Points of Order
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I raise a point of order, under rule 13.2 of the Parliament's standing orders, on the Scottish Government's announcement yesterday on the Scottish futures trust, which is probably the most important issue in a very sparse Government policy and legislative landscape, and affects directly whether local authorities will be able to fund hundreds of much-needed modern schools and hospitals throughout Scotland.
It is outrageous that the announcement should bypass the Parliament and be made by the First Minister at an industry conference and media briefing. I go further and say that it is a direct snub by the Government to the authority of this Parliament. Instead of a ministerial statement or a debate—instead of this Parliament and the elected representatives of the people cross-examining ministers on the biggest U-turn yet by this Government—the Scottish Government ran up the white flag and bottled its plain duty to this Parliament. The excuse was that the announcement was made to Parliament by way of an inspired parliamentary question, a method that was designed for far less significant announcements.
Presiding Officer, I seek your advice on whether that was appropriate. As you are aware, there is specific guidance from the Presiding Officers, which was approved fairly recently, on when ministerial statements are appropriate. The guidance states that statements are appropriate on
"matters of significant and … on-going public … importance … issues where there is Parliamentary and public expectation that the Executive will want to explain its … position"—
the Scottish futures trust is manifestly such an issue—and "set-piece occasions". The announcement of the Scottish futures trust qualifies under all those headings.
It is manifest that the Scottish National Party Government could and should have programmed a ministerial statement, as the guidance encourages it to do. We are inundated with ministerial statements by the Administration on matters of modest parliamentary significance. Ministers will be telling us next that the legislative programme or the budget can be announced by means of an inspired PQ.
It is true that after I made a fuss in the Parliamentary Bureau, the Minister for Parliamentary Business—realising, no doubt, that the game was up—offered a ministerial statement on the matter in the business motion that he will move tonight. That is totally inadequate. A statement next week is about as useful as swimming trunks to an Eskimo.
Presiding Officer, I seek your guidance. The procedure that has been used on this occasion manifestly breaches both the spirit and the letter of your guidance on ministerial statements. Are you able to assist the Parliament on this matter?
I thank the member for giving me advance notice of his point of order.
The minister has indicated that he would like to respond, so I will give him an opportunity to do so. I refer members to the good-practice guidance on announcements by the Scottish Executive or Government, which sets out a number of methods by which the Government can make statements to the Parliament. It is for the Government to decide which of those methods is most appropriate in the circumstances, but this is clearly a matter of some importance. I am sure that the minister heard what the member had to say.
Presiding Officer, thank you for giving me the opportunity to respond. I thank Robert Brown for giving me notice that he intended to raise this point of order.
I do not want to get involved in the invective that Robert included in his point of order, but I point out that many of the ministerial statements that we have made in the Parliament were requested by members of the bureau. On many occasions, such statements have been made at the request of the Opposition, so it is not accurate for the member to suggest that all ministerial statements are Government contrived. I can prove that case.
I put on record that the Scottish Government has followed to the letter the Presiding Officers' good-practice guidance on announcements by the Scottish Government. The guidance, which was agreed by all business managers, outlines five steps that may be taken when major policy or spending announcements are to be made. I emphasise the word "major". We have taken not one but three of those five steps. First, we agreed that John Swinney should appear before the Finance Committee next week to make a ministerial statement, as the committee requested. Secondly, we wrote to the convener of the Finance Committee to inform him of the business plan for the Scottish futures trust that the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth has outlined. Thirdly, as Robert indicated, yesterday the bureau agreed unanimously that the Government should make a statement on the matter, although perhaps not exactly when Robert would like it to be made.
I caution the minister against the use of first names only.
I apologise.
We have taken three of the major steps that are set out in the Presiding Officers' guidance.
I am aware that concerns have been expressed about an announcement that Richard Lochhead is making this afternoon and I am looking into whether good-practice guidance has been followed in that case.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. The minister's response is entirely inadequate. It does not deal with the issues that Robert Brown was right to raise and it makes a mockery of you and the Parliament. We are talking about a major statement that ought to have been made to Parliament, but which was made in a press conference outside this Parliament. Precisely the same thing happened with the ScotRail franchise extension statement—
I am not entirely clear what your point of order is.
