Plenary, 18 Jan 2001

Meeting date: Thursday, January 18, 2001

Official Report 747KB pdf

---

Presiding Officer's Statement

Before we begin this afternoon's business, I will make a statement about this morning's events. If injury time is required, I will allow both question times to overrun slightly.

On 2 November, in response to a point of order about the pre-publication of ministerial statement material, I said:

"I share the member's concern. I will be charitable today because we have new ministers and, no doubt, new special advisers operating. However, I had a discussion on the matter with Madam Speaker Boothroyd when she was here a few weeks ago. As members know, she fought a losing battle on the issue, but I do not propose to fight a losing battle on it in this Parliament. I will use my powers under rule 7.3 and define the pre-release of speeches as being against the rule that members must

‘conduct themselves in a courteous and respectful manner'.

The sanction that is available to me is that I may decide to take a minister's speech as read and go straight to Opposition spokesmen's and Government back benchers' speeches and give them extra time. I hope that the special advisers will pay attention to that. I will let the matter go today, but it is not to happen again."

At that point, Hugh Henry raised another point of order. He said:

"On the pre-release of speeches and how you might interpret that, would your sanction extend to the pre-release of speeches to Opposition parties, prior to delivery in the chamber?"

I replied:

"Yes, absolutely. 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.]

This morning, I noted with concern substantial reports in several newspapers about what a minister would tell Parliament in a statement. I also received notice from Annabel Goldie that she would raise a point of order on the subject. When my office received an advance copy of the statement less than an hour before it was due to be delivered in Parliament, I checked its contents carefully against the press reports, and decided that the statement contained nothing that was not already in the public domain. In one report, an Executive source was even quoted. Therefore, the Deputy Presiding Officer who was in the chair acted in accordance with my ruling of last November.

I publicly apologise to the Minister for Finance and Local Government, Mr MacKay, and the Minister for Parliament for not informing them of our decision. They have every right to feel aggrieved about that.

I recognise that, although I defended the rights of Parliament this morning, I deprived back benchers of the opportunity to question the Executive on an important aspect of policy. Accordingly, I shall ask the bureau at its next meeting to consider whether we can find another way of enabling Parliament to discuss the issue.

On a point of order. The Deputy Presiding Officer said that all three Presiding Officers had discussed and agreed to the decision that you took this morning. Is that true?

I will not go into that. I accept responsibility for what happened this morning. That is the point that I made in my statement.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Will you launch an inquiry into whether information on the ruling was given in advance to the press? I raised that point this morning, but did not get a satisfactory answer. It is important that that point is clarified for the Parliament.

No, I assure you that the press were not so informed. I have arranged already to have a long discussion later this afternoon with the Minister for Parliament about that matter.

I suggest that we do not occupy more of Parliament's time—

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. May I clarify your last statement? Are you confirming publicly that you are satisfied that no member of your office or another Presiding Officer leaked any information to the press?

I am so satisfied. If you have any suggestions to the contrary, I will be happy to discuss them with you later. At present, I am totally satisfied on that point.

I call Jim Wallace—

On a point of order. It was evident to anyone who understands how these things work that the press knew about the ruling this morning. Is not that grounds for an inquiry to establish whether someone from your office—or someone else—provided information to the press, Presiding Officer?

I have already made such inquiries as I can. That is why I just gave the answer that I did.

I am well aware that the press either were putting two and two together or had some kind of indication of the ruling. However, such information could not have come from my office, as my office did not know.

On a point of order.

On a point of order.

I will take Mr McCabe's point of order first.

Presiding Officer, you said that that information could not have come from your office, but, for further clarification, could it have come from any Presiding Officer?

I do not think so.

That is not what I asked. Could it have?

No, not as far as I am aware.

It could not have.

I do not think so.

It could not have.

I do not think so. I am as sure as I can be that it did not. However, like all these things, we should examine the situation carefully and at length later on. There is no point having a continuous argument in the chamber about it.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. How can you be satisfied that the press put two and two together about the ruling? Could not it be reasonably assumed that the press put two and two together in relation to Mr MacKay's proposed statement? This morning we should have heard that statement from Mr MacKay directly.

No, I disagree. If you were to examine the press cuttings, which are substantial, you would see that an Executive source is quoted specifically. There is no question about that.

Anyway, we will—

On a point of order.

I am not keen to continue this public argument—[Interruption.] Continue, Mr McCabe.

On your previous ruling, you have not been prepared to confirm the statement that was made this morning that all three Presiding Officers were aware of and in agreement with the ruling. In terms of natural justice, surely you should confirm whether or not that is the case.

I will discuss that matter with you later this afternoon, if I may. It is more complicated—[Interruption.] Order.

On a point of order. With all due respect, Presiding Officer, if the chamber does not agree with a ruling for which you have decreed that you will accept responsibility, whether the matter refers to the actions of one of your deputies or not, and has no confidence in you, is not it the case that the proper route is a motion of no confidence in the chair, because you accepted that responsibility?

I think that that is correct. I invite—[Interruption.]

On a point of order.

Order. Just a minute, Ms Lamont.

I invite members to accept that I accept responsibility for what happened this morning. Mr McCabe and I can continue discussing later the rights and wrongs, what happened and who said what to whom.

On that issue, the problem is not whether you take that responsibility; rather, it is the fact that a statement was made in the chamber this morning that all three Presiding Officers were party to the decision. That is entirely different from saying that you take responsibility for the quality of that decision, as it is a separate matter to establish whether that decision was made by all three Presiding Officers together. That is what was said this morning.

That is not a point of order. However, I accept responsibility for everything that was said by my deputy in the chair.

Further to that point of order, Presiding Officer, and given that line of questioning, is not it the case that those who have been inquisitors are suddenly being seen as the guilty? The Minister for Finance and Local Government treated with contempt the rules of the chamber. Surely that is the issue that the Presiding Officer should address.

I do not accept that. I accept what the minister said this morning when he said that he did not convey information to the press.

I think that we should leave the matter at that.

On a point of order.

Can we move on? We are going—[Interruption.] If necessary, we can come back to the issue in the chamber, but in the meantime, Mr McCabe and I will have a discussion.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I need some clarification. Are you prepared to give the chamber an assurance that you will make a public announcement if, in private discussion, we establish that all three Presiding Officers were not party to the ruling?

I think that you and I should have a full discussion on it and decide—

Go on, answer, Presiding Officer.

Order. Let me finish. Mr McCabe, resume your seat. Let us discuss the matter and then decide whether I should make a further statement later this afternoon. I am willing to explore the matter in some detail.