On a point of order, Presiding Officer. You heard the points of order that were raised earlier by Margo MacDonald and Michael Russell. I wonder whether you have had time to reflect on those points of order, and whether you intend to make a considered statement in response. My view, as leader of the largest Opposition party, is that Mr Spencely's report, when it is received by the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body, should be made immediately available to every member of the Parliament. If the corporate body then wants to add to that report, it can do so over the following few days. Even if you have to convene a meeting of the corporate body over the next few days in order to adopt that position, will you please do so? It is vital that we proceed on the basis of maximum and immediate disclosure of information, and not on the basis of leak and counter-leak.
Technically, that was not a point of order, but I do not want to be difficult, as this is an important issue. Perhaps it would help if I outlined what the corporate body has decided should be the programme of events leading up to the debate.
On a point of order.
Just a second. If Mr Salmond or anyone else feels strongly that that is not the right procedure, they should by all means write me a note and I will put their points to the corporate body at our meeting on Tuesday morning. However, I do not feel that I can overturn a decision that the corporate body has sensibly made. I think that the procedure is very open.
Further to my point of order, surely the key point is that the corporate body is a servant of the Parliament.
Indeed.
Information that is provided to the corporate body should be made available immediately to the Parliament. If the corporate body then wants to add its own opinions, let it do so over the next few days.
I am not prepared to overturn the decision that the corporate body has already made. If Mr Salmond wants to put that request, I will ask the corporate body to consider it on Tuesday morning. Personally, I do not see any reason to change what we have already decided.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. In addition to the points that you have made about the timetable, may I invite you to enter into discussions, on behalf of the corporate body, with the First Minister, so that the whole debate on Spencely and the project is informed by consideration of costs and alternatives, bearing in mind the fact that Mr Spencely and the corporate body have a remit that is limited solely to Holyrood. Of necessity, many other dimensions involve the Scottish Executive, because they have expenditure implications, and we cannot take an informed decision without knowing about them.
I accept that, and I have discussed it in the abstract with the First Minister. I do not know who will participate but, obviously, there has to be an Executive input into the debate on the Wednesday. Whether the Executive makes a statement before then is a matter for the Executive, but I can assure you that I hope that there will be an Executive input into the debate.
On a point of order.
I am not going to continue—
With all due respect, Presiding Officer, my point of order concerns the principle of the ruling that you gave this afternoon. You ruled out of order my colleague Michael Russell's request for a motion without notice, but that ruling was based on the premise of what you had already ruled in respect of my request that the Parliament, on a majority vote, could instruct the corporate body on the disposal of the Spencely report. You ruled that, because the corporate body had commissioned that report, my request was unreasonable, if not out of order. My contention—the reason why I question the ruling—is that the corporate body is always at the disposal of a majority vote of the Parliament.
That is not in dispute, and I have not ruled you out of order. I am saying simply that I am not prepared to have a mini-debate on the matter, or to take a motion without notice on it. There will be plenty time to consider the matter. I have invited Mr Salmond to put a reasoned case to the corporate body on Tuesday morning, when we will consider it collectively. I am not prepared to overrule the decision that we have taken.
On a point of order. I seek clarification on the timing of decision time. I understand that members wanted to raise points of order, but you will understand that some of us operate to tight timetables. It would be appreciated if decision time could be held as close as possible to the time at which it is supposed to be held, if points of order, of the nature of those that we have just heard, could be taken after that.
The normal procedure is that I have to take a point of order whenever it is raised. This afternoon's debate overran, for a very good reason—it was an important debate—and we finished late.
Previous
Subordinate LegislationNext
Decision Time