Meeting of the Parliament

Meeting date: Wednesday, June 15, 2011

Official Report 756KB pdf

---

Points of Order

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I am glad that I have the pleasant privilege of serving in a Parliament that decided back in 1999 to have not prayers but a time for reflection at the beginning of its parliamentary week. That decision endorses the inclusive spirit that the Parliament should always try to achieve. Sadly, today in our time for reflection slot we have heard from a speaker who represents an academic institution with a despicable track record of homophobic discrimination. That institution is willing to ruin the life chances of young people and to force them to live in fear simply on the grounds of their sexuality and sex lives.

Mr Harvie, will you make a point of order, not a speech?

I was under the impression that we were allowed three minutes to make a point of order, but I will come to the point.

For us to have confidence that time for reflection properly reflects the inclusive spirit for which we should aim, we need to understand the context within which the decision to invite this academic institution to address us was made. I would not make such a point of order in respect of a religious hierarchy figure or a religious organisation. We are dealing with an academic institution that pursues a policy that would be utterly illegal and unacceptable in this country. Was the decision to invite the organisation and individual in question made in full knowledge of the institution’s track record in respect of such issues, or was the matter not understood?

Mr Harvie, you might not be aware that time for reflection is not an issue that is covered in standing orders—and that that was not a point of order. I am aware that you have raised the issue today both inside and outside the chamber. I remind you that time for reflection contributors are guests of the Parliament and should be shown courtesy by all members. Any member who heard the speech that Professor Samuelson made today would take absolutely no issue with it whatever. All contributors adhere to strict guidance on the content of their speech, as was the case today.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Although I accept your ruling in this case, I think it advisable that, in future, when people propose the sort of policy that today’s time for reflection speaker has done, the matter be discussed further with a representative group of members.

The guests for time for reflection are ultimately my responsibility as Presiding Officer. However, all time for reflection guests are approved by the Parliamentary Bureau, which is made up of one member from each of the major parties in the Parliament. I am satisfied that the choice of Professor Samuelson today—and the choice of every speaker that we have ever had for time for reflection—accords strictly with that.