Points of Order
Before we move to decision time, I return to the points of order that were made earlier. The First Minister has requested the opportunity to respond to the points that were raised.
Thank you, Presiding Officer.
In response to the points of order that were made earlier this afternoon, I would like to clarify the Government’s position regarding college funding, to which members have drawn attention.
At First Minister’s question time earlier this afternoon, I quoted a figure of £545 million for the year 2011-12 in revenue funding for the colleges. The figure that I used was provided to me and it was used in good faith. However, it failed to take account of budget revisions to college funding.
There was no intention to mislead. Indeed, that can be seen and is demonstrated by the fact that the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning, in a letter to the Education and Culture Committee on 23 October, set out the correct figures. Those are: £555.7 million in 2011-12 and £546.4 million in 2012-13. The difference between the figures is £9.3 million, which equates to 1.7 per cent of the half-billion 2011-12 college budget.
I will place the table from which I was quoting in the Scottish Parliament information centre, and members will see that, of the various figures that I quoted, only the 2011-12 figure was incorrect. The figures that I quoted for this year and for next were correct.
I turn to the point that was made about the Audit Scotland report. The figure for 2011-12 that Audit Scotland used in the report of 18 October excludes the budget revisions made after the spending review was published. Also, we have yet to announce revisions for 2014-15, if any. Therefore, by definition, it is not possible to calculate what the final position will be. However, the comparison can be made between the three years that are set out in the education secretary’s letter of 23 October to the committee.
I can confirm that the cabinet secretary will shortly write to the Presiding Officer, apologising and making clear his regret at using the same figure as the basis for an answer to Mr Malik on 28 June.
I make it clear that I take full responsibility for what I say in this chamber. Therefore, I have taken this earliest opportunity to correct the figure. The figure should have been £556 million, not £545 million, and I apologise to the chamber for the error.
Thank you.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer.
The statement that the First Minister has just made is, frankly, astonishing and cannot be left to lie. The politics of this is that the contempt that Alex Salmond shows every day for the Scottish people and our Parliament is breathtaking. Every day, truth seems to give way to the soundbite, facts come second to the put-down and the interests of the Scottish people come second to the interests of Alex Salmond’s career.
Can we be clear? When we had our debate this afternoon, Alex Salmond did not happen to mention a figure; he accused me of being wrong when I established that Mike Russell had misled the Parliament when he said that there were no cuts in the relevant period. Alex Salmond did not accidentally go from one column to another—
This is not a point of order, Presiding Officer.
He went from one column to another to establish his contention—
Can you come to the point of order, please?
He wanted to contend that his Government had not cut college funding. We hear a lot about the First Minister’s position on education, but the substance of what we were being told today was that there were no consequences for his position on education.
Would you come to the point of order, please?
Our contention is that it is his position to attack further education.
We have a problem, because the back benchers—
Ms Lamont, please would you come to the—
I am coming to my point.
I would be grateful if you would.
We are coming to the point.
Please do.
I ask the Presiding Officer to understand how serious this is. SNP back benchers do not allow the committees to scrutinise what is said. The First Minister said something in direct contradiction to what his education minister said.
The reality is that the Presiding Officer must act. I ask him again to look at this, because after the debacle on Europe, how can we ever again believe a word that Alex Salmond says?
I think that we have had enough, Ms Lamont.
The point of order is this: how will the Presiding Officer act to protect the democracy of this Parliament against the arrogance of the Government?
Thank you. [Interruption.] Order.
As I have said before, members are aware that the veracity and content of the First Minister’s statements and 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. The First Minister has made a statement.