Plenary,

Meeting date: Wednesday, May 15, 2002

Official Report 392KB pdf

---

Business Motion

I warn members that my ruling on sub judice is as pertinent to this item of business as it was to the proposed item of members' business this evening. I call Euan Robson to move motion S1M-3109.

Motion moved,

That the Parliament agrees—

as a revision to the Business Programme agreed on 9 May 2002—

Wednesday 15 May 2002

after "Decision Time" delete

"followed by Members' Business - debate on the subject of S1M-3076 Michael Russell: Scottish Criminal Record Office"

and replace with

"followed by Members' Business - debate on the subject of S1M-2988 Mr Lloyd Quinan: Autism Awareness Week, 12–19 May 2002".—[Euan Robson.]

Michael Russell has asked to speak against the motion. You have five minutes, Michael.

I welcome your statement, Presiding Officer, and the co-operation that you have given in this matter. I regret that we are now at this moment.

I accept that there is a requirement within the Scotland Act 1998 to have a sub judice rule. The question is whether the Parliament's sub judice rule is an appropriate one or whether it goes too far, as do other parts of our standing orders, in preventing appropriate debate and action within the chamber.

I object to the removal of the motion regarding Shirley McKie because it is obvious to common sense that the Parliament's sub judice rule goes too far. The common sense rule that should be applied is to ask whether the issue is being discussed in any detail elsewhere. The answer is yes. The issue is debated in the newspapers and on the radio. It was debated last night on "Newsnight Scotland" and will be debated this week on "Panorama". [Interruption.] I am trying to make serious points, despite interruptions. It is obvious that if the debate on the Shirley McKie case can take place in the media and elsewhere, members must ask why it cannot take place in Scotland's Parliament. It seems ludicrous to the public at large and to the media that we are forbidden from raising the case in Parliament.

The speech that I provided you with, Presiding Officer, introduced no new material and made no new revelations or assertions. However, it went through the detail of the case and indicated not only the concerns of the community in Scotland to issues arising from the case, but those of the world forensic community. My speech could raise such concerns only on the basis of the previous case, which was concluded three years and one day ago today, in which Shirley McKie, who is present in the public gallery, was found not guilty of perjury.

In those circumstances, I was endeavouring to see what answer the Executive would give to the concerns of the international community. Despite the fact that a letter from world fingerprint experts, a copy of which I hold in my hand, was delivered to the Minister for Justice two weeks ago, I have not yet had a response from him.

Presiding Officer, I accept that your ruling is within the standing orders and I will not press the issue to a vote, particularly as another Scottish National Party member has a members' business motion for today. However, I ask you and the Procedures Committee to reflect on the fact that the sub judice rule is damaging debate in the Parliament and, indeed, is damaging the Parliament. It appears that in the very place where we should be—

Rubbish.

Again, instead of trying to enter into debate, Labour members are interrupting.

Instead of having a sub judice rule that can command respect within the chamber and from the media, we have a sub judice rule that is suppressing debate and making Parliament look silly.

Before I ask Mr Robson to respond to that, I will make two points about what you said. First, as I explained in my ruling, it is not the case that the Parliament cannot debate the case. All I am saying is that it cannot debate the case during the court action. The Parliament is free to debate the case before or afterwards. Secondly, on the wider issue of whether the rule is correct or not, I have explained the background, which is that Parliament has adopted the rule. However, Parliament is equally free to reflect on the rule. I will do so and I am sure that the Procedures Committee will also do so in due course. We do so with all our rules, as we are a young institution.

In the meantime, I am bound to implement the sub judice rule as it stands and I know that the member appreciates that fact. I ask Mr Robson to speak on the motion.

The business motion simply reflects the decision of the Parliamentary Bureau. The bureau's decision was taken on your advice, Presiding Officer. There was no vote in the bureau. I do not think that it is appropriate for me to add anything to what you have said on this matter. I simply press the motion.

Motion agreed to.

That the Parliament agrees—

as a revision to the Business Programme agreed on 9 May 2002—

Wednesday 15 May 2002

after "Decision Time" delete

"followed by Members' Business - debate on the subject of S1M-3076 Michael Russell: Scottish Criminal Record Office"

and replace with

"followed by Members' Business - debate on the subject of S1M-2988 Mr Lloyd Quinan: Autism Awareness Week, 12–19 May 2002"—[Euan Robson.]

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. On what you just said, I wonder whether you would produce some form of guidance about what we mean by parliamentary privilege in the Scottish Parliament. It is clear that there is debate and disagreement about what coverage we have within the Scottish Parliament compared with the coverage within the Westminster Parliament.

As a result of today's debate, would you agree to provide guidance to all MSPs about parliamentary privilege?

I think that I can help you here. I remind you that such guidance was published in the business bulletin in May 1999. If members would like that information, they have only to go to the Scottish Parliament information centre to find it. It is already there.

I want to raise a point of order, Presiding Officer, notice of which was given yesterday. Rule 7.5, which you read out, indicates that there is clear discretion for you to have permitted the members' business debate on Michael Russell's motion to proceed. Is it the case that the decision not to proceed with that debate was taken by you and was not one that you were bound to take on the advice of lawyers?

It was entirely my decision—as the rule states. I gave careful thought to the text that Mr Russell supplied. I took the view that the majority of it was clearly sub judice. That was my decision. The advice that I took in reaching that decision is another matter, but I tell the member that I had come to that view before I sought any further advice.

I am obliged for that answer. Having read the speech, I can say, without commenting on its contents, that it is one of the greatest speeches that Mr Russell has not made.

As a lawyer, I have noticed that lawyers do not always agree. Given that no indication has been given of exactly what it was in Mr Russell's speech that fell foul of the rule, will Mr Russell be provided with copies of the legal advice, as I requested in my e-mail to you yesterday? Will that advice be published in full? If not, why not? Publication of the advice is required to give the guidance that many members seek.

The advice will not be published, because I take responsibility for decisions, whatever advice officials give me. We do not debate advice from officials in the Parliament. I am responsible for the decision that was taken and I think that it is the right one.

As the issue that Mr Russell wanted to be debated here related to an important forensic criminal matter and as your objection on sub judice grounds refers only to a civil action of damages, which is quite a separate type of problem, is it not necessary that we clarify exactly the extent of the sub judice rule? The implication is that an important criminal forensic debate in this Parliament could be blocked by someone who simply raised an action of damages. That is an important point and I ask the Presiding Officer to reconsider the extent of the sub judice rule.

I will examine what the member has said, but my consideration is based on the fact that there is a current case before the courts. That is the matter that I have to deal with and my decision is based only on that.

No doubt this is an important matter and we will discuss it in future. However, we should now move on.