Presiding Officer’s Ruling
Before we move to decision time, I return to Willie Rennie’s earlier point of order. I repeat what the Deputy Presiding Officer said: the veracity of answers either inside or outside the chamber is not the responsibility of the Presiding Officers.
However, the First Minister has requested the opportunity to respond to the points that Willie Rennie raised.
The First Minister (Alex Salmond)
Thank you, Presiding Officer. With your permission, I wish to make a short statement in the light of the point of order that Willie Rennie made earlier this afternoon.
I have repeatedly made it clear in the chamber and elsewhere that, under the terms of the ministerial code, neither I nor other ministers can comment on either the existence or the content of legal advice without prior permission from law officers. We now have that permission in one specific case, as the Deputy First Minister outlined earlier today. I have maintained that position in the chamber on a number of occasions since March 4 this year—the date of my BBC interview with Andrew Neil, to which Willie Rennie drew attention. As the full transcript of that interview makes very clear, I was talking about the issue of Scotland’s continued European Union membership in terms of general debate and in terms of many eminent legal opinions that were offered.
I was also—as the interview makes clear—speaking in terms of the various Scottish Government documents that contain reference to an independent Scotland’s membership of the European Union. Those publications are, “Choosing Scotland’s Future”, which was published in August 2007, at page 24; “Your Scotland, Your Voice”, which was published in November 2009, at page 107; and “Your Scotland, Your Referendum”, which was published in January this year, at page 4. All those documents are underpinned by legal advice from our law officers: they have to be. That is the reality.
I will read very briefly the transcript—the full transcript—of the interview. I cited Eamonn Gallagher, Emile Noël and Lord Mackenzie-Stuart as eminent authorities. Andrew Neil then said to me:
“We’ve established that it is unprecedented, although you’re trying to give a guarantee. Have you sought advice from your ... Scottish Law Officers in this matter?”
I replied:
“We have, yes, in terms of the debate, and obviously...”
At that stage, he interrupted and asked:
“what did they say?”
I said:
“Well you could read that in the documents that we’ve put forward, which argue the position that we’d be successful.”
He asked:
“But what do they say?”
to which I replied:
“You know I can’t give you the legal advice, or reveal the legal advice of Law Officers. You know that Andrew.”
He said:
“But this is about the future of Scotland”,
to which I replied:
“Yes but what you can say is everything we’ve published is consistent with the legal advice that we received.”
In the interview—as is clear from that full transcript—I specifically refused to depart from the convention on specific legal advice, despite being pressured to do so by Mr Neil. Indeed, that is the position that I and other ministers have held to at all points subsequent to the interview and until earlier today, when the Deputy First Minister made her statement to Parliament, with the permission of the law officers.
I am happy to place a full transcript of that interview in the Scottish Parliament information centre at the earliest opportunity. Unlike some of the partial accounts and transcripts that have been circulated elsewhere, it makes that position and the content absolutely clear.
Finally, in one of the partial transcripts, I have been described as “a bare-faced liar”. The quotation that is used to justify that has me saying in response to Mr Neil:
“We have, yes … You know I can’t release the legal advice of law officers, Andrew.”
It misses out 27 words across three separate answers, which can be seen in the full transcript. I ask Paul Martin, as a member of the Scottish Parliament, to reflect on the number of adjectives we could include in 27 words between the names “Paul” and “Martin”. That is no way to conduct a debate. The full transcript of the interview will be in the Scottish Parliament information centre, and members will be able to see that what was being talked about was Government documents and publications. I hope that, at a suitable opportunity, those who have made those assertions—although admittedly they did so outside the chamber—will have the courtesy and integrity to withdraw them.
Willie Rennie (Mid Scotland and Fife) (LD)
Further to my earlier point of order, Presiding Officer. Despite the First Minister’s attempt, I am afraid that he has not cleared up the matter. He was asked a simple question by Andrew Neil, who is a respected journalist for the BBC. He was asked if he had sought the advice of his law officers. He said, “We have, yes.” It was a straightforward question and he answered, “Yes, we have received advice from the law officers.”
The First Minister went on to say—
Mr Rennie, we really cannot conduct debates through points of order. Can you bring your remarks to a close?
I will bring my remarks to a close. This is a very serious matter, Presiding Officer, because the First Minister has not cleared up the issue. He said,
“Everything that we have said is consistent with the legal advice we have received.”
He said “received”, and the context was that he was talking about the law officers. The First Minister has not cleared up the matter. I urge him to come forward and clarify exactly what he said, because he has not done so, so far.
First Minister, if you wish, you can make a further brief comment.
I admit that Willie Rennie did not add some of the descriptions that other people have used, but it is not a good idea for him to miss out the phrases
“in terms of the debate”
and
“Well you could read that in the documents that we’ve put forward, which argue the position that we’d be successful.”
As I have pointed out, all the documents that I have listed were underpinned by legal advice from our law officers. That is different from the specific legal advice on a specific matter that the Deputy First Minister announced to members this afternoon. Any fair-minded person—I am aware that that excludes a number of people—would consider that the matter has been well and truly cleared up by the full transcript of the interview.
Paul Martin (Glasgow Provan) (Lab)
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I take the opportunity not to retract the statement that I made earlier today.
I also ask you, Presiding Officer, to ask the Government to take an early opportunity for a full and frank debate on the issue, and for the Government to reveal all the information that will allow a full and frank debate to take place. I look forward to that debate taking place at the earliest possible opportunity—possibly this week.
As I have already stated, the veracity of what is stated in the chamber is not a matter for me or the other Presiding Officers: it is for members alone. The statements that are being bandied around in the chamber were not made in the chamber but were made externally.
Mr Martin—there are plenty of opportunities in Parliament to have such a debate, but that is a matter for the Parliamentary Bureau, of which you are a member. I am sure that you will seek the first opportunity to bring it up there.