Plenary, 18 Apr 2002

Meeting date: Thursday, April 18, 2002

Official Report 761KB pdf

---

Points of Order

Our first item of business this afternoon is a statement by Jack McConnell on the United Kingdom budget.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer.

I hope that it is not a continuation of this morning's point of order.

It is a separate point of order. I draw your attention to rule 3.1 of the standing orders, which says that

"the Presiding Officer … shall act impartially, taking account of the interests of all members equally."

Given that that is a requirement of the Presiding Officer, why did you to agree to the Executive demand, made only yesterday, to make a statement on the budget, and then allocate only half an hour for that statement? I have spoken to a number of members in various parties in the chamber and there is widespread concern that only half an hour has been allocated to something as important as this. To be frank, that is not acceptable—especially for back benchers, who will have practically no opportunity to ask any questions. I ask for your answer—

This is taking up time.

Under standing orders, I have three minutes to make my point of order. I ask the Presiding Officer, in his answer, to outline the procedure for moving a motion of censure against the chair.

I will make three points. First, any time that is taken up with points of order is time taken out of an already short period for the First Minister's statement. Secondly, I answered your point of order this morning. I sought assurances that the statement would be brief and it is brief—I have seen it. There will be time for members to ask questions. Thirdly—and I hope that this will meet with Mr Neil's approval—in the light of this afternoon's experience, I will reflect on today's proceedings with particular regard to the timing of statements.

I hope that we can now proceed. I ask Jack McConnell—

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. The date of Gordon Brown's budget statement in the House of Commons yesterday has been known for weeks. Surely if the Scottish Executive wanted to make a statement about Gordon Brown's budget statement it could have given us much more notice. Some of us found out about the statement just before the lunch break. In future, the Executive could perhaps be told to give us fair warning.

The warning that was given is entirely consistent with the standing order relating to urgent statements. The Executive was in the same position as the rest of us: it did not know what was in the budget. I take it that that was the reason for its request to make an emergency statement.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer.

I remind members that this is taking time out of the half hour that we have for the statement.

My point of order relates specifically to your point about standing orders and urgent statements. You have seen the statement. Are you telling us that the statement contains something urgent that could not have been predicted, and which justifies the Executive's use of the standing orders? If it does not, the Executive has not used the standing orders, but abused them.

When I have to make such a decision, I do not see the statement. The statement was not even written and the Cabinet did not even meet until this morning, so how could I have seen the statement? I make no comment at all on the content of the statement. If the Executive makes a request because of an important announcement by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that has an impact on Scotland, who am I to say that it is not urgent? That is the point, and I exercised my judgment accordingly.

I invite Mr McConnell to make his statement.

Thank you very much, Presiding Officer.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I wonder whether you will give me permission, under rule 8.2 of the standing orders, to move a motion under rule 3.10, which refers to

"Removal of members of the Parliamentary corporation".

The answer is no, because a motion of such seriousness should not be raised without notice.

I hesitate to question your ruling, but I see nothing in the standing orders to forbid me from raising this matter now.

No, but rule 8.1.2 says:

"A motion may be moved without notice being given only as permitted by these Rules or, exceptionally, as permitted by the Presiding Officer."

I am saying that I am not prepared to grant an exception for a subject of that kind.

With respect, Presiding Officer, how can you rule on whether my attempt to raise this matter is exceptional or unexceptional until you have heard it?

You told me that your point was with a view to removing a member of the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body. I do not consider that to be a matter that can be dealt with without proper notice.

With all due respect, I have become aware of an exceptional circumstance in which this member, and the other members of this chamber, have been misled. We have been misled into expecting that we will enter the new Parliament building in May next year. I now know—but, obviously, I stand to be corrected—that we will not be in that building until September. It may be that the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body is labouring under a misapprehension because it has not been informed of that delay.

By no stretch of the imagination is that something that should take priority over the set-down business of the chamber. There will be other opportunities for you to raise the issue, but you cannot do so now.

With respect, Presiding Officer, would you explain when I would be able to raise the issue?

You can lodge a motion. You have asked me for permission to move a motion without notice under standing order 8.1.2 and my answer is no.