Plenary, 29 Mar 2006

Meeting date: Wednesday, March 29, 2006

Official Report 415KB pdf

---

Points of Order

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. In the previous debate, five back benchers were not called to speak, so it is clear that the Parliamentary Bureau again failed to get the timetabling right. I ask the bureau to sort matters out so that in future we have adequate time for final stage debates and people who wish to speak can do so.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I echo Donald Gorrie's point and the point that Margo MacDonald made during the previous debate. Is it appropriate and within the spirit of standing orders to have a debate like the one that we have just had? The fact that it was only an hour long, allied to the allocations that were made to opening and closing speakers, meant that there was no time for back-bench speakers or speakers from the smaller parties to have their say. As the Presiding Officer knows, the issue of how much time would be allocated to the smaller parties and to back-bench speakers was one that I raised at the bureau.

Given that it is within the gift of the Presiding Officers to decide how much time is allocated to opening and closing speakers—indeed, the Presiding Officers are the only people who can do that—is it in the spirit of standing orders to allocate time to opening and closing speakers such that other members do not have an opportunity to speak?

It is clear that the timetabling of the previous debate was an issue; I regret it when back benchers are not called. Although the Presiding Officers have flexibility, they can exercise it only within the timescale that has already been determined by the Parliament. I suggest that the representatives of the parties that feel concerned raise the matter when it should be raised, which is at the next meeting of the Parliamentary Bureau.