Plenary, 01 Mar 2006

Meeting date: Wednesday, March 1, 2006

Official Report 416KB pdf

---

Business Motion

The next item of business is consideration of business motion S2M-4040, in the name of Margaret Curran, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, setting out a revised business programme.

Motion moved,

That the Parliament agrees the following revision to the programme of business for Wednesday 1 March 2006—

Wednesday 1 March 2006

after,

2.30 pm Time for Reflection

followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions

insert,

followed by Ministerial Statement: Tolled Bridges Review.—[George Lyon.]

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. This morning, when I was listening to "Good Morning Scotland" and reading that excellent journal The Courier in order to keep abreast of the news, I discovered what turned out to be the precise contents of today's ministerial statement. It appears that, once again, the Executive has breached the rules that govern the release of information to the Parliament. Given the First Minister's laughter, it would seem that he thinks that this is a matter for amusement and jocularity. Is that the view of the Presiding Officer? Can any sanction be imposed for the Executive's serial offending in this fashion?

In response to the point of order, it will be for Parliament to decide whether to revise the business programme in accordance with the motion moved by Mr Lyon.

Fergus Ewing does, however, raise a very serious point that the minister has acknowledged, in that he has written to the Presiding Officer and the business managers pointing out that some aspects of the review have been made public and that he is investigating how that happened.

The Presiding Officers deprecate any discourtesy to the Parliament caused by the release of information in advance of parliamentary proceedings. I judge the information that has been trailed in the press to be significant and that there has been a breach of the guidance on announcements by the Scottish Executive. That is a most unfortunate event.

However, given that the minister has written to the business managers and that he intends to address the matter in his speech, it would be appropriate for me not to consider the use of any sanction but to allow the statement to proceed. That will be a matter for Parliament in voting on the motion.

Since that was a point of order, I am not sure that it would be appropriate for me to call you again, Mr Ewing.

On a further point of order, Presiding Officer. It is not my wish that Parliament should be denied the opportunity to hear the statement now. It seems that some members were not aware that the Minister for Transport and Telecommunications had been good enough to admit that there has been a breach—the First Minister certainly seemed to be unaware of that. We do not wish to deprive Parliament of the opportunity to hear the statement and we want the opportunity to ask questions. For that reason, and that reason alone, we do not propose that the statement should not be heard.

However, I ask again, are there any sanctions at all for those old lags who cannot learn from their previous conduct?

Perhaps it is my fault that I did not make it clear that the sanction would be not to allow the statement to be made; I have already ruled that I will admit the statement, subject to Parliament agreeing to change the order of business. There is no other sanction that I can impose.

The Executive is aware of and will reflect on the point that has been made, and it is covered by the minister's letter.

Motion agreed to.

That the Parliament agrees the following revision to the programme of business for Wednesday 1 March 2006—

Wednesday 1 March 2006

after,

2.30 pm Time for Reflection

followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions

insert,

followed by Ministerial Statement: Tolled Bridges Review.