Plenary, 29 Nov 2000

Meeting date: Wednesday, November 29, 2000

Official Report 352KB pdf

---

Points of Order

On a point of order. Presiding Officer, I appreciate that you could not call every member who wanted to question the Lord Advocate today. However, the Lord Advocate was twice asked a specific question and twice he avoided that question. Is it in order for the Lord Advocate to come here and avoid questions?

We cannot have arguments about ministerial answers. I have said that time and again. I apologise for the fact that I was not able to call every member who wanted to question the Lord Advocate, but I allowed the statement to run over by five minutes and many members—including Mr Sheridan—want to speak in the debate.

I appeal to opening speakers—including the Minister for Social Justice, if she does not mind—to try to bring their speeches in below the time limit.

On a point of order. I seek your guidance, Presiding Officer. Is it in order for the Executive to make an announcement on an issue as important as the delay in the next local government elections through the medium of a reply to a written parliamentary question—which had not even been published—after decision time on the day of a by-election? If that is in order, can we all look forward to our written questions being answered prior to their publication? If it is not in order, do you agree that the parliamentary process has been made a mockery of by an Executive that is determined to undermine scrutiny and democratic accountability by failing to make a statement or hold a debate in the chamber on this important matter?

I am afraid that that will remain a matter of opinion and argument. I have looked into the matter: what happened was in order, as the question was properly lodged and properly answered. Whether it should have been done in the way that it was is entirely a matter for argument in the chamber; it is not a matter for me to treat as a point of order.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I do not know if the Presiding Officer has seen the film, "Groundhog Day", but I think that I have been here before. I wish to ask about this morning's announcement by the Executive of £18 million for domestic abuse funds.

I understand from a previous ruling that the Presiding Officer is to be sensitive about the matter and will look into the issue of ministerial speeches following such pre-announcements—announcements that should be made in the chamber. I realise that a question by Helen Eadie has been published in today's business bulletin—as a planted question—to enable that to happen.

If the Presiding Officer is to be true to his conviction of wanting to ensure that the chamber is the place where serious announcements are made, will he please give a judgment and guidance on how he will treat the ministerial speech that we expect?

Further to that point of order, Presiding Officer. I support the comments that were made by Fiona Hyslop. Many members put a considerable amount of work into preparing for the forthcoming debate. It would have been courteous of the Government to make its announcement during the debate. That is what the debate was aimed at.

I ask Fiona Hyslop to supply me with a copy of what she complained about specifically. I will look into the matter and respond at the end of the afternoon.