Plenary, 11 Sep 2002

Meeting date: Wednesday, September 11, 2002

Official Report 382KB pdf

---

Point of Order

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I gave you prior notice of my point of order in relation to your decision not to select the amendment that was lodged in my name and which was signed by seven other back benchers from four different political parties. Given the level of support for that amendment and the fact that you have chosen an amendment that deals with the same topic—a potential attack against Iraq—but from a distinct perspective that many of us could not support, do you accept that you could be denying members of the Scottish Parliament a free vote and the opportunity to vote in accordance with their consciences on one of the most important issues that face Scotland today? Will you reconsider your decision and allow the Parliament to vote on my amendment at the end of business today?

Further to that point of order, Presiding Officer.

The debate is heavily oversubscribed, so all time spent on points of order takes time from the debate.

Sir David, you have not selected John McAllion's amendment despite the fact that it has the declared support of twice as many members as John Swinney's amendment, which has been selected. I ask you please to reconsider that decision, which will deprive the Parliament of the opportunity to have a democratic vote in principle for or against war in Iraq. If you are unwilling to change your decision on this occasion, please consider giving members the opportunity for such a democratic vote in the near future, so that the people of America can know what the people of Scotland's representatives think.

I thank John McAllion for giving me notice of his point of order. That enables me to draw the attention of members to the ruling that I gave on 16 November 2000 on the procedure for selecting amendments. I draw that to members' attention so that they can study it; I will not read it all out again.

On the first point, I say that because John McAllion's amendment was supported by members of different parties, that automatically made me inclined to call it. I assure the chamber that I do not believe that amendments should be totally in the control of the party business managers. However, I have to think very carefully about the content of amendments and the purpose of the debate. There are many members in the chamber who think that neither amendment should be called and there are others who think that both amendments should be called. I understand both points of view.

I have given the matter careful thought and there is a dividing line—admittedly a thin one—between the two amendments and I have decided to select Mr Swinney's amendment and not Mr McAllion's. I am afraid that that is a responsibility that is placed on me. I will ensure that representatives of those who signed John McAllion's amendment will be called to speak in the debate.

Finally, the debate is heavily oversubscribed and members of every party are going to be disappointed that they cannot be called. I suggest, therefore, that we begin the debate and that members study my previous ruling in the Official Report.