There are several points of order. I have one of my own to start with. I do not want to leave any ill feeling between Mr Gallie and me, so I make it clear that, in choosing supplementary questions, I give priority to members whose constituencies are affected directly by the question. The question was about North Lanarkshire. The members whom I called, irrespective of party, were all members who represent North Lanarkshire. Frankly, it is not possible for me to call a member of every party on every question. If I did, members who have questions in the business bulletin would get annoyed when we did not reach them. I give Mr Gallie this comfort: at the end of every question time, the names of those who were not called are noted. I have ensured that those who felt disgruntled last week have been called this week. I hope that Mr Gallie will feel that I deal fairly with such issues, however disappointed he is that he was not called on this occasion.
I apologise to the Presiding Officer for losing my temper. I accept that I usually get a fair call. In this instance, my interpretation of constituency interest was perhaps wider than the Presiding Officer's.
I thank Mr Gallie for his gracious apology, which I accept.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I have in my hand an unembargoed press release from the Scottish Executive, which says that
Technically, I believe that you may be correct, but if you will let me look at the press release, I will deal with it, although I do not think that it is a most grievous matter. You are quite right that the Parliament has not yet decided anything.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I have received your response to a point of order that I raised this morning about an article in The Herald, which contained details of the ministerial statement made by Wendy Alexander about the careers service. In your letter, you agree with me that almost all the information in the article was later contained in the minister's statement. I accept that there was no Executive press release, but the information came from somewhere. I urge you to seek an assurance from the minister that she did not give out the information or cause any of her colleagues or officials to do so on her behalf. Do you agree that ministerial statements in the chamber should have the same standing as unpublished committee papers, the leaking of which is a serious matter?
I do not necessarily accept that comparison, because the issue with committee papers is the collegiality—if I can put it that way—of the committee process. On the first point, I have already sought an assurance from the Executive that there was no release. I conveyed that in the letter. I will reflect further on the matter.
On a point of order.
Is it on a similar point of order?
It is on the same issue. If the minister has given you an assurance that she did not provide the information to The Herald and her civil servants have given her a similar assurance, an offence—possibly a criminal offence—has been committed in that information and papers have been taken and leaked to The Herald. Will you seek an assurance that, if the minister and her civil servants did not do it, she is investigating thoroughly who did?
You are asking me to go well beyond my powers. That is a matter for the minister. I am satisfied that there was no ministerial leak; that is as far as I can go. It is for members to pursue the issue further with the Executive if they want to do so. I cannot do any more.
Previous
First Minister's Question Time