Time for Reflection
Rev John H Fitzsimmons (Parish Priest, St John Bosco's, Erskine):
It is said to be a sign of advancing years when one begins to notice that the police and teachers are getting younger with every passing day, but in the language that was once so beloved in the Church tradition to which I belong, addo tertium. There is a third way–no political reference intended—in which to estimate your age: when members of Parliament are getting younger than the police and teachers.
This Parliament of ours follows in a long and extremely distinguished tradition. It has not been given; it has been restored. It brings to light by its very existence the fact that there is within every Scotsman and Scotswoman an innate respect for tradition. Tradition can be a source of strength. It provides each generation with a point of reference: if we forget where we have come from, ultimately we forget who we are.
Tradition can also be a drawback—like those mighty drag chains that always fascinated me as a boy when I watched the launching of great ships. We get into the water and then tradition pulls us back, lest we go too far. We have an innate respect for tradition, which is all to the good. However, it must not bind us in such a way that when it is restored it is not truly resurrected, but merely exhumed.
There are bound to be some among us who feel that one of the many challenges that we face, in both Church and state in this nation of ours, is in having only the sketchiest of blueprints to work with. The burden is to discover how to round it out, how to build on it and how to dot the i's and cross the t's in a way that will do justice to the complexity of our times. Perhaps the experience of a 2000-year-old enterprise will stand both as a guide and as a caution.
The biggest single challenge to face the nascent Christian Church was how to take its tradition with it into a whole new set of conditions and circumstances. With the 20:20 vision of history, it has to be said that its success has been limited.
The decisive moments have been in the plural; there has been no single turning point. The history of the Church is peppered with twists and turns, some of them positive and some of them base and unworthy. Thank God that we have a tradition that we can fall back on if we need guidance and a history that will teach us what to do and what not to do. We should treat both with respect.
Archbishop Oscar Romero, who was murdered in El Salvador 20 years ago this month, has something to say about representing people who trust us.
"This is what we are about.
We plant seeds that one day will grow.
We water seeds that are already planted,
Knowing that they will hold future promise.
We lay foundations that will need further development.
We provide yeast that produces effects far beyond our capabilities.
We cannot do everything
And there is a liberation in that.
This enables us to do something
And to do it very well.
It may be incomplete
But it is a beginning, a step along the way.
We may never see the end results,
But that is the difference between the master builder
And the worker.
We are workers, not master builders;
Ministers, not messiahs.
We are prophets of a future which is not our own."
Before we begin, I will make four procedural announcements.
First, members who wish to speak in Gaelic in tomorrow's debate should notify my office of their wish to use that language in advance, to help us make the necessary interpretation arrangements.
Secondly, during a debate last week, one member named an official in the course of their speech. I am sure that that was inadvertent—due to inexperience—but I remind members that civil servants should not be referred to by name in debates, as only ministers have a chance to respond.
Thirdly, Sandra White raised a point of order with me last week about remarks made across the floor of the chamber, which I did not hear but which I subsequently saw in the Official Report. I have also had letters from the public about the growing amount of backchat among members when a member is speaking. I remind members that standing order 7.3.1 requires members to
"conduct themselves in a courteous and respectful manner".
It would be helpful if members did not shout remarks across the floor of the chamber.
Last, we have had far more applications to speak in today's debate than can be accommodated. I am aware that some members will want to speak to raise a burning constituency issue. If they are able to do that in two minutes instead of the standard four, that will enable other members to speak. I fear that we will end the day with more disappointed members than normal. I am anxious that we proceed with the debate right away.
On a point of order. Does your ruling about naming civil servants apply to spin-doctors or special advisers, who may come in for justifiable criticism from members of Parliament in the chamber and in committees?
That is an intriguing point. Would you mind if I take note of it and give you a considered view? At the moment I am referring to—how can I put it—ordinary civil servants. I will take that point on board and respond to it in due course.