Plenary, 08 Jan 2009

Meeting date: Thursday, January 8, 2009

Official Report 748KB pdf

---

Points of Order

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I raise a point of order under rule 7.3.2 of standing orders. In this morning's debate on humanitarian aid to Gaza, Jackson Carlaw—summing up for the Conservatives—referred to a quotation that I cited from an article in yesterday's Independent newspaper, by the award-winning and respected middle east correspondent Robert Fisk, on previous Palestinian deaths in conflicts with the Israeli army. Jackson Carlaw referred to Mr Fisk—I noted the exact words—as

"a highly partisan anti-Jewish correspondent",

which is as close as it comes to calling him anti-Semitic and is highly defamatory.

I have, of course, informed Mr Fisk of the comments and have no doubt that he will deal with them in his own way. However, I seek guidance on whether Mr Carlaw and Mr Brocklebank, who endorsed the remarks, have the protection of parliamentary privilege.

I thank the member for notice of her point of order, which is always helpful. I have genuinely thought about the matter carefully. My view is that Jackson Carlaw was simply expressing his point of view in the debate, so no discourtesy occurred.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. At First Minister's questions, my colleague Tavish Scott raised the issue that staff at the Scottish Inter Faith Council had received redundancy notices because their funding from the Scottish Government had not been forthcoming. The First Minister said that his ministers had resolved the funding crisis at the Scottish Inter Faith Council. At 12.30, Pramila Kaur—the council's chief executive—confirmed that she had received no communication from the Scottish ministers about that.

Mr Scott asked Mr Salmond when the funding issue had been resolved and whether information on the timing of the decision would be lodged with the Scottish Parliament information centre. Presiding Officer, as the chair of the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body, will you use your good offices to facilitate the publication in SPICe of the important information about when the decision was made?

That is not a matter for me as Presiding Officer to pursue.

Oh!

Order.

If the matter is to be pursued, that should be done between you and the First Minister. The matter is not for me.

Further to the point of order that Christine Grahame raised, Presiding Officer. I say with the greatest respect that you ruled that there was discourtesy and that such behaviour comes under the heading of—[Interruption.] I am referring to one of the points of order. Members are expected to be courteous to each other.

You might have misheard me, Ms MacDonald. I did not say that anyone had been discourteous in today's debate.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I find it difficult to agree with Mike Rumbles, given his recent remarks, but he is absolutely right.

What is your point of order?

What is your responsibility, Presiding Officer, if it is not to ensure that ministers tell the truth to the Parliament?

This is not an issue of telling the truth to the Parliament, Lord Foulkes.

It is.

I do not think so, and I would prefer not to be questioned from the floor of the chamber. If members wish to speak to me, they can do so in other ways.

I refer the member to the good practice on announcements by the Scottish Executive, which sets out several methods by which the Government can make an announcement to Parliament, one of which is by answering a parliamentary question. I believe that that happened in the instance that we are discussing. If members wish to pursue the matter, they should do so with the First Minister. We have said enough on the issue.