Plenary, 18 Jan 2001

Meeting date: Thursday, January 18, 2001

Official Report 747KB pdf

---

Non-departmental Public Bodies

The next item of business is a statement by Angus MacKay, on a review of non-departmental public bodies in Scotland.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Yet again, we have seen a ministerial statement widely trailed in the press. It has been trailed in The Scotsman and, at 7.30 this morning, there were details of it on Ceefax. I am talking about specific details in the press before the minister has made his statement to the Parliament. I have asked the Presiding Officers many times—and I am asking again—whether you will require ministers to look at this matter closely and whether, in your view, the ministers are in contempt of the Parliament by giving information out to the press before they do so to the chamber.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer.

Is it on the same subject?

It is on an identical point. Suffice it to say that I, too, was greatly concerned about what I saw in the press this morning. I am not given to being pernickety; I hope that I do not have a reputation for being tiresome for the sake of being tiresome. It is not for me to chastise the minister—perhaps it is as well for him that it is not—but it is for you, Presiding Officer, to determine how to deal with conduct that, in my opinion, deeply damages the institution of the Parliament and its integrity, authority and stature. It is for you to determine how to deal with persons who are guilty of conduct that insolently and dismissively questions and impugns the authority of this institution.

Tricia Marwick and Miss Goldie have raised important issues, which have been considered this morning in some detail by all three Presiding Officers. We have examined this morning's media, which cover this issue in detail—column after column, page after page and story after story. We then carefully compared the content of the media reports with the content of the minister's proposed remarks. This is a subject on which the Presiding Officer has warned ministers on a number of occasions, specifically on Thursday 2 November, when he said, as a basic principle:

"We do not expect to read in the newspapers what will be said in Parliament—we expect to read what has been said."—[Official Report, 2 November 2000; Vol 8, c 1259.]

Today's press briefings have clearly given dates, details and policy objectives. Therefore, with regret, on this occasion I intend to take the minister's statement as read and to move directly to questions. I say to the minister, in fairness, that if he fears that there are matters that have not yet been put into the public domain, I shall most certainly give him extended time to cover those matters in response to questions. I call Mr Gibson.

It is regrettable that the shameful actions of the Scottish Government have led to this decision today. For the record, I received the statement only 40 minutes ago.

To the point, Mr Gibson.

I do not know about you, Presiding Officer, but I have a feeling of déjà vu this morning. On 9 February last year, Jack McConnell launched a consultation document on appointments to quangos. Since the consultation process was completed—

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I draw to your attention the fact that I was unable to listen to the radio this morning and I have not read the newspapers because I have been working on constituency business. I would welcome the opportunity to hear the minister's statement.

I have already ruled on that. I have ruled specifically, making it clear that this is the common view of all three Presiding Officers.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I may be wrong in this, but it seemed to me from the reaction in the press gallery that the press had advance indication of this ruling as well.

I have no knowledge of that whatever. Please continue, Mr Gibson.

Since the consultation process was completed, it has lain gathering dust on the shelves. Labour's much-vaunted bonfire is not even a smouldering ember.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Does Mr Gibson intend to ask a question or are we going to be subjected to a speech?

I ask Mr Gibson again to get to the content of the matter and to put his question.

Indeed, quangos continue to proliferate, with three quango births last December alone and more in the pipeline. Perhaps the minister could tell us how many quangos have come into existence in Scotland since new Labour came to power and how many have been merged or abolished over the same period. Rather than simply consult, the Government must commit itself to democratise, scrutinise and—where possible—merge or abolish quangos altogether.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. There is a genuine point here. Some of us have no idea about the statement—and this is the Parliament, after all. Is the ministerial statement available?

My belief is that it has been made available. Members from all parts of the chamber are waving it at you, Mr Rumbles. Extra copies are available at the back of the chamber. Mr Gibson, please get on and conclude—

Yes, minister.

An unfortunate turn of phrase, Presiding Officer.

I genuinely want to raise a point of order. I preface it by saying, very briefly, that I have not discussed the details of my statement with members of the press. I have certainly been asked to provide that information, but I have refused to do so.

In the light of that, Presiding Officer, perhaps you could give me and the rest of the chamber some guidance as to what the normal practice is, in terms of informing either the minister concerned or the Minister for Parliament, Mr McCabe, that you are intending to make a ruling that will deny that minister the opportunity to make a statement. I ask that for information.

I hope that advance notice would normally be given to the minister and to the Minister for Parliament. I do not know whether that happened on this occasion.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I have now been handed the statement and I want to represent my constituents in the discussion, but I am placed at a disadvantage. Other people have had the statement or were aware that the statement was not going to be heard and could read the press. I am unable to ask a question on the issue, because I cannot read quickly enough—

Order.

My constituents have been disfranchised and I want to know how that is to be dealt with.

I do not regard that as a point of order; I am going to close that down and get back to business as quickly as possible. The papers are available at the back of the chamber to members of all parties, equally.

Please conclude briefly, Mr Gibson.

After four years of new Labour, we need action on this important issue. Given that, on 7 December, the Minister for Finance and Local Government stated in the chamber that he would make an announcement before the end of the year on a small business rates scheme—an event that has not yet happened—we should be forgiven if we do not hold our breath concerning the proposed time scale for action on this issue.

I ask the minister to explain what action the Scottish Government now plans to take, specifically in respect of the responses to Mr McConnell's previous consultation. Alternatively, is the minister, as his statement implies, lumping those responses in with the review that was announced today?

