Official Report 680KB pdf
14:03
The next item of business is consideration of business motion S6M-20897, in the name of Graeme Dey, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, on a change to business. Any member who wishes to speak to the motion should press their request-to-speak button now.
Motion moved,
That the Parliament agrees to the following revision to the programme of business for Tuesday 24 February 2026—
delete
6.00 pm Decision Time
and insert
6.35 pm Decision Time—[Graeme Dey]
14:05
I rise to make a plea to the minister to consider granting a statement in the Parliament, either later today or tomorrow, from the Lord Advocate. The minister can look like that if he wants, but, in the past hour, we have had a dump of 70 pages of information from the Lord Advocate that contains material that is extremely damning for the Scottish National Party Government.
If those of us in the chamber thought that it was bad enough that the Lord Advocate briefed the First Minister of Scotland and the SNP leader on this case in January 2026, when nobody else knew, we simply have to go to page 6 of her bundle of papers, which shows that the Lord Advocate also briefed the First Minister of Scotland and the SNP leader, John Swinney, about this case on 20 March 2025.
For almost a year, the only person who was not involved in this criminal trial to have information about the scale of the alleged embezzlement was Scotland’s First Minister and leader of the SNP. Why did the Lord Advocate feel the need to provide that information to the SNP leader in March of last year and then again in January of this year?
On the date that the information was provided to John Swinney—20 March 2025—journalists and the public were still being told that they could not be provided with any further information. Paragraph 6 of the Lord Advocate’s memo to the First Minister on 20 March 2025 states very clearly:
“6. Crown Counsel have decided that Peter Murrell should appear on petition at Edinburgh Sheriff Court charged with embezzling over £460,000 from the SNP.”
Why did the SNP leader need to know that when nobody else in Scotland was allowed to know that? Why did the Lord Advocate, who sits in John Swinney’s Cabinet, feel that he needed to know that information but nobody else did?
Given the concerns that were raised in the chamber last week about the First Minister having perhaps a few weeks’ prior notice, I again ask the minister what it now says about our justice system, our political system and the conflict between the roles of the Lord Advocate as both head of the Crown Office and as a member of the Cabinet that this information was provided to the First Minister almost a year ago and that that was kept secret?
Does Douglas Ross agree that a Government minister has the power to indicate an intention to make a statement in order, at the very least, to clarify statements that were made to the chamber last week that may, it seems—based on what Douglas Ross is saying today—have been less than accurate?
I am very concerned about that. I have had literally a few minutes to go through 70 pages. There may be yet more questions, but some questions certainly already arise from last Wednesday’s session and from this information.
I therefore make a request of the Minister for Parliamentary Business and Veterans to add in a statement either later today or tomorrow. I cannot see why the minister would not want to do that or why the Lord Advocate would not want to come to the chamber to answer questions. If the Government does not agree to that, it will seem to some as if someone is being protected for some reason.
I also look to you, Presiding Officer. When I raised a point of order on 9 December last year about ministers committing to providing information to Parliament and then offering to release it in a different way—that is, not through a statement or to Parliament—you said:
“The ‘Scottish Ministerial Code’ states: ‘The Scottish Government should be accountable to the Scottish Parliament’.”—[Official Report, 9 December 2025; c 95-96.]
There is no accountability if the Government simply hands out 70 pages of information and refuses to answer any questions on it. [Interruption.] The minister can groan, and SNP members can be unhappy that this is being raised, but there are questions to be answered here.
For sure, there are questions to be answered by the First Minister, who, when he was questioned about this last week by Russell Findlay and other MSPs, never mentioned at all not only that had he known about it in January of this year, but that he had known about it way back in March of last year. Nobody can doubt that the Lord Advocate also needs to account for the information in these documents and the further questions that they raise.
I stress to the minister that we need to hear from the Lord Advocate in this chamber to answer those questions. I urge him to add a statement on the issue either later today or tomorrow. If he does not, I will stand up in here every day until the Government concedes. If it has something to hide, it will have to hide it. The public and wider communities across Scotland deserve answers on what is in these files.
14:10
Presiding Officer, the email from the Lord Advocate has barely warmed the Parliament’s inbox and Douglas Ross is on his feet, complaining about being dumped upon and demanding a statement from the Lord Advocate. Last week, the Lord Advocate undertook to provide further information for this Parliament. She does that today, providing extensive information and fulfilling her commitment, and she is pilloried again by Douglas Ross. It is all so predictable. I think that everyone who is watching this knows that—
Will the minister give way?
In a moment.
What we have just heard tells us all that we need to know about Douglas Ross’s motives, because some of the questions—[Interruption.]
Let us hear the minister.
The Conservatives can shout as loudly as they like. That is their tactic, normally.
Douglas Ross actually knows the answers to some of the questions that he posed. The problem is that he does not want to hear them, because he has a predetermined position on the matter and he is going to grandstand on it.
Presiding Officer, as you and the rest of the Parliament are well aware, there is a mechanism—
Will the minister give way on that point?
I will give way to Mr Kerr in a moment.
A mechanism is available through business managers to request a statement, and if a majority—[Interruption.] I hear Mr Kerr groaning. That says everything about his respect for this institution, but we knew that anyway.
There is a mechanism by which business managers can come together and request a statement, but I have no intention of bringing a statement today.
I give way to Mr Kerr. I apologise.
Let me tell the minister that I have the utmost respect for Scotland’s Parliament. Ministers should have a bit more respect for this place.
Douglas Ross, on behalf of many of us, is voicing concern about our ability to hold this Government and ministers to account. There is nothing out of order in that—nothing at all. If we are going to get caught in a web of process every time we raise an issue—and particularly one that is as timely as this, which has just occurred in the past few minutes—what does that say about the status of this Parliament as Scotland’s place where ministers and this Government are held to account?
Let me thank Mr Kerr for today’s performance. We get this every day from Mr Kerr and Mr Ross. These are serious matters and they have been dealt with seriously by the Lord Advocate, who has provided the information on the scale on which she undertook to do so. The Conservatives have not even digested that information and they are on their feet, demanding a statement.
Motion agreed to,
That the Parliament agrees to the following revision to the programme of business for Tuesday 24 February 2026—
delete
6.00 pm Decision Time
and insert
6.35 pm Decision Time
Previous
Time for Reflection