Points of Order
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I wish to raise a point of order about First Minister’s question time.
The ministerial code says that ministers should give accurate and truthful information to the Parliament. The First Minister is fond of quoting Rabbie Burns and, in particular, the line that says:
“facts are chiels that winna ding.”
Well, ding dong, Presiding Officer. Today, the First Minister told the Parliament that college funding had risen from £545 million in 2011-12 to £546 million in 2012-13.
At the Education and Culture Committee meeting on 23 October 2012, a paper was tabled from the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning. In it, the cabinet secretary said:
“I set out below the information you requested in respect of draft and final college resource budgets for 2011-12, 2012-13 and 2013-14.”
The paper gave the total for college funding in 2011-12 as £555.7 million and the total for college funding in 2012-13 as £546.4 million.
Clearly, the evidence presented by the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning to the Education and Culture Committee contradicts what the First Minister said in the Parliament today. Both cannot be correct.
For 2011-12, the First Minister gave a figure of £545 million, which did not include any budget revisions. For 2012-13, he gave a figure of £546 million, which did include a number of budget revisions.
The comparison for the £545 million figure for 2011-12 without revisions would have been £507 million for 2012-13—a drop of £38 million. The figure for 2011-12 with revisions is £555.7 million and for 2012-13 it is 546.4 million—a drop of £9.3 million.
The First Minister, rather bizarrely, said today that what he had said was
“as exact an answer as anybody has given in any Parliament”.
God help us if the First Minister of Scotland actually believes that.
You are coming to the end of your three minutes.
Either the First Minister made an elementary mistake, not worthy of an esteemed economist such as he is, or he deliberately fiddled the figures to achieve the answer that he wanted. The Parliament needs to know which it is.
Presiding Officer, I ask that you invite the First Minister to return to the Parliament at decision time to explain whether he made an elementary error and is guilty of misleading the Parliament through incompetence, or whether he deliberately fiddled the figures in order to mislead the Parliament.
I thank Hugh Henry for the advance warning of his intention to raise a point of order, but I point out, as has been said in the past, that the Presiding Officers are not responsible for the veracity of what is said in the chamber.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I, too, raise a point of order about accurate information from the First Minister.
At First Minister’s question time, Ruth Davidson pointed out that there was a 24 per cent cut to the budget for Scotland’s colleges. That figure comes straight from the Audit Scotland report this October entitled, “Scotland’s colleges—Current finances, future challenges”. On page 3 of that report, under the heading “Key messages”, it states:
“Scotland’s colleges face considerable challenges in the years ahead. As part of overall public sector spending reductions, Scottish Government revenue grant support to colleges is likely to fall from £545 million in 2011/12 to £471 million in 2014/15. This represents a reduction of 24 per cent in real terms. The sector may also face pressure from a range of increasing costs.”
The First Minister said in reply:
“The position that Ruth Davidson quoted ... was ... before Mr Swinney”
made changes.
What changes did Mr Swinney make to the 2014-15 budget exactly? If he is unable to tell us that, will the First Minister admit that, as Audit Scotland and Ruth Davidson say, there is a 24 per cent real-terms cut to the college budget? I invite the Presiding Officer to consider whether the First Minister might be able to correct the record in relation to that comment.
Thank you, Mr Brown, for your point of order.
Further to that point of order, I appreciate that I may sound like a gamekeeper turned poacher, but there are other ways in which members can elicit information, accurate or otherwise. I always like to see it in black and white, so perhaps, in the case quoted by Gavin Brown, a letter would be better than coming to the chamber.
The Minister for Parliamentary Business (Joe FitzPatrick) rose—
I will come to you in a moment, Mr FitzPatrick. I will respond to the points of order. Members are aware that the veracity and content of the First Minister’s responses to questions are matters for the ministerial code. As such, it is for the First Minister to respond to any complaint that is made under the ministerial code; it is not a matter for me.
We understand that there appears to be a difference between the figures from the Scottish Parliament information centre and Government figures. We are looking into that and we will update the Parliament as soon as possible.
Thank you very much for that clarification.