Meeting of the Parliament
Meeting date: Tuesday, December 4, 2012
Official Report
752KB pdf
Point of Order
On a point of order, Presiding Officer.
I rise to raise a point of order relating to parliamentary written questions. On 5 October, I asked a number of specific parliamentary questions regarding the attendance and activity of Scottish Government ministers, officials and agencies at the 2012 Ryder cup. I received a holding reply from the minister on 2 November, which promised a reply to my questions as soon as possible. Subsequently, on 14 November, almost six weeks after I submitted my original questions, Clare Adamson MSP submitted a more general question in relation to the 2012 Ryder cup. Ms Adamson’s question was answered within two weeks, on 27 November. On the same day, I received answers to my questions, which simply referred me to the answer that was given to Ms Adamson.
I find it disrespectful to Parliament and to parliamentarians that the Government chose not to answer my specific questions but instead to answer a more general question that was lodged by one of its own back benchers six weeks later.
Presiding Officer, I ask that you use your authority to ensure that my questions are answered in full, without delay, and that you make it clear that the Government should answer all questions in a prompt and even-handed manner, and not using what I can describe only as a planted question to undermine the ability of Opposition parties to hold the Government properly to account.
I thank the member for the advance notice of this important point of order, which has enabled me to investigate the matter myself. As Mr Griffin said, on 5 October 2012 he lodged three written questions asking the Scottish Government for details relating to the attendees and the costs of the delegation that attended the 2012 Ryder cup. Those questions received a holding reply on 2 November. On 14 November, Clare Adamson lodged an inspired parliamentary question on the outcomes of the First Minister’s visit to Chicago in September 2012. That inspired question was answered at some length by Fiona Hyslop on 27 November. Also on that date, Mark Griffin received written answers from Shona Robison that simply referred him to the answer that was given to Clare Adamson.
For a member to have to wait nearly eight weeks for an answer to a parliamentary question and then simply to be referred to an answer that has been given to a question that was lodged six weeks after his original question is, in my view, not acceptable. [Applause.] Please do not applaud.
I note that the Scottish Government’s guidance on using inspired questions to give information to the Parliament, which is published on its website, states:
“Where a question on the same subject already exists, consideration should be given to using that question to make the announcement, whether or not it is an Opposition question, instead of arranging an inspired question.”
It appears that that guidance has not been followed in the case of Mark Griffin’s three written questions, which predate by six weeks Clare Adamson’s inspired PQ.
I expect the Scottish Government to treat all members equally when responding to written and oral questions, irrespective of which party they are from. I consider that the Government has treated Mr Griffin with discourtesy. I invite ministers to reflect on how the answer was put into the public domain and to consider what steps they need to take to ensure that members are not treated with such discourtesy in the future. [Applause.] There is no need to applaud.