Plenary, 01 Nov 2001

Meeting date: Thursday, November 1, 2001

Official Report 576KB pdf

---

Presiding Officer's Ruling

Before we come to the business motion, I have a statement to make to the chamber prior to this afternoon's question session. I have reviewed last week's proceedings during First Minister's questions. Having studied the Official Report, I hope it may be helpful to members if I elaborate on the rulings that I made last Thursday.

Rule 13.3.3(b) of our standing orders makes it clear that ministers can be questioned only on matters for which they have general responsibility. The detailed guidance on parliamentary questions sets out how that rule will be applied. That guidance was endorsed after careful consideration by all the main political parties represented in the Parliament and is available on the Scottish Parliament website. In particular, it explains that questions must relate to matters that are within the official responsibility of members of the Executive. It explains therefore that questions about activities undertaken by members of the Executive in a personal, party or constituency capacity will not be admitted.

No member can be answerable here for activities as a member of the House of Commons. Indeed, Madam Speaker Boothroyd, in an early ruling, which she and I discussed, strictly forbade questions in the Commons relating to devolved matters, to reflect revised ministerial responsibilities following the establishment of the Parliament.

I undertook to reciprocate. That is consistent with our standing orders and with the guidance that I have just quoted and is in the interests of good relations between our two Parliaments. That is why it was out of order last week to have the matter raised at First Minister's questions.

There are, however, at least two ways in which the issue could be raised in this Parliament. First, any member can seek my agreement under rule 13.1 to make a personal statement. If I agree, the Parliamentary Bureau would be required to include notice of the statement in a business motion. Such statements cannot be debated. As I said last week, that rule has never been used in our short two-and-a-half-year existence. It would also be in order for any member to ask me whether any request to make a personal statement on such-and-such a matter had been made.

Secondly, any non-Executive party can use part of its time to debate any matter, and our rules on what can be debated are much wider than the rules governing questions. It is the function of the Presiding Officers to apply and interpret the rules that this Parliament has adopted, and we shall continue to do so in accordance with the standing orders.

For the benefit of members, I am arranging for copies of that ruling to be available at the back of the chamber.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Your statement raises some serious concerns, but I would like to ask about two specific points. First, has there been a request from any member of this Parliament to deliver a personal statement? Secondly, is it in order for members of the Executive to be questioned about their current parliamentary responsibilities in relation to their current register of interests and about how that relates to their ability to carry out their duties as members of the Executive, particularly with reference to the ministerial code of conduct and the code of conduct for members?

The answer to the first question is no, I have not received any request for a personal statement. On your second question, I think that there are two separate issues, if I understand you correctly. I do not think that it would be in order to raise matters about the register of interests, because that affects all members, not just members of the Executive. I think that questions on the ministerial code of conduct may well be in order, but I would like to reflect further on what you have asked me.

On a further point of order, Presiding Officer. I was quite specific. Our responsibility as a Parliament is the accountability of the Executive. Our ability to question whether members of the Executive can carry out their duties and responsibilities to full effect is a very current issue. Seriously under question in current circumstances is whether the First Minister can carry out his responsibilities bearing in mind the weight of public opinion and interest in current issues.

It is very difficult for me to give a ruling on a hypothetical question, as you will understand. I have given a clear ruling and have arranged for copies to be available at the back of the chamber. I hope that members will study that ruling before we get to question time this afternoon.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. May members infer from your comments that, if you or one of your deputies rules a question to be out of order, you will immediately rule any attempt to respond to that question to be similarly out of order and require the minister so responding to resume his seat immediately?

Yes, I must say, having reflected on what happened last week, that I think that I was in error in allowing a long answer to be given, which was, as I said afterwards, out of order, but one learns by experience. Both question and answer last week were out of order, and would be again if repeated this afternoon.