Meeting of the Parliament

Meeting date: Thursday, June 3, 2010

Official Report 976KB pdf

---

Points of Order

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I would like to make a correction to an answer that was given by the Minister for Enterprise, Energy and Tourism during this afternoon’s ministerial statement regarding VisitScotland.

In response to the last question, Jim Mather said that I did not speak with the VisitScotland chairman, Mike Cantlay, last Sunday. I can confirm that I made a telephone call to Dr Cantlay on Sunday afternoon, as I had been surprised to read the newspaper report regarding the chief executive of VisitScotland, and I wanted to establish its veracity.

Mr Mather and I have, obviously, discussed this matter during the week, but I did not inform him of the call that I made on Sunday, hence his assumption that I had not made one. I am happy to correct the record. [Interruption.]

Order.

The substance of the newspaper report is, as Mr Mather said this afternoon, entirely an operational matter for the board of VisitScotland.

Thank you for that clarification.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Mr Swinney was sitting next to the Minister for Enterprise, Energy and Tourism when he made that statement and answered that question. I am not clear why it has taken him until now to correct the point.

That is not a point of order.

If I may, Presiding Officer. As I said in my point of order, Mr Mather had given his final answer to questions on the statement, at which point the Deputy Presiding Officer concluded proceedings. I felt that it was appropriate to give you notice of my intention to make a point of order at this stage in the proceedings.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Iain Smith is correct to say that Mr Swinney was sitting next to Mr Mather and to express surprise about the fact that he could not correct this error. However, it is also true that Mr Swinney prompted Mr Mather on a number of answers that he gave this afternoon. One wonders why he could not have prompted him on that one, too.

That is not a point of order for me. The minister has corrected a position that had previously gone uncorrected, and I consider the matter closed.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer.

I hope that it is one.

Would it not be the case that the cabinet secretary should have seen the statement before it was brought before the Parliament?

That is just a debating point.

If I may stretch your patience, Presiding Officer, which I think that this issue is doing. I am not sure that Rhona Brankin was in the chamber for the entire statement but, as I said, Mr Mather made the point that I have corrected during the last answer to the last question; it did not form part of the statement that Mr Mather read to the Parliament.

I repeat, I now consider this matter closed.