Plenary, 01 Jul 2004

Meeting date: Thursday, July 1, 2004

Official Report 691KB pdf

---

Points of Order

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. This seems the appropriate moment at which to raise the matter of the procedure for selecting questions for oral answer. Members may have noticed that the electronic random selection system drew my name first three times today. Dennis Canavan, who I think used to teach maths, tells me that the odds against that happening are about 1 million to one, so I just wish that I had bought a lottery ticket last week.

When some members receive several questions under the system, other members do not have the chance to question ministers at all. Like most members, I have been on the wrong side of that equation for months. It is rather like waiting for buses that arrive in convoys. I suggest that the selection procedure is one factor that is spoiling question sessions and I submit that it should be reviewed urgently now that I have had my treble chance.

The member is right—it was his lucky day. The situation seems a trifle unusual. I have already asked staff to look into it and they will report back. All that I can say to members is that I have examined the figures, which show that each party's share of questions to date matches closely its share of questions that have been lodged.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. My point of order concerns a matter of which I have given notice. For the benefit of members who wish to understand Parliament's procedures better, will you say under which rule of standing orders you closed this morning's session without hearing the substance of Mr Sheridan's point of order?

In replying to Ms Leckie and Mr Sheridan, you informed Parliament that the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body has consulted on charging for tours of the new Parliament building. My point of order does not address the substance of that decision or the debate that may surround it; rather, it questions whether the consultation procedures that were followed were compatible with the standards of accessibility and accountability that are at the core of the Parliament's ethos. In your capacity as convener of the corporate body, by describing the consultation process that was followed, will you assure Parliament that the founding principles of the Scottish Parliament have not been breached by decisions that the corporate body made in private?

On a related point of order, Presiding Officer.

I will take any other points of order on the matter now.

It may help if I make my point now, so that you can give a comprehensive reply. Like Margo MacDonald, I certainly was not consulted before the corporate body took its decision on charging people for tours of the Holyrood building. I understand that many more members were not consulted before that decision was taken. That seems to be yet another example of the corporate body sitting in private—in secret—to take decisions behind closed doors without consultation. If and when the public perceive a decision to be unjust or wrong, we are all blamed collectively. In the interests of parliamentary democracy and accountability, will you, Presiding Officer—I understand that you chair the corporate body—arrange for the corporate body to submit its proposals for parliamentary approval?

Do we have any more points of order?

Under rule 8.2.6 of standing orders, I have submitted a motion that I seek your approval to debate. The motion asks for the Parliament to decide whether we are to impose a charge on the public to see a building that their hard-earned taxes have paid for.

Is this a motion without notice or a point of order?

Under the point of order, I seek your approval for the motion without notice to be taken.

On you go—you have three minutes.

It is obvious that the situation is fluid. Some eight minutes ago, the chief executive's office issued a press release to clarify the issue of charging. I am sure that members of the Parliament will be over the moon that they can now see what this is all about, because none of them knew about it this morning. None of them knew how much would be charged, who would be charged, the reasons for charging and why the corporate body did not fight to have an inclusive Parliament, rather than an exclusive one. In Glasgow, guided tours of the city chambers are provided three times a day, free of charge, to all members of the public. That contrasts with the exclusive Westminster, where there is charging for tours.

Presiding Officer, I appeal to you to allow a debate on this matter to take place. This decision should be taken by all of Parliament, rather than just the corporate body, because all of Parliament will have to carry the weight of it. It is absolutely wrong and ludicrous to charge members of the public to see a wee bit or a big bit of the Holyrood building. Both wee tours and big tours should be free, because we are building a seat of democracy that is open and accessible, not a political palace that is exclusive to politicians.

It is entirely within my discretion to decide whether to take a motion without notice. On this occasion, I have decided not to do so, for the reasons that I gave earlier.

Ms MacDonald said that she gave me advance notice of her point of order. Like Mr Canavan, she indicated that she would raise a general point about the accountability of the corporate body. Ms MacDonald's statement ran at considerable length and was dotted with cross-references. I cannot conceivably give an immediate response to it, but I shall do so at 5 o'clock. Let us move on.

On a point of order.

No. You have made a perfectly good point and I cannot conceivably answer it in detail without examining it.

With all due respect, the only detailed reference in the point of order was to standing orders.

I have made my judgment. You will hear my response at 5 o'clock.