For the record, will the minister outline exactly which categories of non-departmental public bodies will be covered by the review? Does he agree that his statement on the commitment and dedication of those serving on public bodies is somewhat at odds with the First Minister's comment that Scotland is smothered by unelected, unwanted and increasingly corrupt quangos? Can he advise us whether the Scottish Government has a view on which quangos—other than the symbolic Scottish Homes—to consider for abolition?

I am somewhat nonplussed about how to begin answering questions on the statement, given that Mr Gibson has the benefit of having had a copy of it for 40 minutes while other members have not had that privilege. It seems to me that I could conduct this discussion in private with Mr Gibson as fruitfully as I can here in public, as other members have not had the opportunity to listen to what I have to say and, not having had the benefit of the statement, cannot engage fruitfully in a discussion about its contents.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I had to endure a number of points of order while I was questioning the minister.

I gave a television interview at 10.55 this morning, based on Mr MacKay's statement, despite the fact that I did not receive it until 11.35.

That is not a point of order, Mr Gibson.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. You have made an unprecedented ruling that the minister should not make a statement. We are also in the unprecedented situation that the press were aware—I make this clear to you, Presiding Officer—of the ruling that you were going to make. You may not be aware of that, but I can confirm to you that members of the press gallery were aware that that was going to happen. Parliamentary process is being turned on its head. I strongly recommend that we now suspend the meeting. There is no point whatever in the minister continuing to try to answer questions on a statement that the chamber has not heard.

I can confirm to Mr McCabe that I have no knowledge whatever of the press being aware of this. I say to the chamber only what I said in my opening remarks in response to the points of order made by Miss Goldie and Tricia Marwick, which is that Sir David Steel has raised this matter on, I think, six separate occasions. The matter was considered by all three Presiding Officers. I hoped that the minister would have been informed in advance.

Mr McCabe, it is my intention to continue as best we can, for the simple reason that, as I said to the minister in my opening remarks, if there is any point of public policy that he feels has not been touched on in the public media, I shall allow him to deal with it in his remarks.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Not having briefed the media on this subject and not having read any of the written media in which this is presumably printed, I am, like many of my colleagues, not able to decide which points of public interest are currently in the public domain and which are not. You, as Presiding Officer, are instructing, or advising, me that I should do so, but I cannot fulfil that in any good faith.

I gave you leeway, Mr MacKay. Having given you that leeway, I ask you to respond to the points made by Mr Gibson. Will you do so now, please?

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I say again that it is not possible for a minister in Scotland to answer questions in this chamber on a statement that has not been made.

I have given the joint ruling. Mr MacKay, could you respond, please, to the points raised by Mr Gibson?

Presiding Officer, can you confirm whether, when you were considering your position on this matter—if a statement had been given to the press in advance, presumably individual members raised their legitimate concerns with you in advance—you discussed directly with any members their concerns and whether you advised any members of how you intended to rule?

No. Sir David Steel and I considered the matter. When I took the chair, I did not know the final judgment, because Patricia Ferguson had to go back and consult Sir David. Could you now respond to the points made by Mr Gibson?

On a point of order. [Members: "Oh."] Sorry, but it is deliberate. This is a very serious situation. I say again: it is impossible for a minister to answer questions. On behalf of the Government, my advice to the minister would be that he should not answer questions in the chamber.

Are you declining to answer questions, Mr MacKay?

As far as I understand it, having not made a statement—

Does the minister know what is in his statement?

Presiding Officer, this is reducing events to the farcical. I am afraid that this sets a very bad precedent for how the business of the Parliament should be conducted, particularly on a subject that is of as serious import as this one is. In my view, I have tried to the best of my ability to answer Mr Gibson's questions. I had not finished doing so—there are one or two further points that I would make. I cannot see what this situation contributes to the debate on the subject.

I regret very much that, following the decision, which was reached, as I said, by the three Presiding Officers jointly after considerable consideration, the debate has degenerated into what Mr MacKay called a farce. Frankly, I cannot see how I can produce meaningful dialogue in the chamber this morning. Therefore, with the agreement of the chamber, my proposal is to move to the next item of business, which is consideration of business motion S1M-1550, in the name of Tom McCabe—

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Will we have another opportunity to question the minister about his statement once we have had the opportunity to read it?

We are entering uncharted territory this morning, Mr Canavan, as you are well aware. I assume that, after this meeting, the matter will be discussed through the usual channels, involving the business managers and the Presiding Officers. I assume that a subsequent occasion will be found to discuss the subject.

I believe that Ms Marwick has a point of order.

On a point of order.

We will go to Ms Marwick first.

Mr Canavan raised an important point. The complaint that the SNP and the Conservatives have had since the inception of this Parliament is that information is going to the media before we get a chance to ask questions about it. This is a farcical situation. Details were reported in the press, but we are still being denied the opportunity to ask the minister questions and to have the minister answer them. It seems to me that ministers are happier to have information in the public domain than they are to answer questions in the Parliament.

Does Mr McCabe wish to make a further point?

Yes. First, Presiding Officer, there is little point in your depending on the usual channels to resolve a situation that was not discussed before you created it—your ruling this morning created this situation. Secondly, in response to Mr Canavan's point, I would not expect ministers to answer questions in the chamber on statements that they have not been able to make.

Clearly, further discussions will take place.

Allow me to continue, please. I am trying to bring this matter to a reasonably dignified conclusion.

I have tried to produce dialogue in the chamber this morning; that attempt clearly has not been successful. I recognise that we have reached a stalemate. The best course for the chamber now would be, as I suggested earlier, to proceed to the consideration of the next item of business, which is the business motion.

The Presiding Officers, conjointly, will give attention to the points that have been raised. I hope that that will be successful and that we can bring this rather unhappy morning in the chamber to a conclusion, at least at this point.