Plenary, 26 Sep 2002

Meeting date: Thursday, September 26, 2002

Official Report 703KB pdf

---

Points of Order

Before we come to decision time, I want to refer back to the point of order that Mr Canavan raised earlier this afternoon. It is quite serious to suggest that the Presiding Officer is not following the standing orders. I therefore went to read the standing orders and I have to say that Mr Canavan did not refer to them quite correctly. Rule 3.1.3 states:

"In exercising any functions, the Presiding Officer and deputy Presiding Officers shall act impartially, taking account of the interests of all members equally."

I think that Mr Canavan will accept that most members, himself not included, belong to political parties and that the members in those parties expect their leaders to have an adequate opportunity to question the leader of the Administration, as happens in any Parliament. That is why we have the question arrangements that we have.

I keep the second matter—the length of time members take—under constant review and I am in constant discussion with members on it. I am quite clear that that is within the standing orders, contrary to what Mr Canavan suggested.

Further to the point of order, Presiding Officer, will you tell us what discussions have taken place within the party groupings in the Parliament to see whether the people in the Parliamentary Bureau are in fact speaking on behalf of back-bench members? The Parliamentary Bureau sits like a secret society without any accountability whatsoever.

Order. With great respect to the member, he is raising a completely different issue, which has nothing to do with what we were discussing earlier. The Parliamentary Bureau is appointed by the Parliament and I naturally assume therefore that the Parliament and its members are happy with the members who sit on it.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer.

Is this the same point of order?

Yes, it is on the same point. I would not criticise you or the other Presiding Officers over this, but it has happened by habit and repute that the system is undemocratic in relation to the same two members—I do not refer to the personalities involved—getting the starring role in "Swan Lake" absolutely every week and going on and on. Some of us would like the system to be democratised a bit more, regardless of whether the standing orders point comes into question.

Let us not spend too much time on this. The choosing of questions is entirely at my discretion. The parties have agreed that what we have been doing so far has been sensible. However, I am concerned about the length of time the first two questions take, although we have improved in recent weeks and have been getting as far as questions 5 and 6 to the First Minister. That improvement has taken place through the co-operation of questioners and answerers. I am grateful for that. We keep the situation under review. Members are always welcome to discuss this—I have no problem with that.