Meeting of the Parliament
Meeting date: Thursday, February 3, 2011
Official Report
1031KB pdf
Point of Order
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Under rule 13.4 of the standing orders, a question is deemed to be admissible
“unless ... it does not comply with the requirements of Rule 13.3.3”,
which states:
“A question shall ... (b) relate to a matter for which the First Minister, the Scottish Ministers or the Scottish Law Officers have general responsibility”.
At today’s First Minister’s question time, I asked a question relating to the Scottish Government’s powers under paragraph 3 of schedule 4 to the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997. The First Minister told me that if I had been looking up the acts I must have known that the First Minister
“cannot give a judgment or determination on a matter of ministerial discretion in this way.”
Thus, the First Minister called into question the legitimacy and admissibility of my question.
It is clear, from the legislation, that the Government has the power to step in and recall the planning appeal in question. I represent thousands of people in my constituency who wish that Alex Salmond’s Government would act on the side of the people and use his powers to reject the appeal by Shore Energy, which seeks to overturn the decision of the democratically elected members of North Lanarkshire Council and is against the wishes of the community. Rather, the First Minister seems to have tried to sidestep his responsibilities through his evasive answer on his Government’s powers under the 1997 act.
Come to the point of order please.
Scottish National Party members may jeer, but the people I represent believe that this is a deadly serious matter. As my question legitimately related to a matter for which the First Minister and his ministers are responsible, it was clearly admissible, so I contend that it was out of order for the First Minister to suggest otherwise in his response. Do you consider that that was a breach of standing orders? If so, how can it be remedied?
I can confirm two things. First, your question was admissible. Secondly, there was no breach of standing orders in the way in which the First Minister responded to it.