Plenary, 19 Sep 2002

Meeting date: Thursday, September 19, 2002

Official Report 708KB pdf

---

Points of Order

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. At question time, I asked the Scottish Executive whether it would hold a public inquiry into the planning application from Aberdeen Football Club to build new stadium facilities at the green-belt site at Kingswells. I got a rather non-committal answer from the Minister for Social Justice, which I expected. However, as soon as question time was finished, I was told that the Scottish Executive had issued a press release, giving the information that the decision would be delayed by 28 days. I want to know why the minister did not give me that information when I asked.

I will call the minister in a second. First, I say—as I have said often—that the content of ministerial answers is not a matter for the chair. If I remember rightly, I heard the minister say that the decision would be made shortly—[Laughter.] Order. As we all know, "shortly" is an elastic term.

I reassure members unequivocally that I made no attempt to mislead the Parliament. My deputy Hugh Henry was making the decision. I made that abundantly clear in my answer. Later this afternoon, he made the decision to apply for an extension. I guarantee to members that we have followed the advice of officials and that we have followed the proper procedure.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer.

Is it the same point of order?

Yes. I seek your guidance. My understanding of the standing orders is that the Executive is accountable to the Parliament. If Hugh Henry, the Deputy Minister for Social Justice, was able to issue a press release moments after question time, should not he have been here to answer Mr Rumbles's questions directly?

Another minister answered the question. We cannot argue about the content of ministerial answers in points of order. Margaret Curran explained the situation well. That is that.

Before we come to decision time, I have a ruling to make. I draw members' attention to the standing orders about questions. Rule 13.7.7 says:

"A member asking a question shall, in asking the question, not depart from the terms of the question."

This afternoon, there were two occasions when members asked supplementary questions that were wide of the main question. It was my fault that I did not pick that up quickly enough. I make that point in passing.

Rule 13.7.8 says:

"A member may ask a supplementary question only on the same subject matter as the original question"—

that is the point that I just made—

"and shall, in asking the question, do so briefly."

This afternoon, I twice asked members to cease, not because of the length of their question, but because they were adding information to the question that had already been asked. That is the point that I would like members to understand. I am not being critical of members who ask questions, but once a question has been asked, members cannot go on to make statements that support the question, as that is against the standing orders. I want to clarify that point so that everyone is quite happy.