Official Report 126KB pdf
Item 4 is consideration of the procedure for points of order. Members will recall that the last time we discussed the matter, under the committee's work programme, we agreed that the committee should consider the need for a rule change to prevent misuse of rule 8.17, which relates to points of order. Members feel that there may be occasions on which the rule is used to make points for which the rule was not intended, and that there might be merit in considering whether mechanisms could be introduced to prevent such abuse. The paper that is before us suggests a number of actions to assist the committee in taking the matter forward. I ask for any views, questions or comments on the paper.
Is there a connection between the points-of-order issue and the "Scottish Ministerial Code"?
We had a brief discussion of the matter at our previous meeting. The connection that was made was that both things would be looked at just now, but there is no obvious relationship between the two. The issue of points of order was raised at our away day and, as far as I know, there is no link between them. Are you talking about ministerial statements? The issue of publication of ministerial statements and who they should be sent to was raised, but I am not aware that there is any connection between that issue and the issue of points of order. When we discussed the matter previously, it was suggested that the Parliamentary Bureau might be looking into the publication of ministerial statements—I am advised that the bureau is considering the matter. There is no link between that and points of order.
I am happy to accept what we have to do in order to progress our inquiry. I suggest that we leave the matter open in case it can be linked to anything that the bureau is considering. The bureau is just observing what happens in Parliament—it is not pre-empting any research that we might do. Often, when a member rises to make a point of order it has something to do with a ministerial statement or a minister's actions in Parliament. It would be right, therefore, in considering points of order, to link both issues in order to come up with a solution.
I return to the question that was asked originally, which is whether the procedure for points of order is being abused. The Parliamentary Bureau has also discussed the matter. I think that everyone is aware that the procedure is part of the democratic working of Parliament, so nobody wants to rush in and make heavy-handed changes.
Without having the figures to hand, the first question that occurs to me is whether there have been changes between sessions. Admittedly, we are only six months into the current session, but how many points of order were made in the two previous sessions? Can we extrapolate from that and do some analysis? If we considered every point of order, we would be here until kingdom come, so a time restriction is certainly required.
I suggest that we compare the period from the end of the summer recess until the end of the year with the same period in 2003, because similar things might happen. As the Procedures Committee considered the matter in 2001, I do not think that we need to go back further than that.
We should not end up comparing apples with pears—we must compare the same period of time in different sessions or the baseline will not be consistent.
When I discussed the matter with the clerks before the meeting, there was concern that the work could become too large. We talked about examining 15 points of order, by which I mean original points of order, not ones that follow on—sometimes members make points of order on the back of others.
Are we talking about a purely quantitative analysis? Will we analyse only the frequency of points of order or will we also consider their validity? I am talking not necessarily about whether points of order were upheld by a Presiding Officer but about their validity in relation to standing orders.
I do not think that there would be much point in considering just the number of points of order. We cannot find out whether the procedure is being abused by considering only the number. We need to consider the nature of the points that are raised and the Presiding Officers' reactions to them. Our analysis will be qualitative and quantitative.
Part of the study will compare what we do with what other Parliaments do. We will also invite the Presiding Officer, the Minister for Parliamentary Business, business managers and the head of the chamber office to give their views, so the inquiry will be fairly wide ranging.
Next
Code of Conduct