Points of Order
I have received notice of at least two points of order and one motion without notice, which I intend to group and take now.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Have you received any request from the First Minister, under standing order 13.2, to make a statement to Parliament on the rules governing the removal of asylum seekers from Scotland?
You will be aware that in recent weeks the First Minister gave assurances to the Parliament that the inhumane practice of dawn raids would materially change in Scotland following on-going negotiations with the Home Office. On 29 September, he stated that
"a clear protocol should be established".—[Official Report, 29 September 2005; c 19655.]
Therefore, I am sure that the Presiding Officer will understand the concern that has been caused among members by the Home Office statements of yesterday that flatly contradict the First Minister. Those statements make it clear that there will be no protocol, no significant change to the practice of dawn raids in Scotland and no negotiations with the First Minister. I understand that it has now emerged that the First Minister has never even raised the issue of dawn raids with the Home Office—a quite astonishing revelation in the light of his previous comments in the chamber.
There are glaring discrepancies between the statements made by the First Minister in this chamber and those made by the Home Office. In the light of those discrepancies, the First Minister has a duty to explain the situation, here in the Parliament to which he is accountable.
On a further point of order, Presiding Officer. As Nicola Sturgeon says, rule 13.2 of standing orders requires members to notify the Presiding Officer of their wish to make a statement to Parliament. For the past two months, we have heard repeated assurances and commitments. Nicola Sturgeon mentioned the reference to the matter on 29 September, when the First Minister also stated that the Home Secretary
"has agreed that the establishment of such an agreement in Scotland and, perhaps, elsewhere would be advisable."—[Official Report, 29 September 2005; c 19655.]
On 27 October, the Deputy First Minister assured the Parliament that
"the First Minister and the Home Secretary have reached an agreement in principle on the issue".—[Official Report, 27 October 2005; c 20097.]
He also made it clear that the protocol would change existing practices—which are known as enforcement home visits to the Home Office and as dawn raids to the rest of us—rather than entrench them.
Yesterday, as the Presiding Officer will know, the United Kingdom immigration minister, Tony McNulty, gave a clear statement that there would be no protocol and no separate arrangements in Scotland, regardless of our devolution settlement and the distinctive child protection mechanisms that exist in Scotland, and without much regard for the First Minister either. Since the scotching of the idea is clearly an outcome of the negotiations, on which the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister both promised to report back to Parliament, will the Presiding Officer tell us whether he has received a request to make a statement? If he has not, will he undertake to investigate whether any of the assurances, commitments and other such utterances that we have heard from ministers may be seen to have misled Parliament and to constitute a breach of the ministerial code?
Margo MacDonald has a motion without notice.
I apologise, particularly to the Minister for Finance and Public Service Reform, but the matter has only just arisen. I hope, Presiding Officer, that you will look favourably on my request to move under rule 8.2.6 a motion without notice, which reads:
"The Parliament requests that the First Minister should make a statement on the discussions that have taken place between himself and Home Office Ministers concerning the methods used to remove failed asylum seekers from Scotland in the light of his spokesman's statement at lunchtime today making plain that the FM had not reflected this Parliament's opposition to the dawn raids in his meetings with Home Office Ministers to date, and Parliament further believes that in advance of his meeting tomorrow with the Home Office Minister McNulty he must re-state the Scottish Executive's position on this matter."
The two previous points of order covered most of the ground that I want to cover.
I appeal to my fellow members of the Scottish Parliament, regardless of which part of the chamber they sit in, to take the matter seriously because, outside the chamber, there was an expectation and a clear understanding that this Parliament—in the person of the First Minister—would stand up for values that we hold dear. The motion is intended not to deny the right of the Home Office to make policy but to assert our right to do the correct thing and the moral thing—as a Parliament, we have a duty to do that. We also have a legal responsibility. We do not need to go into that too deeply today, but we must know what has been said, what has been left unsaid and what should be said tomorrow in order to speak for this Parliament.
I will deal with those matters, but there may be further points of order.
I welcome the opportunity to respond briefly. I did not know that these matters were going to be raised until I came to the chamber. We may discuss that later, during the debate on the business motion.
I appreciate that many members have a long-standing commitment to supporting asylum seekers and refugees in Scotland and to meeting their needs. A good number of the members who are concerned about those issues are members of the partnership parties, which is why they supported the motion that was lodged.
Let me be absolutely clear: there is no requirement for a statement from the First Minister or from anyone else because there has been absolutely no change in the position of the First Minister or of the Scottish Executive.
What about the Home Office?
I ask Mr Swinney to allow me to continue. Any change that there may be in the practice of the Home Office would be a result of the Executive's intervention. I would have thought that that might have been welcomed as a sign that we were doing our job, but I can understand that that gives Mr Swinney some difficulty.
In the parliamentary debate on the issue that was held in September, it was agreed that Scottish ministers should continue discussions with Home Office officials with a view to reaching an agreement that Home Office officials would work closely with services for children and young people before the removal of any family. I give the Parliament an absolute assurance that that is exactly what is being done and what will continue to be done. Time and again, the First Minister has made that clear.
The Parliament has a number of opportunities to hold the First Minister and other Scottish Executive ministers to account on the views that the Parliament expresses and the work that ministers undertake. Tomorrow, we will have such an opportunity at First Minister's question time. That slot provides members with a regular opportunity to question the First Minister and I urge members who have concerns to raise them then.
This is an important and serious issue. The answer to the question that Ms Sturgeon and Mr Harvie asked, which was whether I have received a request from the First Minister to make a statement, is that I have not. Mr Harvie further requested that I conduct an investigation. That is most certainly not a matter for me, as Presiding Officer. If it is a matter for anyone, it is a matter for the First Minister, as well as for the ministerial code.
In relation to Mrs MacDonald's request, I am not persuaded to set aside the business that Parliament has decided for today. I will give my reasons. The business motion will be contested by three amendments tonight, which will provide around 20 minutes of further discussion. As the Minister for Parliamentary Business has said, the matter will be the subject of at least one set of questions during First Minister's question time tomorrow. Therefore, Mrs MacDonald's request is declined.