Plenary, 16 Jan 2002
Meeting date: Wednesday, January 16, 2002
Official Report
405KB pdf
Points of Order
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. This is the point of order of which I gave you prior notice.
Yesterday, the Executive held a press conference to announce the delay in the implementation of free personal care for the elderly. In the chamber, we have had four ministerial statements on matters related to free personal care, because it is such an important issue to the people of Scotland. It is one of the most controversial of issues and has been subject to the democratic will of the Parliament. However, although the SNP offered time during this debate for a statement, a statement was not forthcoming.
Is it correct that the Executive should be allowed to hold press conferences without coming to the chamber or to the Health and Community Care Committee to make a statement? I draw your attention to page 10 of today's business bulletin. Is it appropriate for a planted question from Angus MacKay to have been published only today? Members will note the interesting triangle beside the question number. I am not sure if that is a symbol for former ministers who are hoping to ingratiate themselves with the Executive. Is such a question not inappropriate? When there are important announcements on this important policy, is not it more appropriate that—as has happened previously—the Executive should come either to the chamber or to the Health and Community Care Committee? That did not happen, because a press conference was held yesterday.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer.
Mr Johnstone has a point of order on the same point. I point out to members that the next debate is heavily oversubscribed, so let us keep this as short as we can.
There is concern in my party that it appears that the Department for Work and Pensions had, as early as October of last year, made it clear to the Minister for Health and Community Care that there was no further scope for negotiation in the transfer of £23 million of resources to the Scottish Executive. However, the point has been made repeatedly—in this chamber and elsewhere—that negotiations were on-going. Would it be in order to suggest that the minister has perhaps misled Parliament?
That second point is not a point of order for me.
I will deal with the point of substance—and I am grateful to the member for giving me notice, allowing me time to consider it.
I have previously acknowledged that it is for the Executive to judge which policy announcements are of sufficient significance to be made in the Parliament. It strikes me that it is at least arguable that the announcement made yesterday by the Minister for Health and Community Care was of sufficient significance.
I note that there was a written question, the answer to which appeared on the website yesterday afternoon, but not in advance of the press conference. I note too that Hugh Henry, the Deputy Minister for Health and Community Care, explained the Executive's position to the Health and Community Care Committee at its meeting this morning. However, neither of those responses is the same as an announcement to the Parliament. I therefore invite the Executive to reflect further on what happened.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. This point of order is on a different subject and I gave the Presiding Officer prior notice of it. I feel that it is a matter of major parliamentary importance. If what I am about to describe had happened at Westminster, it would certainly have been regarded as a breach of parliamentary privilege.
I draw the Presiding Officer's attention to a report in last Sunday's Sunday Herald, which indicated that the Scottish executive of the Labour party is requiring a pledge from all Labour candidates for the next elections that they will never vote against a Labour nominee for any post in Parliament. The article says that that has happened against the background of the recent vote for the post of Deputy Presiding Officer, when Mr Murray Tosh was elected. I suggest to the chamber and to the Presiding Officer that this seems to be a quite outrageous attempt to fetter the discretion of MSPs. I seek the Presiding Officer's guidance as to whether such an undertaking, if given by MSPs or potential MSPs, would be in breach of the Parliament's code of conduct. I am thinking in particular of the key principles in section 2 of the code.
I also seek guidance as to whether the Parliament has any sanction against any outside political organisation that seeks to bind members in such a way.
I am again grateful to the member for having given me notice of a point of order, giving me time to consider it.
I do not think that it is correct to say that the Scottish executive of the Labour party is requiring such a pledge. What the Sunday Herald reported was a request from an internal party committee convener for it to do so. As such, it is an internal Labour party matter and not one for me.
However, I will say this: all Parliaments jealously guard their right freely to choose those who are to preside over them. In this Parliament, that is clearly marked by the fact that elections for Presiding Officers are the only occasions on which we have a secret ballot. Accordingly, if any member is approached by anybody asking how they voted, they should politely but firmly refuse to answer.