of whether the Speaker overstepped her role by appearing to question a Member’s motives rather than the procedural validity of the question. What is your assessment of this incident?

It is the fundamental right and privilege of a backbencher to question a minister as part of their role in holding the government accountable. As this is a core function of a Member of Parliament, the Speaker has no mandate to interfere with this right absent a compelling and legitimate justification.

* If an MP is required to prove that a scandal exists before being permitted to ask about it, does this not make it impossible to hold the government accountable for matters that are deliberately kept under wraps?

Under parliamentary privilege, a backbencher is not required to prove allegations to a judicial standard when questioning a minister. However, they are expected to maintain a factual basis for their questions and exercise this privilege responsibly.

* However, we understand that Erskine May provides that an MP is responsible for the accuracy of the facts they present. That said, where an MP receives information from whistleblowers or internal sources — which may technically amount to hearsay — is it not precisely the function of a Parliamentary Question (PQ) to require the Minister to confirm or deny that information on the record?

Erskine May’s authoritative guide to UK parliamentary procedure — ‘Parliamentary Practice’ — does not contain a specific or explicit rule or chapter titled ‘Responsibility of backbenchers to act responsibly’. Rather, it sets out the procedural rules and established conventions governing the conduct of all Members of Parliament during Question Time, which inherently require responsible behaviour.

The duty of all Members — including backbenchers — to act appropriately is enforced through the Speaker’s discretion and the general rules of order and decorum, as described in Erskine May and related procedural guidance.

* How should information originating from unofficial reports or rumours be treated? Does it automatically fall within the prohibition against “hearsay”?

If a backbencher were constrained by the evidential rules that apply in a court of law, their role and their right to ask questions would be severely stifled. When confronted with a Parliamentary Question, a Minister cannot simply hide behind the slogan ‘Bring proof’. Rather, the Minister has a duty to ensure that proper investigations and follow-up action are undertaken.

Concerns raised in Parliament must be referred to the appropriate authorities for examination. In the case of shelters for children, the Minister should engage the Permanent Secretary, the Ombudsperson for Children, or a dedicated child-protection agency. Ministries are often required to investigate reports of child abuse or neglect and to determine whether a child is in need of protection.

* Could it be argued that by demanding documentary proof at very short notice (for example, by the following Friday), the Speaker risks creating a “chilling effect” that discourages MPs from raising sensitive issues involving potential malpractice?

The rules of parliamentary procedure, as set out in Erskine May, provide that while a Member who asks a question is responsible for the accuracy of the facts presented, the Speaker has the authority, in certain circumstances, to require assurance as to their authenticity.

The Speaker is the final authority on the admissibility of all questions and is tasked with ensuring that they comply with the rules and decorum of the House. In this instance, however, the Speaker did not seek clarification or supporting evidence; rather, she appeared to side with the Deputy Prime Minister.

* Under Erskine May, the Speaker’s role is to assess the form of a question — namely, whether it complies with the rules of the House. Would a speaker exceed her authority by questioning an MP’s motives or perceived “agenda” rather than limiting herself to the procedural validity of the question?

The Speaker would exceed her authority by questioning the motives or agenda of a backbencher. The Speaker’s role is to act as a politically impartial referee, concerned strictly with the procedural validity and orderliness of questions and debate, and not with the merits or substance of a question — unless it is manifestly contrary to the Standing Orders.

* Could it be argued that a Speaker’s use of personal language — such as offering advice “as a friend and a mother” — undermines the strict neutrality expected of the Chair?

A Speaker may offer personal advice of a general nature; Sir Harilal Vaghjee was known to do so. However, interfering with a backbencher’s right to ask a question — and then attempting to justify or mask that interference — smacks of partiality.

* Erskine May also cautions against using PQs to attack individuals who cannot defend themselves in the House. Was the Speaker’s intervention therefore a necessary protection for the Assistant Child Programme Officer, or could it be perceived as shielding the Minister instead?

Erskine May indeed provides clear guidance that questions should not be used to launch accusations or attacks against individuals, particularly those who cannot defend themselves in the House. However, a Parliamentary Question may, at times, contain allegations that are not directed at any individual but are an unavoidable part of the inquiry being raised.

It is the duty of the Minister — and even more so of the Speaker — to listen carefully to both the wording of a question and its underlying implications before commenting on it or offering advice to a backbencher.

What Stéphanie Anquetil did was to alert the House to the conditions prevailing in a shelter. There was nothing improper in that. Given the nature of the issue, the question inevitably contained allegations. The Speaker appeared to act with undue haste in responding in a manner that could be perceived as aligning with Paul Bérenger and, by extension, Minister Navarre-Marie. Regardless of past political affiliations — whether linked to the MMM associated with Paul Bérenger or to the splinter group led by Nababsing and de l’Estrac — the Speaker must rise above party considerations and be seen to act with complete impartiality.

* The Speaker suggested that critics could file a motion of censure if they questioned her conduct. Is this a realistic check on the Speaker’s power, or does the weight of a governing majority render such a motion functionally impossible for a lone MP or the opposition?

It was inappropriate for the Speaker to comment on her own actions regarding backbencher Stéphanie Anquetil in a manner that could be perceived as personal or critical. In particular, the use of the phrase ‘Je ne suis pas dupe’ suggested that Ms Anquetil had an ulterior motive in asking her question.

The Speaker’s role is to act as a neutral and impartial moderator, enforcing the rules and maintaining order without bias or personal remarks.

Mauritius Times ePaper Friday 19 December 2025