Points of Order
I will take Mr Swinney's point of order.
I ask, Presiding Officer, whether you have received a request under rule 13.2.2 of standing orders for an urgent ministerial statement on the national health service. Today we learned from an Executive press release that the First Minister has authorised a review of the composition of waiting lists in our hospitals. Furthermore, the Minister for Health and Community Care has disclosed that, contrary to information that was given to Parliament—not once by the Minister for Health and Community Care, but twice by the First Minister—there are a number of closed waiting lists in hospitals in Scotland. That directly contradicts the answers that I was given over two successive weeks at First Minister's question time.
As a result of that disclosure of substantial new information, which involves the misleading of Parliament over the past two weeks at First Minister's question time, can I ask whether you have received a request for a ministerial statement on the issue and whether provision can be made for that later this afternoon?
The answer is that you can certainly ask, and that I have not received any request to make a statement. The member, no doubt, will wish to pursue the matter at question time tomorrow.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I regret to say that I have two short points of order. First, I wonder whether you can offer me guidance on whether you have received any intimation of which member of the Parliament will be speaking for the Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Bill at stage 3.
Secondly—and this is slightly connected—will you confirm the view of The Scotsman newspaper yesterday, which stated that it would be highly unusual for an amendment that had been rejected at stage 2 to be resubmitted and accepted for debate at stage 3?
I am grateful that you, like Mr Swinney, gave me notice of those points of order.
On the second point, the answer is that the report in yesterday's edition of The Scotsman was incorrect. I draw members' attention to "Guidance on Public Bills", paragraph 4.58 of which sets out in detail how amendments are selected. I will not bore members by repeating it now. If an amendment in a committee is defeated narrowly or approved narrowly, that is always in the mind of the Presiding Officer when deciding whether to reselect an amendment for debate at stage 3.
On the first part of your point of order, on the handling of the bill, I would like to take more advice this afternoon and come back to that matter before decision time at 5 o'clock.
I believe that Andrew Wilson also has a point of order. I ask him to raise it now, as I would like to deal with all the points of order now, given that he gave me notice of it.
Thank you, Sir David; I was instructed otherwise.
I have two points of order to make on the same subject. The first is that on Monday of this week, the Executive held a press conference at 9.30 am to launch its highly controversial document, "Government Expenditure and Revenue in Scotland 1999-2000". I noticed that the Executive's website claimed that the document had been laid before the Parliament by lunchtime.
I understand that there is an understanding between the Presiding Officer's office and the Executive that when such documents are launched, they will be laid before the Parliament before or at least no later than the time by which they are given to the media. I understand that that document was not in the hands of the parliamentary clerk and therefore not laid before Parliament before 4 pm that day. That made it impossible for us to do our job as a Parliament—to scrutinise the work of the Executive in adequate detail—before the media had completed its own scheduling. I ask for your views on that and on the gross discourtesy to Parliament and the democratic process.
A second, but directly related point is that I understand that your agreements can be between only this Parliament and the Executive. How could that be revised to cover the issue of information by the Executive to London ministers?
On Sunday of this week, a briefing was given by the Secretary of State for Scotland to The Herald newspaper, which gave a crude party-political spin on the contents of the document that was not laid before the Parliament until 24 hours later. That is despite the fact that the document was funded out of the Scottish budget and produced by the Executive, which is responsible to the Parliament.
I believe that a serious constitutional issue is at stake. Is it really the case that London ministers can ride roughshod over the agreements of the Parliament for their own narrow party-political ends as they seek to carve out a role for themselves?
Will the Presiding Officer protect the Parliament? One possible route is to extend the same agreement so that London ministers cannot be briefed by the Executive until the same time as, or after, the Parliament has been briefed on an issue.
I would like to hear your views, Presiding Officer.
I am grateful to all three members for giving me advance notice of their points of order.
I have inquired into the point that Mr Wilson raised. It is not strictly a point of order, but I have some sympathy with the complaint because, as the member said, there is an agreement between Parliament officials and the Executive that all documents that are to be laid before Parliament should be laid prior to, and certainly no later than, any announcement or press launch by the Executive. I have previously ruled, as members know, on the general issue of Parliament being properly informed at the right time. I deprecate the sequence of events in this particular case.
On the member's second point about whether the Scotland Office should have been briefed, it is not for me to get involved in discussions between the Scotland Office and the Executive. In fact, I regard the Scotland Office as part of the public domain, which should not receive information before Parliament receives it.—[Members: "Oh!"]
Have we disposed of all points of order?
Further to that final point of order and your ruling on the matter, Presiding Officer, would it not be a courtesy to Parliament if we perhaps heard from the Minister for Parliamentary Business? She is in the chamber and has an opportunity to deal with the issues while they are on the boil.
With great respect, it is nothing to do with the Minister for Parliamentary Business; the point has been raised with me. Clearly, there has been an error in this case, and I have expressed my view on it. It does not matter to whom the information is sent; the fact is that documents have to be laid before the Parliament first. That is the principle that I want to uphold.