Until now, Siumut has refrained from publicly criticising the decision of the Presidium. On 2 September 2026, however, we raised our objection in principle directly with the Presidium and gave it time to respond. We did so out of respect for the Presidium and its special responsibility, as well as for our Rules of Procedure, to safeguard the work of Inatsisartut and the parliamentary rights of its members. But Siumut has still not received a response – although this does not surprise us.
Instead, the Chair of Inatsisartut has issued a new press release emphasising that members still have the opportunity to submit proposals.
Siumut has never disputed this. The problem is that, after the submission deadline, the Presidium has limited the number of decision proposals submitted on time that may be considered during the 2026 Autumn Session and has used the d’Hondt method to allocate them among the parties.
Siumut submitted 25 decision proposals before the deadline. Following the formal review and subsequent corrections, Siumut had 9 decision proposals, as well as 3 requiring minor adjustments – a total of 12 proposals that met the formal requirements. Yet Siumut is apparently only allowed to have 5 decision proposals placed on the agenda for the 2026 Autumn Session.
Our fundamental question therefore remains unanswered: Where in the Rules of Procedure of Inatsisartut is the legal basis for limiting the consideration of decision proposals that were submitted correctly and on time according to a party quota based on the d’Hondt method?
The rules of democracy must not be changed along the way. The matter is therefore even more serious because the Rules of Procedure Committee, in which all parties – including Siumut – are represented, was neither convened nor consulted before the new practice was introduced. When the parliamentary rights of members are affected, the rules should not be changed administratively after the submission deadline.
The rules should not be changed first and explained afterwards. In addition, the Presidium has decided to remove question time with Naalakkersuisut entirely during the 2026 Autumn Session. The development speaks for itself: 2025 Autumn Session: 6 question times. 2026 Spring Session: 3 question times. 2026 Autumn Session: 0 question times.
Question time is normally held on Wednesdays from 10:00 to 11:00, while the ordinary consideration of agenda items does not begin until 11:00. Siumut therefore finds it very difficult to understand how removing question time can be justified by a desire to make room for more agenda items. This is particularly the case when the 2026 Autumn Session is planned to have 35 sitting days, compared with 31 during the 2025 Autumn Session and 24 during the 2024 Autumn Session.
More bureaucracy – less parliamentary scrutiny. When question time is removed, members lose a direct means of asking Naalakkersuisut questions without prior notice and receiving immediate answers. The consequence may be that more questions will instead have to be submitted in writing under Section 37. This means more case processing and a greater administrative workload for both Inatsisartut and Naalakkersuisut.
We therefore risk more bureaucracy and less direct parliamentary scrutiny. Siumut has deliberately not submitted any interpellation debates for the 2026 Autumn Session. As an opposition party, we have chosen to prioritise decision proposals because we want to present concrete political alternatives on which Inatsisartut can vote and which can lead to concrete decisions and action.
This matter is therefore not only about Siumut’s proposals. In Siumut’s view, when consideration of members’ decision proposals is restricted, the Rules of Procedure Committee is not consulted, and question time with Naalakkersuisut is simultaneously removed, a serious parliamentary problem emerges.
First and foremost, the Presidium must safeguard the working conditions and parliamentary rights of Inatsisartut – including when parliamentary scrutiny may be inconvenient for Naalakkersuisut and the administration.
Siumut therefore continues to expect answers to three fundamental questions:
- What is the legal basis for the restriction and the use of the d’Hondt method?
- Why was the Rules of Procedure Committee not consulted?
- Why is question time being removed when it is normally held outside Inatsisartut’s ordinary consideration time?
Siumut calls on the Presidium to clearly explain its decision and reconsider it. At the same time, the Presidium of Inatsisartut should in future ensure closer dialogue and cooperation with the parties. Decisions that are often made without consulting the parties must not end up weakening the willingness to cooperate that we continue to wish to contribute to.
If members’ parliamentary rights are to be restricted in this way in future, this must happen through open dialogue, with a clear legal basis in the Rules of Procedure and following a decision by Inatsisartut – not through an administrative change to the rules after submission deadlines have passed.
Inatsisartut is the country’s highest elected authority and legislative assembly, responsible for scrutinising Naalakkersuisut. The Presidium must safeguard and strengthen the parliamentary work of Inatsisartut – not restrict it.