Plenary, 11 Mar 2004

Meeting date: Thursday, March 11, 2004

Official Report 788KB pdf

---

Points of Order

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. The scheduling of two half-hour and two 45-minute debates this morning had the intended effect of excluding back benchers.

The Scottish Socialist Party, in particular, has repeatedly abused the Parliament's procedures by salami-slicing the time that is allocated to it. That is disrespectful to back-bench members of larger parties. I am grateful that ministers gave up part of their time to allow some members an opportunity to speak in today's debates, but it is unacceptable that debating time should be split into fragments. Such a structure infringes the rights of members who should have an equal right to speak and truncates the debate in a way that I believe risks bringing the Parliament into disrepute.

You are the custodian of the rights of members and the Parliament's procedures. Will you advise members whether an amendment to the Parliament's standing orders is needed, to prevent a recurrence of the practice? What is the procedure for taking forward such an amendment?

The scheduling, as you called it, of this morning's debates was of course decided by the Parliament on a business motion.

Perhaps I can go a little deeper into some of the issues. The standing orders set out the number of half days that are to be set aside each year for non-Executive business. That is clear. Those half days are then divided up in relation to the proportion of seats that each party in the Parliament holds. That process resulted in a half day of business being shared by the Scottish Senior Citizens Unity Party and the Scottish Socialist Party; how those parties used their allotted time was entirely a matter for them.

Of course, I recognise the effect that short debates have on the ability of members from all parties to contribute, but the use of non-Executive time in that way is not a matter for me. It is of course open to you, Mr McNulty, or to any other member, to approach the Procedures Committee about that matter or any other matter of procedure.

Further to that point of order, Presiding Officer. As you consider Des McNulty's comments, will you reflect on the fact that for members deliberately to mislead the Parliament brings the Parliament into disrepute? Mr McNulty said that the SSP has repeatedly salami-sliced debates. Will you confirm that the SSP has had only two debates in this session of the Parliament and that this is the first time that the available time has been so restricted? If Mr McNulty is referring to the first session of Parliament, only once in four years did what he describes actually take place.

I have nothing further to add to the considered statement that I have just given.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I do not seek to challenge the chair—

Good.

Well, not today.

However, in relation to the rules in standing orders on your right to select questions, I would welcome guidance on the criteria that apply. Although I understand why you would want to give full range to all the members who have lodged questions for the First Minister, it seems to me that you must make a judgment about the seriousness of the different questions that are lodged. Today, Bill Butler's question referred to an issue that I do not think can be separated from events in Glasgow, where three Kurdish men are nearing death. I suggest that the number of members who wanted to ask a supplementary question to that question indicated the urgency of that situation and that you might have accorded time more generously for those questions.

I apply my judgement as best I can and I have to work with the material that comes back from the floor of the chamber.

Meeting suspended until 14:00.

On resuming—