Official Report 422KB pdf
17:51
The next item of business is consideration of business motion S7M-01864, in the name of Jamie Hepburn, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, setting out a business programme. Members who wish to speak to that motion should press their request-to-speak button now.
Motion moved,
That the Parliament agrees—
(a) the following programme of business—
Tuesday 10 November 2026
2.00 pm Time for Reflection
followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions
followed by General Questions
followed by First Minister’s Questions (Backbench Members)
followed by Ministerial Statement: Winter Resilience
followed by Scottish Government Debate: The BBC and Public Service Broadcasting in Scotland
followed by Committee Announcements
followed by Business Motions
followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions
5.30 pm Decision Time
followed by Members’ Business
Wednesday 11 November 2026
2.00 pm Parliamentary Bureau Motions
2.00 pm Portfolio Questions: Social Justice and Housing; Economy, Tourism and Transport
followed by Scottish Labour Party Business
followed by Business Motions
followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions
5.30 pm Decision Time
followed by Members’ Business
Thursday 12 November 2026
1.30 pm Parliamentary Bureau Motions
1.30 pm General Questions
2.00 pm First Minister’s Questions (Party Leaders)
followed by Stage 1 Debate: Scottish Local Government Elections (Candidacy Rights of Commonwealth Citizens) Bill
followed by Scottish Government Debate: Remembering the Service of our Armed Forces Community
followed by Business Motions
followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions
5.30 pm Decision Time
followed by Members’ Business
Tuesday 17 November 2026
2.00 pm Time for Reflection
followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions
followed by General Questions
followed by First Minister’s Questions (Backbench Members)
followed by Scottish Government Business
followed by Committee Announcements
followed by Business Motions
followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions
5.30 pm Decision Time
followed by Members’ Business
Wednesday 18 November 2026
2.00 pm Parliamentary Bureau Motions
2.00 pm Portfolio Questions: Deputy First Minister Responsibilities, Finance and Local Government, Parliamentary Business and Veterans; Public Service Reform, Europe, External Affairs and Energy
followed by Scottish Green Party Business
followed by Business Motions
followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions
5.30 pm Decision Time
followed by Members’ Business
Thursday 19 November 2026
1.30 pm Parliamentary Bureau Motions
1.30 pm General Questions
2.00 pm First Minister’s Questions (Party Leaders)
followed by Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body Questions
followed by Scottish Government Business
followed by Business Motions
followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions
5.00 pm Decision Time
followed by Members’ Business
(b) that, for the purposes of Portfolio Questions in the week beginning 9 November 2026, in rule 13.7.3, after the word “except” the words “to the extent to which the Presiding Officer considers that the questions are on the same or similar subject matter or” are inserted.
(c) that, for the purposes of Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body Questions on Thursday 19 November 2026, that Rule 13.9.3 be varied to replace the words “of up to 15 minutes” with “of up to 20 minutes”.—[Jamie Hepburn]
There has been a request to speak to the motion. You have up to five minutes, Mr Kerr.
17:52
I rise to speak on the motion for what is not in it. I know that all of it is subject to process, but the point is an important one to make because of the timeliness of the issue.
Five—nearly six—weeks after what was the most serious riot in a Scottish prison in a decade, according to the description that was given by the Scottish Prison Service’s chief executive, MSPs finally learned the full scale and extent of what happened at Polmont not from the Cabinet Secretary for Justice or the Scottish Government but from the BBC. Thirty prisoners were involved, prison officers were injured, reinforcements were brought in from four other establishments to restore order, and there is a catalogue of serious damage. The BBC, not the Scottish Government or the Cabinet Secretary for Justice, was the source of that information. How can it possibly be acceptable that the Parliament learns such details from the media?
The Scottish Prison Service is an executive agency of the Scottish Government. It is directly accountable to ministers, and—here is the rub—ministers are directly accountable to the Parliament. That is not some optional arrangement; it is fundamental to how a parliamentary democracy and parliamentary accountability work. Yet, the Scottish Prison Service was able to provide the BBC with detailed information, photographs, a statement and an interview while the Parliament, particularly the Criminal Justice Committee, had not been given a proper account of the scale and seriousness of the incident.
I make no criticism of the BBC. Its journalists were doing precisely what journalists should do. However, why were we MSPs left in the dark? Even a private briefing for the Criminal Justice Committee would have been better than nothing, although I can see no good reason why Parliament could not have been informed openly. When did Neil Gray know the full extent of what happened? What was he told?
We learned this morning, in the Criminal Justice Committee, that Neil Gray was given real-time information about what was happening, so he knew all the details as they occurred. Why, therefore, did he not bring the matter to Parliament? Those are perfectly reasonable questions for all of us, as parliamentarians who are not ministers, to ask, and we deserve proper answers.
Parliament cannot effectively scrutinise the performance of the Scottish Prison Service or hold ministers accountable for it if we are not given the information that we need at the time that we need it. This is not about interfering in operational decisions; it is about ministerial responsibility and respect for Parliament.
