Before we begin this afternoon's business, I will make a statement about this morning's events. If injury time is required, I will allow both question times to overrun slightly.
On a point of order. The Deputy Presiding Officer said that all three Presiding Officers had discussed and agreed to the decision that you took this morning. Is that true?
I will not go into that. I accept responsibility for what happened this morning. That is the point that I made in my statement.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Will you launch an inquiry into whether information on the ruling was given in advance to the press? I raised that point this morning, but did not get a satisfactory answer. It is important that that point is clarified for the Parliament.
No, I assure you that the press were not so informed. I have arranged already to have a long discussion later this afternoon with the Minister for Parliament about that matter.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. May I clarify your last statement? Are you confirming publicly that you are satisfied that no member of your office or another Presiding Officer leaked any information to the press?
I am so satisfied. If you have any suggestions to the contrary, I will be happy to discuss them with you later. At present, I am totally satisfied on that point.
On a point of order. It was evident to anyone who understands how these things work that the press knew about the ruling this morning. Is not that grounds for an inquiry to establish whether someone from your office—or someone else—provided information to the press, Presiding Officer?
I have already made such inquiries as I can. That is why I just gave the answer that I did.
On a point of order.
On a point of order.
I will take Mr McCabe's point of order first.
Presiding Officer, you said that that information could not have come from your office, but, for further clarification, could it have come from any Presiding Officer?
I do not think so.
That is not what I asked. Could it have?
No, not as far as I am aware.
It could not have.
I do not think so.
It could not have.
I do not think so. I am as sure as I can be that it did not. However, like all these things, we should examine the situation carefully and at length later on. There is no point having a continuous argument in the chamber about it.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. How can you be satisfied that the press put two and two together about the ruling? Could not it be reasonably assumed that the press put two and two together in relation to Mr MacKay's proposed statement? This morning we should have heard that statement from Mr MacKay directly.
No, I disagree. If you were to examine the press cuttings, which are substantial, you would see that an Executive source is quoted specifically. There is no question about that.
On a point of order.
I am not keen to continue this public argument—[Interruption.] Continue, Mr McCabe.
On your previous ruling, you have not been prepared to confirm the statement that was made this morning that all three Presiding Officers were aware of and in agreement with the ruling. In terms of natural justice, surely you should confirm whether or not that is the case.
I will discuss that matter with you later this afternoon, if I may. It is more complicated—[Interruption.] Order.
On a point of order. With all due respect, Presiding Officer, if the chamber does not agree with a ruling for which you have decreed that you will accept responsibility, whether the matter refers to the actions of one of your deputies or not, and has no confidence in you, is not it the case that the proper route is a motion of no confidence in the chair, because you accepted that responsibility?
I think that that is correct. I invite—[Interruption.]
On a point of order.
Order. Just a minute, Ms Lamont.
On that issue, the problem is not whether you take that responsibility; rather, it is the fact that a statement was made in the chamber this morning that all three Presiding Officers were party to the decision. That is entirely different from saying that you take responsibility for the quality of that decision, as it is a separate matter to establish whether that decision was made by all three Presiding Officers together. That is what was said this morning.
That is not a point of order. However, I accept responsibility for everything that was said by my deputy in the chair.
Further to that point of order, Presiding Officer, and given that line of questioning, is not it the case that those who have been inquisitors are suddenly being seen as the guilty? The Minister for Finance and Local Government treated with contempt the rules of the chamber. Surely that is the issue that the Presiding Officer should address.
I do not accept that. I accept what the minister said this morning when he said that he did not convey information to the press.
On a point of order.
Can we move on? We are going—[Interruption.] If necessary, we can come back to the issue in the chamber, but in the meantime, Mr McCabe and I will have a discussion.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I need some clarification. Are you prepared to give the chamber an assurance that you will make a public announcement if, in private discussion, we establish that all three Presiding Officers were not party to the ruling?
I think that you and I should have a full discussion on it and decide—
Go on, answer, Presiding Officer.
Order. Let me finish. Mr McCabe, resume your seat. Let us discuss the matter and then decide whether I should make a further statement later this afternoon. I am willing to explore the matter in some detail.
Previous
Business Motion