Contents
- Scottish Parliament Wednesday 7 February 2001 (Afternoon)
- Time for Reflection
- Points of Order
- Local Government Finance (Scotland) Order 2001
- Criminal Justice and Police Bill
- Decision Time
- United Nations International Year of Volunteers
Points of Order
On a point of order, Presiding Officer, I want to inquire how you intend to ensure that back benchers' interests in speaking in tomorrow morning's debates will be adequately safeguarded. I understand that there are three topics for discussion in the latter part of the morning and that opportunities for back benchers to make contributions may be significantly limited.
As in any short, half-hour debate, the time limits will be set by whoever is in the chair at the time. We will do our best, but the business motion was agreed by the Parliament last Thursday.
On a point of order.
Is it the same point of order, Mr Sheridan?
Des McNulty should be aware that the mover of each of tomorrow's motions will take only four minutes to open and two minutes to sum up. That should provide more time for back benchers to contribute.
Further to that point of order, Presiding Officer. It is difficult to compress a discussion of any topic into half an hour, especially if we are to have only a four-minute introduction. My perception of your role on behalf of the Parliament is that you should safeguard the interests of members participating in the discussion. The way in which those debates are likely to be structured will exclude members such as myself from being given an adequate opportunity to contribute to the debates.
That point was raised by Lord James Douglas-Hamilton during the passage of the business motion last week, as I remember. The fact is that the Parliament passed the business motion and the subjects have been chosen by the party that has been allocated the half day. What I can tell you is that the Parliamentary Bureau has already agreed to look in the light of experience—it is the first time that this has happened—at how tomorrow's debate goes and to consider the matter after that.
Surely you cannot have another point of order, Mr McNulty.
I am not satisfied with that answer and I certainly hope that the situation will be considered as a matter of urgency by you and by the Parliamentary Bureau. Fundamental democratic issues are involved and must be addressed.
You may not be satisfied with the answer, but I am bound by the fact that Parliament passed the business motion last week, and that business motion sets out the three topics for debate. That was your opportunity. If you wanted to vote against the business motion, you could have done so, but you did not. I have said that the Parliamentary Bureau will review the way in which the business works once we have had the debates tomorrow.