I am, therefore, asking the Minister for Parliamentary Business, in public and on the record, that the Cabinet Secretary for Justice be available as soon as possible to make a full statement in the chamber, with sufficient time for MSPs to question him, about the riot, its causes, its consequences and why Parliament was not—and is still not—properly informed.
Ministers may not like it, but that is the reality of our parliamentary system. They are accountable to the Parliament. They do not get to decide what Parliament need not know, and that is why the statement must be included in the forthcoming business.
I call the Minister for Parliamentary Business to respond. You have up to five minutes, please.
17:57
Mr Kerr talks of the reality of a parliamentary system. I remind him that part of the reality of our parliamentary system is that we have a business bureau that discusses the business for the coming weeks ahead, agrees a range of business and comes forward with a business motion to put to Parliament. That is what I am doing right now. This is my way of reminding Mr Kerr, as I have had cause to do in the past, that there are ways and means of requesting a statement—
We did request a statement.
I am aware that the member has actually followed that process: a statement request has been made through the normal and usual means, and it will be considered through the normal and usual means. I am not entirely clear, therefore, why Mr Kerr felt it necessary to get to his feet right now to expound forth. It is almost as if he was grandstanding, Presiding Officer, rather than—[Interruption.] Sorry—that upset members on the benches over there. We will let others determine whether or not it was grandstanding from Mr Kerr. The point is that there has been a request, which we considered in the usual fashion—
Stephen Kerr rose—
Will the minister take an intervention?
If the member who made the request wants to intervene, I am happy to give way.
I think that the ability to challenge a business motion is a Ken Macintosh legacy, is it not? Although, as the business manager for the Scottish Conservatives, I have made a request for a statement in the appropriate way, by taking it to the Minister for Parliamentary Business, it is the right of every member, if they so wish, to add weight to that through this forum by taking five minutes on a Wednesday evening to challenge the business motion. That is all that we are doing, and I think that we are quite within our rights to do so. The minister needs to appreciate that.
Yes, it is a Ken Macintosh legacy—I am aware of that, and I am not disputing that the member is entitled to stand up and challenge the business motion. I just wonder whether Mr Kerr was challenging the proposed business. Was he challenging the scheduling of a winter resilience statement next week, as requested by the party over there, which I have been happy to schedule? Was he challenging the scheduling of a debate on remembering the service of our armed forces community next week? Or was he just on his feet, grandstanding?
Will the minister give way?
I will give way if he can answer that question.
For the Minister for Parliamentary Business to talk about grandstanding when I am trying to defend the very Parliament to which we are all sworn in as members is a bit rich. Frankly, it makes me question where his loyalties lie as the Minister for Parliamentary Business. Is it with his party in government or with Neil Gray personally, or is it with the Parliament’s right to scrutinise the Executive? That is all that I am seeking to do. To be frank, in dismissing it as grandstanding, the minister might want to reflect—which is a very popular word with Scottish National Party ministers—on whether that is the appropriate stance for him to take.
At the outset, I made it clear why I was making those remarks. I am asking the minister to expedite that ministerial statement—which is not in the motion that we are considering—because it is now six weeks since the riot at Polmont.
The reason why the statement is not in the motion is that the business bureau met yesterday and agreed the programme that is in it. That is what I am putting to Parliament. As for Mr Kerr’s questioning where my loyalties lie, I guess that I will just have to live with him doing that and get on with the rest of my life in that fashion.
I do not think that there is much to add. I respectfully suggest to Parliament that we have agreed business after going through the usual process. That is where the issue of respecting parliamentary process comes in. I respect the process. I will, of course, consider the request that has been made. That is what I do whenever a request is made. That has already been made clear every time that a request has been made.
Will the minister give way?
I know that Mr Rennie often makes requests. Maybe he is about to make another one.
I do not think that the minister serves himself particularly well. Every time that this kind of opportunity—which exists as a result of Ken Macintosh’s reforms—comes up, he is just a little bit shirty that we have the audacity to even question these things. A more respectful approach to the chamber—because the issue has been raised by his party’s members as well—would be to take the issue seriously and perhaps feed back what his ministerial colleagues have said on it and what they plan to do about it. That would be more respectful of the Parliament.
I suppose that I will have to live with that assessment as well and just get on with it on that basis, too.
I cannot stand here and absolutely commit to doing anything in that regard. It will have to come to the bureau. Mr Rennie is a member of the bureau and understands that. The issue will undoubtedly come up at the bureau next week, where we will discuss it and come to a conclusion, and then I will bring forward the business motion. That is all that I can do. I am sorry if Mr Rennie feels that I am being shirty about it, but I am just reflecting on the fact that that is the usual process.
Will the minister give way?
I would be happy to give way, but I fear that I am testing the Presiding Officer’s patience and, indeed, the patience of my colleagues, to whom I have the utmost loyalty.
I will conclude by urging Parliament to vote for the motion that is before us this evening.
As members know, I am a very zen Presiding Officer, so I do not have an issue with interventions.
Motion agreed to.
Previous
Point of Order