I suggest that because the minister's statement was inadequate, you should take back to the bureau the whole question of ministerial statements. You will remember that last week I raised my concern about what was a party-political broadcast by the First Minister—a statement with no substance whatsoever. Now we have some real substance, there ought to be a statement to Parliament. You and the bureau should take that on board—
I do not accept that this is a genuine point of order. What is right or wrong is for me to determine in this chamber. I said in response to Mr Brown's point of order that the matter is of some importance and it is for the Government to decide how to go about making statements. I respectfully suggest that both members have had the opportunity to make their points and that they are now on the record.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. In that context, there is a precedent in this Parliament. When the content of a statement was released to the press in advance of the material being discussed in the chamber, the minister concerned was obliged by the Presiding Officer at the time to come to the chamber and was not given the opportunity to make the statement that he intended to make. We cannot simply ignore such precedents, Presiding Officer. It has to be the case that if ministers do something that is clearly outwith the requirements for a major statement that should come to Parliament first, they are held to account by the bureau and yourself. The precedent has to be addressed.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I ask you to confirm that information about the Scottish futures trust and the inspired PQ was sent to the convener of the Finance Committee before—[Interruption.]
Order.
That happened before anything appeared in the media. The situation is completely different from the one referred to by Des McNulty.
I point out that the matter should be addressed by the good-practice guidance on announcements. Given the points raised in the chamber today, I will be amazed if the matter is not raised in the Parliamentary Bureau, which is the right place for such discussions to take place, rather than in the chamber. Members have had their opportunity to put their points on the record and I suggest that we move to the next item of business.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. It is on a related but different topic, which the Minister for Parliamentary Business mentioned it in his comments. Members will have noticed that the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and the Environment is not in the chamber at the moment. According to the BBC, that is because he is currently in Pittenweem in my constituency, where he is unveiling
"proposals aimed at strengthening Scotland's coastal fishing communities for ‘generations to come'."
Although I welcome Mr Lochhead's recognition of the importance of the village-based fishing industry, particularly in Pittenweem, I am deeply concerned by yet another example of discourtesy to this Parliament and its members by a Government minister. It is surely not acceptable that a constituency member should learn of a visit to his constituency through the BBC. It is surely a serious discourtesy to the Parliament and the many members who represent fishing communities that Mr Lochhead is in Pittenweem making an important announcement on Government fishing policies to the press and not to Parliament.
Will you look into this matter in order to protect the right of all members of the Scottish Parliament to represent their constituents by questioning ministers on their policies? Will you raise with the First Minister the need to ensure that his ministers follow the protocols on visits to constituencies and that the ministerial code is followed, which states clearly that important Government policy announcements are to be made to the Parliament in the first instance? Just for information, Presiding Officer, there has not yet been an inspired PQ and no information has been given to Parliament about this important fishing announcement.
I thank the member for advance notice of his point of order. He raises two issues. With regard to the minister not informing the member of the visit to his constituency, I ask the member to raise the matter with me in writing under the code of conduct and I will look into it.
Secondly, I am unaware of the content of the announcement to which the member refers, but I take the opportunity to remind the Government that major policy announcements should not enter the public domain before or without being communicated to the Parliament. That principle is covered, as we have just discussed, in the good-practice guidance on announcements by the Scottish Executive and in the ministerial code.
I suggest that we are eating greatly into time for a very important subject.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. With regard to the Minister for Parliamentary Business's point of order, the e-mail in question was not circulated to Finance Committee members until a quarter to 11 yesterday, by which time the matter had been covered on "Good Morning Scotland" and the Scottish Government's website.
Again, if the member raises the issue in writing with me, I will consider it.
We really should move to the next—and very important—item of business. We have already eaten severely into the time allowed for questions.