Plenary, 17 Mar 2004

Meeting date: Wednesday, March 17, 2004

Official Report 418KB pdf

---

Point of Order

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. On 29 October 2003, I raised a point of order in which I asked the Presiding Officer whether he was minded to accept for debate an appropriate motion to require the BBC to hand over the tapes so that Parliament could allow Lord Fraser access to them. In his response, the Presiding Officer said

"If such a motion were lodged, I would consider it at that point in relation to the wider picture."—[Official Report, 29 October 2003; c 2636.]

There is such a motion now in the business bulletin in the name of Margo MacDonald. It has my support and that of various other members of different parties. Can the Presiding Officer, or you as Deputy Presiding Officer, use any discretionary powers to facilitate a debate on Margo MacDonald's motion or any similar motion?

The only mechanism that is available to me would be to accept a motion without notice. It would be most remiss of me to do that given that Parliament has just agreed a business motion. All that I can suggest is that Mr Canavan and anyone else who agrees with him might wish to raise the issue with the Parliamentary Bureau, which is the appropriate channel. I think that the Presiding Officer ought not to rule on the matter on his or her own.

Further to that point of order, Presiding Officer. If they are so minded, members can sign the motion that has been lodged, which would commit them to nothing other than having a debate.

Will you rule whether, in your estimation, section 23 of the Scotland Act 1998 empowers the Scottish Parliament to compel witnesses and the production of documents? Section 23 appears on page 10 and is entitled "Power to call for witnesses and documents". If you do not feel happy giving me a ruling now, will you tell me whether the Executive or the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body has sought legal advice on the interpretation of what appears to be a fairly straightforward provision?

I cannot speak for the Executive, but I am happy to repeat the advice that is available to the Presiding Officer and which was given in the chamber previously. We are advised that section 23 of the Scotland Act 1998 can be used by Parliament to require the production of documents in relation to its proceedings. It does not enable a requirement to be made that a third party produce documents. That is why the power is not available to the Fraser inquiry. We have seen no grounds that lead us to believe that the ruling does not continue to be pertinent.

Further to that point of order, Presiding Officer. With respect, the act does not refer to the proceedings of the Parliament but to the general responsibility that is exercised by a minister. In this case, the general responsibility is exercised by the Minister for Finance and Public Services, who has to sign the cheques to pay for the project whose costs are the subject of the inquiry. I suggest that there is perhaps a small link there.

Nothing in the motion and nothing in what Mr Canavan and I have said would allow Parliament to dispose of the tapes to a third party. Parliament would be given temporary ownership of the material on the tapes, but it would be up to Parliament to decide how it wanted to dispose of the information.

I hear what the member says, but I have stated the thrust of the legal opinion that is available to the Presiding Officer. As ever, it is open to members to come up with further interpretations and arguments, which the Presiding Officer will consider and take advice on where necessary. I repeat that, given the opinion that we have received, we see no basis on which to change the previous ruling.