Plenary, 07 Jun 2007

Meeting date: Thursday, June 7, 2007

Official Report 752KB pdf

---

Points of Order

On a point of order, Presiding Officer.

Yesterday, I was not called to ask a question on the statement on Monklands hospital—despite the fact that it serves the majority of my constituents—because other members' questions resembled speeches. Will you advise me on what standing orders say about question time and statements? My understanding is that questions should be put with a minimum of preamble. We have had a similar situation today.

I am well aware of the dissatisfaction of several members who wished to ask questions on yesterday's statement. I share their concern. I am actively considering the matter with a view to the future. It was unsatisfactory, and I accept entirely that back benchers were hard done by. We will look at that with a view to future procedure.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer.

You will notice that we have four minutes left of the time allocated for First Minister's question time, yet during the earlier questions a number of members were not called. I ask you to review the role of the business team in vetting supplementary questions. Its job should be to collect the names, not to act like the Politburo in deciding what can go forward and what cannot. Will you publish the criteria that are used to decide which questions are acceptable supplementaries? From a back-bench point of view, the situation at the moment is entirely unsatisfactory.

So far, I have followed the practice of previous sessions, which seems to have met with members' acceptance.

No.

Well, that is what I have been doing. There is no rule to say that First Minister's question time has to go on until half past 12.

Give me a minute, Mr Neil.

You will understand that, at an early stage in First Minister's question time, one has no idea who will want to ask a supplementary question later on.

It is only in recent months that the practice of the business team asking for details of supplementary questions has crept into the system. For the first three, four or five years of the Parliament, only members' names were submitted. We are now almost asked for our curriculum vitae before we can get a supplementary question.

I think that there is a degree of exaggeration in Mr Neil's point. I understand that the situation is not as he describes it, but I will reflect on that.

Meeting suspended until 14:15.

On resuming—

Before we proceed to themed question time, I advise members that I have received a request from the First Minister to make an urgent statement later today. As I am satisfied that the matter is sufficiently urgent, I have agreed under rule 13.2.2 to allow the statement to be made at approximately 4.45 pm. That will allow time for a short statement from the First Minister and contributions and questions from the four main parties.