Points of Order
Before we move to the next item of business, I understand that Fergus Ewing wishes to raise a point of order.
With your permission, Presiding Officer, I would like to raise a point of order. Last week, at First Minister's question time, the issue of Government funding of the Scottish Inter Faith Council was raised, with the First Minister giving an assurance that the matter was resolved satisfactorily. For the avoidance of any confusion, I would like briefly to outline the sequence of events.
After being made aware of concerns regarding the Scottish Inter Faith Council's budget, I intervened by contacting the council on 20 December, giving assurances that its funding from the Scottish Government would continue. A public statement was issued to that effect. That assurance was acknowledged on 6 January—Tuesday of last week—by Alan Dixon, the convener of the SIFC's executive committee, in an e-mail to me in which he expressed his appreciation for my intervention on the funding issue and for my
"assurance that this will continue".
As with all matters involving grant funding, that assurance required subsequently to be set down in writing. It was on the basis of my formally acknowledged intervention that, last Thursday, the First Minister gave the assurances that he did to the Parliament. On the basis of the continued funding from the Scottish Government—for the rest of this financial year and the following two years—the SIFC has assured me personally that all staff posts in the organisation are secure.
I know that all members will continue to support the good work that the Scottish Inter Faith Council does. I hope that I have provided the confirmation that members may feel that they need.
I am grateful to the minister.
I understand that Tavish Scott would also like to make a point of order.
Further to that point of order, Presiding Officer, I am told that the funding for the Scottish Inter Faith Council was agreed last night at a meeting between the Government and the executive committee of the Scottish Inter Faith Council. That is of course good and we welcome it, but the Government continues to claim that the funding for the Inter Faith Council was "resolved" not last night, but before 12 noon last Thursday, 8 January. The Government's claim is not true. The First Minister said at question time:
"the matter has been resolved."—[Official Report, 8 January 2009; c 13822.]
He said not that it would be or is being resolved, but that it "has been resolved." That evening, last Thursday, I received an e-mail from the convener of the Inter Faith Council, Major Alan Dixon, which states:
"I understand that some concern has been expressed over the response from the First Minister when he indicated that matters relating to funding had been resolved. This is just to indicate that this is not so".
I reiterate the timing: that was last Thursday, after First Minister's question time.
Although the matter undoubtedly was being discussed by the Government and the Inter Faith Council—on that I absolutely accept the assurance that Mr Ewing has just given to the Parliament on his involvement—it was not resolved at the point at which the First Minister told Parliament that it was. To claim that the matter was resolved is to say that Major Dixon is not telling the truth.
Last Saturday, The Herald newspaper reported that civil servants telephoned the Inter Faith Council only after First Minister's question time. The paper reported that Major Alan Dixon confirmed that
"he only received a call from a civil servant at around 12.30pm, which would have been just as FMQ's ended."
As you know, Presiding Officer, my office has given you and the First Minister's office copies of the correspondence that I had. There is therefore absolutely no doubt that the situation was not resolved before 12.30 pm last Thursday, but the First Minister made exactly that claim on four separate occasions. Therefore, the First Minister misled Parliament. In the absence of any statement from the First Minister, neither I nor Parliament can know the reason for that. Regardless of the reason, the issue is a serious one for the Parliament. For nothing to happen as a result would have profound implications for the way in which we conduct our business.
I have taken advice on how such issues were handled in previous sessions of Parliament. There is ample precedent for clarifying statements and, indeed, for straight apologies to be made when something that was originally said was incorrect. In the absence of any such appropriate statement from the Government, I ask you, Presiding Officer, to protect members from being misled.
Further to that point of order, Presiding Officer—
I have not responded to the last one yet, Mr Baker.
Members are aware that the content of ministers' responses to questions are matters for the ministerial code. As such, it is for ministers to respond to any complaint that is made under the ministerial code; it is not a matter for me.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. In that case, I ask you to reflect further on whether the First Minister was in breach of rule 7.3.1 of the standing orders, given that there is no clarity—even following Mr Ewing's statement—that the First Minister did not mislead Parliament. Mr Scott's comments show clearly that the First Minister misled Parliament. I can confirm independently that Labour colleagues were contacted on Friday to be told that the issue had not been resolved. Indeed, I was informed by the Scottish Inter Faith Council that new funding arrangements were agreed only last night.
I ask you, Presiding Officer, to use your offices to ensure that all correspondence on the issue from the Scottish Government is placed in the Scottish Parliament information centre. Finally, will you consider advising Parliament on whether the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee should discuss introducing rule changes so that in future you have authority over not only the asking of questions, but the answers?
Thank you for your point of order, Mr Baker. I am not of the opinion that there has been a breach of the standing orders in this matter. As for taking the matter to the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee, that is for you to pursue, not me, and you are free to do so.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer.
Is this essential, Mr Stephen? If so, I will take your point of order, but we are eating seriously into the time for the budget debate.
The issues raised are serious. Any member of the Scottish Parliament—in particular, any minister—knows that misleading Parliament, whether deliberately or not, is a very serious issue. Presiding Officer, I ask you to confirm that in the circumstances, the correct action is for the minister to contact your office and arrange to come to the chamber to correct the error at the earliest possible opportunity. I know from experience as a minister that there is clear precedent for such action.
The MSP involved, often at the prompting of the Presiding Officer, has in the past always dealt with such matters speedily and apologised to the Parliament. I ask you, Presiding Officer, to defend the interests of this Parliament and help to ensure that action is taken on the matter speedily and appropriately.
Thank you.
"as has been ruled from the chair on many occasions in the past, matters that are covered in the Scottish ministerial code are not for me. That includes the principle that ministers should give accurate and truthful information to the Parliament."—[Official Report, 11 February 2004; c 56903.]
Those are not my words; they are the words of my predecessor, George Reid.
Perfectly legitimate points have been made this afternoon; it is up to ministers to determine how they respond to them. If members wish to take the matter further through the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee, they are welcome to do so.
I suggest that we move on to this afternoon's debate—
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. With all due respect, although I accept that responsibilities are inherent in the ministerial code, it is your responsibility to ensure the probity of proceedings in this Parliament.
It is the duty of all members to ensure probity in the proceedings of this Parliament.
I will reflect on these points of order later this afternoon and, if there is anything further to say, I will say it at decision time. I now seriously suggest that we move to the business in hand.