Plenary, 02 Apr 2009

Meeting date: Thursday, April 2, 2009

Official Report 746KB pdf

---

Point of Order

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I understand that today's First Minister's question time has been suspended. I appreciate that a terrible tragedy has taken place in the North Sea. We all are deeply worried about the position of the families and share in the sympathy for them, but the suspension creates a precedent. There are a number of very serious issues that members on all sides of the chamber might wish to have raised today. The First Minister should be accountable regularly to the Parliament: we are about to go into our two-week Easter recess during which there will be no such accountability to Parliament.

I understand that the matter was discussed at the Parliamentary Bureau, which you chair, Presiding Officer, and that a number of bureau members—or, at least, one—raised concerns on the suspension of First Minister's question time. What guidance will you issue on the circumstances under which First Minister's question time could be abandoned in the future? What should the criteria be, now and in the future?

Thank you for your point of order, Lord Foulkes. First Minister's question time has not been suspended. One question will be put to the First Minister—that is what the bureau agreed. Contrary to what you said, no bureau member questioned the form that First Minister's question time will take today, although the bureau discussed alternatives. At the end of the day, however, the matter is for the bureau. That will remain the case in the future.

Further to my point of order, Presiding Officer, I say that the matter is, of course, for the bureau. However, it is also a matter for the Parliament. There ought to be a mechanism under which the bureau has to explain to the Parliament why our parliamentary business has been changed. The criteria for such decisions should be clear, today and in the future.

Tragedies may happen regularly—unfortunately, that is the case. There are tragedies on the road, in the air, as well as on the sea. There are also other reasons why we might be concerned about incidents that take place in Scotland and for which the Parliament and the Executive may have some responsibility.

It would be useful for Parliament to know the basis on which First Minister's question time is changed substantially. I understand that the suggestion now is for political debate to be curtailed. The matter is an important one. The tragedy is sad—we all share deeply in that sadness—but democratic political debate is equally important, and that should continue to be the case.

I note the points that you make, Lord Foulkes, but the bureau unanimously agreed the matter, so I suggest that you take up the issue with your business manager. In this instance, Parliament is represented through the bureau. I repeat: the decision is one for the bureau, the points that you have made are valid, and I suggest that you take them up with your business manager. We should move on with the business of the day.

I have discussed the matter with our business manager. I accept what you say, Presiding Officer. I know that he participated in the discussion and that—in the end—the decision was unanimous. However, my point is this: although the matter is the responsibility of the bureau and the change to business was agreed by its members, is it not also the responsibility of the bureau to explain to Parliament the reasons behind its decision? Surely it should have to explain the criteria. If you cannot rule on that today, Presiding Officer, I hope that that can be done at some point. That would enable Parliament to know what kind of precedent has been created today.

Your points are noted, Lord Foulkes. The matter may be raised at the bureau. The bureau is the right place for such a discussion.