Plenary, 24 Jan 2001

Meeting date: Wednesday, January 24, 2001

Official Report 358KB pdf

---

Points of Order

There is a point of order and, strangely, it comes from the Presiding Officer.

It is unusual for me to raise a point of order, but members should be made aware that one of the parties gave me notice, a very short time ago, of a change of the motion for the second debate tomorrow. I am not obliged to tell members of that change, but I think it is only courteous to do so, as otherwise members will see the change for the first time in tomorrow's business bulletin.

Under standing orders 8.6 and 8.7, I have no option but to select that motion for debate and it will be on the Sutherland report. If I understand it correctly, the change is to the second motion to be debated tomorrow. I am looking at the SNP business manager and he is nodding agreement. I confirm that that is correct.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Could you share the wording of the motion with the chamber?

I do not have the motion in front of me.

The problem is that the motion that the Parliament approved for tomorrow's business simply said "Scottish National Party Business". The choice of the business is therefore a matter for the SNP.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer.

I will finish my point before I take your point of order, Mr McCabe.

The first motion that was lodged has been withdrawn. Therefore, I cannot select it and there is a gap in the programme. A second motion has been lodged. That is in order. Under standing orders I must select the second motion. It would be helpful if someone could provide me with a copy of the motion. I am looking hopefully at the SNP members. Perhaps someone will fetch a copy of the motion while I listen to Mr McCabe's point of order.

I ask members who want to hear the points of order to sit down and listen.

On a point of order. Presiding Officer, I recognise that you are bound by the terms of the standing orders; however, there are two substantial points that I am duty-bound to make, on behalf of—I hope—the majority of the Parliament.

First, the SNP has not attempted to convey to me or to other parties its intention to change the business to be discussed in Parliament tomorrow. Secondly, the SNP would be the first to complain if Labour or another party behaved in such a manner. To say the least, it is a severe discourtesy to the Parliament. If the Executive parties decided to behave in such a way and to take advantage of standing orders, the Parliament would be thrown into chaos daily. We have no intention of doing that. However, I should make it clear that if members are interested in the orderly conduct of the Parliament's business, such behaviour is entirely unacceptable.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Although I am no longer the Scottish National Party's business manager, I am sure that the motion is winging its way to the Presiding Officer. Sir David, you are correct to say that the change to the motion is within standing orders. Nothing that has been done is contrary to standing orders. Mr McCabe, of all people, should recognise that politics is a fast-moving business.

I will respond to Mr McCabe's comments first. In my capacity as chair of the Parliamentary Bureau, let me say that I would like the bureau to discuss the matter on Tuesday at our next meeting.

I now have a copy of the motion, which reads:

"To move that this Parliament, while welcoming the further package of proposals to improve care for the elderly announced by the Minister for Health on 24 January 2001, notes that it is the policy of the Liberal Democrats, SNP, Conservatives and others to introduce free personal care for the elderly as proposed in the Sutherland Committee Report and calls on the Scottish Executive to make a similar clear, firm and unequivocal commitment together with a definite timetable for its implementation."

That is the wording of the motion that has been substituted for the previous motion.

On a related point of order, Presiding Officer. Is there anything that you can do to stop the Minister for Parliament trying to bully the Presiding Officer of the Parliament and challenging his decisions?

That remark was unfair and, anyway, Mr McCabe does not bully me.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I seek clarification on how, on behalf of their constituents, democratically elected members of this Parliament will be able to lodge amendments to the motion.

Amendments can be lodged in the normal way. I think that you have until 5.30 pm to lodge amendments. I am sorry, I correct what I said. Amendments can be lodged up to the point of the debate. Can we now proceed?

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. In response to Mr McCabe, you said that you wish this matter to be discussed by the Parliamentary Bureau. I point out that we have seen two examples—today and last week—of instances where what people understood to be informal conventions in the operation of the Parliament no longer apply. We need to examine in the wider sense some aspects of standing orders to ensure fairness to all parties in the chamber, including the Executive.

That is absolutely correct, and it is in that spirit that the Parliamentary Bureau ought to consider this matter.