Business Motion
The next item of business is consideration of business motion S3M-5755, in the name of Bruce Crawford, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, setting out a revision to business for Wednesday 24 February.
I will explain the necessity for a revised business motion. A meeting of the Parliamentary Bureau was held this afternoon, commencing at 2.30 pm. At that meeting, business managers made a request to the Government to schedule a ministerial statement by the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing.
Having considered the request, the Government agreed that such a statement should be scheduled. It also suggested that the most appropriate time for the statement would be the first opportunity for business on Wednesday 24 February at 2.30 pm. The rationale for agreeing to a statement at that time was that, while the bureau was discussing the issue of a ministerial statement by the Deputy First Minister, she was in the chamber in her role as the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing, dealing with health questions. Immediately after health questions, she took part in the four nations health ministers teleconference on the future vaccine programme for swine flu and issues relating to management of the vaccine. In other words, Nicola Sturgeon was fully engaged in her job as Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing and was being held accountable in the chamber for the stewardship of the national health service in Scotland.
Presiding Officer, you will be aware that the issues were raised and robustly discussed at First Minister's question time. If the demand is now for a more detailed statement from the Deputy First Minister, surely all members will agree that the proposed timescale is entirely reasonable. On reflection and with the information that I have made available, I hope that all members will agree that the matter has been dealt with appropriately.
The proposal to hold a ministerial statement at 2.30 pm on Wednesday 24 February was put to, and agreed by, the Parliamentary Bureau. Therefore, the bureau has lodged a revised parliamentary business motion, and I recommend that it be accepted by the Parliament.
I move,
That the Parliament agrees the following revision to the programme of business for Wednesday 24 February 2010—
after
2.30 pm Rev Alex Noble, Saltcoats North Parish Church, Ayrshire
followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions
insert
followed by Ministerial Statement: Representing Constituents
Motion agreed to.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Section 8.1.1 of the code of conduct for members of the Scottish Parliament states:
"It is expected that each member will take on a case when approached although it is recognised that there may be legitimate reasons for a member to decline a constituent's case in certain circumstances".
The code then gives some examples of such circumstances, but it is stressed that it is not an exhaustive list.
This morning, the First Minister interpreted that rule as placing MSPs under an "absolute obligation" to take on constituents' cases. That statement is grossly inaccurate.
That is not a point of order.
Order.
The rule seems very clear: there are circumstances in which MSPs are entitled to act according to the code of conduct.
As the Presiding Officer, you are aware of the debate on section 8.1.1 this morning and how the First Minister interpreted it. Will you give a ruling for our guidance to ensure that we are able to carry out our duties as members of the Scottish Parliament?
What I will do, because I have received a number of requests from members and business managers, is read out verbatim rule 8.1.1 from the code of conduct. It reads as follows:
"Every constituent is represented by one constituency MSP and seven regional MSPs. It is expected that each member will take on a case when approached although it is recognised that there may be legitimate reasons for a member to decline a constituent's case in certain circumstances, for example, where a constituent requests an MSP to take inappropriate action, or if that case seeks action which would represent a conflict of interest with existing casework or is contrary to the member's political beliefs. If so, the member would ordinarily be expected to inform the constituent that the member is not taking up the case."
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Given your clear ruling on the issue, I refer you to the Scottish ministerial code—
Mr Martin, I have not made a ruling; I have read out the code of conduct verbatim.
Presiding Officer, you have reiterated standing orders and I ask to be allowed to continue with the point of order. Other members have been given the opportunity to make points of order today and I wish to be afforded the same opportunity.
The ministerial code states:
"It is of paramount importance that Ministers give accurate and truthful information to the Parliament, correcting any inadvertent error at the earliest opportunity."
Given your clarity on the standing orders, which rule that the First Minister's statement was incorrect when he paraphrased the standing orders earlier today, will you ask him to correct his statement "at the earliest opportunity"?
As Mr Martin knows well, I cannot ask the First Minister to do that. The matter is for the ministerial code, and we all know by now how that works.