On a point of order, Presiding Officer.
I hope that it is a genuine one.
Of course it is a genuine one, Presiding Officer—I would not do anything else. I know that you are not responsible for what the First Minister says—
That was my point.
You are, however, responsible for facts being used in the chamber. The First Minister said that the Scottish National Party made no submission on the draft communications bill, and that was simply not true. I know that Mr McConnell believes in more facts and less spin. To have some facts would be acceptable. I hope that the First Minister will withdraw what he said.
Further to that point of order, Presiding Officer.
It was not a point of order at all, but never mind.
I spoke to the department in London two hours ago, and it confirmed that it had not received a submission from the Scottish National Party.
Oh!
Order. We cannot argue over this on a point of order, because it is not a point of order at all; it is a point of argument. You can sort it out afterwards.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Will you confirm that the purpose of question time is to hold the Executive to account, and that such scrutiny involves a two-way process? What protection does the Parliament have against the failure of Government ministers to answer questions that are put to them? I will give you a couple of examples.
No.
I asked a question—
Hang on, Mr Wilson. I do not want a couple of examples. I have said repeatedly that—
But—
Listen to me. Do sit down for a second, Mr Wilson. The content of ministerial answers, as I have said over and over again, is not a matter for the chair. If members are dissatisfied with the answers that they get, they must put more questions to ministers. Alternatively, they can write to ministers. However, it is not a question to be dealt with during points of order for the chair. I must be quite firm about that.
On a separate point of order, Presiding Officer.
If it is a real point of order, I will hear it.
Is it not the case that points of order should be heard in full and in silence?
It was quite clear that what you were embarking on was not a point of order.
Why?
Because you were offering me examples of something that was not a point of order. That is why I am reluctant to let you go on.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. With the greatest respect—and I mean that—if a minister, or indeed any other member, misleads the chamber, that is a matter for the chair. There is no doubt about that in terms of standing orders. All that members are asking for is the protection of the chair in such matters.
I think that I gave you a lot of latitude on that last point, Mr Russell. There is clearly a dispute as to the facts between you and the First Minister, which I cannot sort out from the chair.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Given your apparent ability to predict what members are going to say on points of order, could you tell me what Saturday night's winning lottery numbers will be?
I think that that was a point of cheek, rather than a point of order. Let us turn now to the serious debate that we have ahead of us.