Plenary, 18 Jan 2001

Meeting date: Thursday, January 18, 2001

Official Report 747KB pdf

---

Points of Order

I said earlier that I would come back to the question of today's ministerial statement. I said this afternoon that I accept responsibility for everything that was said by my deputy in the chair. That remains the position. Unfortunately, George Reid, inadvertently and in all good faith, gave information to the chamber that was not correct.

On 2 November, the Presiding Officers agreed the statement that I made and that I quoted earlier. This morning, while Patricia Ferguson was in the chair, I reviewed the press coverage with George Reid and we came to the view that the sanction outlined in November should be applied. We also agreed to consult Patricia Ferguson when she left the chair. Unhappily, and unknown to George Reid, I was involved in another meeting at that time and, due to a breakdown in communication, Patricia Ferguson was not consulted. Mr Reid therefore made the statement as agreed and I take full responsibility for what happened.

On the matter of apparent prior knowledge of the ruling, I am completely baffled by how it occurred. I am satisfied, on the basis of my inquiries, that no Presiding Officer and no member of staff relayed any information.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Like many members, I am not happy about the first part of your answer. On the second part, an investigation is going on into leaks from committees. Would it be competent—as you and the other Presiding Officers are also members of the Parliament—to use that same procedure to investigate the leaks, which clearly occurred? The press were aware of your ruling in advance and, as a result, many members in the chamber were also aware of what was about to happen. There should be an investigation. Can we use the procedure that applies to committee leaks? If not, what other procedures are available to ensure a proper investigation?

I want to be as helpful as possible, Mr Henry. The code of conduct refers to committee proceedings, not to what the Presiding Officers are doing. However, as I have heard from various quarters that there was prior knowledge of the ruling and we do not know how that happened, if anyone can enlighten us on it, I would be very grateful. I am happy to continue inquiries.

Notwithstanding what you say, Presiding Officer, I am asking what procedure is available to allow an investigation to be undertaken into how this happened.

I have already investigated the matter as far as I could so far; I am willing to continue that investigation, if I can be helped by others who may have more information than I have already ascertained.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Given the intensity of the desire to investigate this matter, will you rule that there should be an intense investigation into how the material from this morning's statement appeared in the newspapers. That is the issue.

That is not the point that we are discussing at the moment. I have already ruled on the wider issue.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. My point follows on from what Mr Russell said. There is a deliberate attempt to muddy the issue. The issue is the gross discourtesy exhibited to Parliament by Scottish Executive ministers. I asked the First Minister about that at question time today. Would it be in order for you to invite the First Minister to explain how the material got into the press, to extend an apology to the Parliament and to take steps to ensure that there is no repetition of this practice?

If I may say so, what the First Minister said this afternoon was extremely helpful. All of us—including me and my office—should move on and learn from this episode.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. It is clear that there is no consensus on this issue. Are you acknowledging in your statement that the information on the ruling was available to individuals before your deputy made his ruling?

What I said, very carefully, concerned the matter of apparent prior knowledge. It appears to me that there was prior knowledge—although I have no definite proof of it—as it appears to you and many others that there was. I continue to be concerned about that.

Let us have some clarity, Presiding Officer. It does not "appear" to me or my colleagues; I can confirm to you, as I confirmed to the Deputy Presiding Officer, that individuals had knowledge of the ruling before it was made.

That is a matter of great concern to me, as it is to you, but I have not been able to establish how it occurred. I am willing to continue to look into the matter if others who may have further knowledge will help me.

Let us move to decision time, as I have 10 questions—

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I would like further clarification on the consequences of the misinformation that we were given this morning. Because of that misinformation, there was a drive not to hear the minister's statement. I expressed my concern at the time about the fact that the people who suffered as a result of anxieties about leaks from the Scottish Executive were the back-bench members, who did not have access to the statement and were not allowed to hear it. I would like you to reflect on that and on the fact that the justification for our not hearing the minister's statement was based on misinformation.

On the matter of misinformation, I accept responsibility. It is not fair to blame Mr Reid, as he was acting entirely as we had agreed.

On the second point, I have said that we will discuss the matter in the Parliamentary Bureau next week, to see how we can arrange for the chamber to have a substantive discussion on the issues that we missed out on this morning.

I ask you to bear in mind the fact that the main issue was the Presiding Officer's attempt to protect the rights of the Parliament.

Order. You must sit down. I am still speaking.

I am aware that, because of my decision, back-bench members lost an opportunity to participate. That must be rectified. Therefore, I am asking the Parliamentary Bureau to consider the matter next week. We will do so as quickly as possible.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I asked you to clarify, in dealing with discourtesies to the Parliament, that not only was information allegedly provided before the debate, but a further discourtesy was paid to the Parliament when the statement was not allowed to be made, which meant that back-bench members such as me were unable to ask questions.

We could argue about this matter for ever. I made my ruling this morning. Some members may not like it, but that was the ruling that I made. In my opinion, it was in the best interests of the Parliament.