Plenary, 04 Oct 2007

Meeting date: Thursday, October 4, 2007

Official Report 756KB pdf

---

Points of Order

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. My point relates to rule 13.3 of the standing orders. Earlier, the leader of the Opposition said that the previous Scottish Executive had made a commitment to future investment in Edinburgh's schools, but the letter dated 27 February makes it clear that no such commitment was given. Is it, therefore, appropriate for the leader of the Opposition to mislead Parliament and the people of Edinburgh in such an obvious way?

Thank you for the point of order. As I have said before in the chamber, I am not responsible for what is said by members in the chamber. Members themselves are responsible for the veracity of their statements.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. At First Minister's question time this afternoon, Mr Salmond stated the following in response to a question from my colleague Nicol Stephen:

"As we said on page 58 of our manifesto, in the context of our first budget for Scotland, we will set out our commitment to putting the equivalent of 1,000 extra officers on the streets and in the communities of Scotland."

I am grateful to the First Minister for being so specific and precise. I have read page 58 of the Scottish National Party manifesto. The word "equivalent" does not appear. The word "equivalent" does appear elsewhere in the SNP manifesto: twice on road equivalent tariff and once each on efficiency savings, carbon dioxide cuts, school facilities and community sentences. It does not appear in relation to police. In fact, the SNP manifesto is 100 per cent clear. I think that Mr Salmond might pay some attention to this, because an important point is being made.

The SNP manifesto states:

"It is essential that we have sufficient police on local streets. That's why we will set out plans in our first Budget for Scotland for 1000 more police".

It goes on to talk about the use of "these new resources". There is no mention of "equivalent" police; there is no rebadging, no renaming and no reshuffling existing police. There is a clear and unambiguous commitment, which was understood as such by people right across Scotland.

The First Minister went on to say today that he thought that

"some folk in the chamber think that the word ‘equivalent' might be some sort of weasel word."

He is right—we do. However, weasel words are one thing; an attempt to mislead Parliament is another. This is a potentially serious attempt to mislead Parliament. The SNP policy at the election has now clearly been changed and Alex Salmond should come clean and admit that. He has been rumbled. He should not attempt to use Parliament to rewrite history. Will he take the opportunity to correct the position once and for all and to apologise to Parliament?

As I have just said, I am not responsible for what is said by members in the chamber. Members are themselves responsible for the truth of what they say. Allegations about a minister misleading Parliament are a matter for the Scottish ministerial code. Mr Brown will be delighted to know that he will have to take that up with the First Minister.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. My point relates to rule 13.3, which was cited by Shirley-Anne Somerville. I wonder whether it is in order for that member to mislead Parliament. I have reflected on your comments and I wonder whether you will consider the matter further. The Labour Party made a clear commitment to funding schools in Edinburgh, yet as I understand it—[Interruption.] SNP members themselves might want to reflect on this. Kenny MacAskill, their own Cabinet Secretary for Justice, said in an e-mail to parents that schools in Edinburgh would be funded, but a matter of days later Fiona Hyslop, the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning, said no. The Labour Party will continue to put children and education first, unlike the SNP.

I am not convinced that that is a point of order. I have nothing to add, I am afraid, to what I have already said.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer, I wonder whether you will add clarity. If there is an allegation that a minister has misled Parliament, is it the responsibility of the permanent secretary to adjudicate or the responsibility of the chair?

I am sorry. I missed the second part of what you said.

Is it the responsibility of the chair, as in the Presiding Officer?

If it is an allegation about a minister, including the First Minister, misleading Parliament, that is a matter for the Scottish ministerial code and should be taken up by the First Minister. If it is an allegation against the First Minister, it is referred to—

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. This is an extremely important point. The ministerial code is in addition to the code of conduct that applies to every member regardless of whether he or she is a minister or not. The code of conduct is clear that the Presiding Officer—your good self—is responsible for the behaviour of MSPs in the chamber regardless of whether they are ministers.

I fully accept that the chair is responsible for the behaviour of MSPs, but my understanding is that allegations under the ministerial code of conduct should be referred to the First Minister.

I do not believe that we can usefully continue with this at the moment and I would like to move on to decision time.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. If I may say so, this is a serious point of parliamentary procedure. Will you perhaps undertake to go away and consult your officials on the matter at leisure, in view of the points that have been made? The matter is important. There is a clear and succinct difference between the position in Parliament and the actions of ministers. It is a statement in Parliament that is being spoken about. There is a somewhat different context from the one in which rulings have been made by Presiding Officers previously.

This is coming perilously close to challenging the chair, but I am willing, given the fact that I have a fortnight in front of me to do so, to consider what has been said this afternoon.