Plenary, 05 Feb 2004

Meeting date: Thursday, February 5, 2004

Official Report 753KB pdf

---

Points of Order

On a point of order, Presiding Officer.

Yes, I am just coming to those, Ms MacDonald. I was about to say that I am grateful to the two members who gave notice of points of order for letting us get through First Minister's question time and come to them now. I would prefer to take the Minister for Parliamentary Business first.

I realise that Mr Sheridan works on the basis that any publicity is good publicity, but I feel obliged to draw to your attention the comments that he made from a sedentary position today, because I realise that the official report and possibly you would not have been able to pick them up. He was repeating his allegations concerning the First Minister. The First Minister has already identified in writing to Mr Sheridan and again today the source of the comments that he made at a previous question time. That is perfectly clear, and Mr Sheridan does not have a case, but his behaviour has become a sustained period of conduct that, to be frank, does not befit a member of the Parliament and is certainly not prescribed within our standing orders.

Presiding Officer, I know that you and most members of the Parliament hold the Parliament's reputation and integrity in very high regard and therefore I ask you to investigate that sustained period of misconduct. [Applause.]

I will always reserve my right to protect those who want to speak in the Parliament. They should do so with responsibility, decorum and courtesy.

I would welcome your investigation of the comments, Presiding Officer, because the First Minister has again today lowered the standard of conduct in the debate, which is what the Minister for Finance and Public Services did three weeks ago. He was forced to apologise for that, and I accept that apology. I would welcome an investigation by you, Presiding Officer, because I know that it will be fair and firm.

I do not want a period of sustained guerrilla warfare in the Parliament; it does none of us any good. I have no standing on the matter, but, in view of the fact that the Minister for Parliamentary Business and Mr Sheridan have both asked me to look into the matter, I will look into it further.

It might be helpful if I were to spell out a few general principles to members. All members have the right to make their views known, and I shall always protect that right; all members have the responsibility to do so respectfully, with courtesy and in good order, and I will always enforce that.

On lying, I refer members to the decision taken by my predecessor, Sir David Steel, in March 2000, when he said:

"Challenges to the accuracy of opinions or facts are also perfectly in order. However, in future the occupant of the chair will not tolerate an accusation that a fellow member or members have lied. The terms liar or lying imply a deliberate attempt to mislead and will not find favour with the chair."—[Official Report, 16 March 2000; Vol 5, c 754.]

That is my position under rules 7.3.1 and 7.3.2 of the standing orders, and I hope that we can let the matter rest there for today.

I will take Margo MacDonald's point of order.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer.

Mr Sheridan, you must be careful about saying to the chair that what I have ruled on is acceptable or not. That is my decision and I am attempting to dampen things down at this point.

I seek clarity on what you have just ruled, Presiding Officer. I thought that the Minister for Parliamentary Business had asked you to investigate. Are you saying now that you are not going to investigate and that what you have said is your only statement on the matter? If it is, it is completely unsatisfactory.

I have said with some clarity that, in view of the fact that the Minister for Parliamentary Business and you have both asked me to look into the matter, I shall so do, and I have just given to members of the Parliament the general principles on which I will make my judgment. If you leave the matter with me, Mr Sheridan, I will look into it further.

I will take Margo MacDonald's point of order.

Thank you, Presiding Officer. I wish to raise two points of order. I apologise for having a second point. I had given notice of one point in relation to rule 13.3, but the point of order that I will raise first is of a more current nature and is in relation to rule 3.10, which is headed "Removal of members of the Parliamentary corporation".

As I hesitate to move immediately to the nuclear option, I would welcome a statement from you, Presiding Officer, saying that you will investigate, and look kindly on the publication of, all the minutes—both the discrete minutes and the minutes for public consumption—that were issued by the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body in the latter half of last year. The matter was referred to yesterday in Lord Fraser's inquiry. I think that most members will share my concern that there should have been an admission of there being two sets of minutes, not all of which were available to those of us who had to vote on the matter. That is my first point of order.

Please go on to the second.

Thank you. My second point of order relates to rule 13.3.3. The standing orders state:

"Any member may put a question to the Scottish Executive",

which should

"relate to a matter for which the First Minister, the Scottish Ministers or the Scottish Law Officers have general responsibility".

One aspect of the First Minister's general responsibility has been demonstrated here again today, when members from all parts of the chamber urge the First Minister to impress a particular point of view, as expressed in the chamber, or a particular course of action on the Government—usually through the person of the Prime Minister, when the First Minister meets him.

This week, the chamber office refused to allow me to follow that procedure and precedent by refusing a question of mine for answer by the First Minister, which requested that he press for a particular course of action with the Prime Minister, relating to the current debate surrounding the two official inquiries by Lord Hutton and Lord Butler into matters concerning the Government's decision to go to war in Iraq. The reason that was given for the refusal was that this Parliament and the First Minister have no responsibility devolved to them for foreign or defence policies. While I might regret that, I accept that statement, and I accept the legality of the status quo.

However, in the debate on Iraq on 13 March last year, your predecessor accepted as falling within the terms of the Scotland Act 1998 an amendment from Mr Gallie, urging a particular course of action on Her Majesty's Government in an area of policy in which this Parliament has no legislative competence. Your predecessor was correct, Presiding Officer.

As the First Minister said in that debate,

"Our job in the Parliament is to listen, to reflect, to speak from principle and to contribute to the representation and development of public opinion in our land."

The First Minister surely cannot have contravened the standing orders of the Parliament when he said:

The mark of leadership in Scotland is to speak on the big issues of the day, but to do so honestly and consistently."—[Official Report, 13 March 2003; c 19436-37.]

In raising this point of order, I seek only consistency and to establish how MSPs might reflect their own opinions and public opinion on issues that fall outwith our legislative competence.

The broad principle is that members of this Parliament may speak on any subject whatever; ministers can only answer on those areas of policy for which they themselves are responsible. I think that that is perfectly clear in relation to such questions. My understanding—

Further to that point of order, Presiding Officer.

Please—you must let me finish. My understanding is that you took your question to the chamber desk and that it was amended accordingly, so that it became valid. I chose not to select it. That is my privilege, and I never give reasons for that.

On your other question, Ms MacDonald, you can hardly expect me to make a millisecond decision on issues of the magnitude of those that you have raised. I will reflect on the matter and I will come back to the Parliament in due course. With that, it is time for lunch.

Meeting suspended until 14:30.

On resuming—