Official Report 680KB pdf
18:18
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I seek your guidance in relation to parliamentary procedure. The Parliament is supposed to hold the Government to account. Last week, the Lord Advocate responded to an urgent question, which was about why the Lord Advocate tipped off John Swinney with sensitive information about criminal proceedings against Nicola Sturgeon’s husband—[Interruption.]
Let us hear Mr Findlay.
—and what Mr Swinney did with that information, which was kept secret from the public.
I had the opportunity to ask only one question, which was limited to 45 seconds. Thirteen other members also asked brief questions, but the Lord Advocate’s lengthy responses mostly failed to answer the questions that were put. By the time she sat down, MSPs had even more unanswered questions. The Lord Advocate, who is a minister in the Scottish National Party Government, has refused to make a full statement to the Parliament. John Swinney and the SNP voted down our attempts to secure a statement. Instead, this afternoon, she dumped 70 pages of selective material into the public domain.
Much of that material is irrelevant to the pertinent issue, but it contains at least one striking new admission: the Lord Advocate tipped off John Swinney with sensitive information about the criminal case against Nicola Sturgeon’s husband 11 months ago. John Swinney—
Mr Findlay, for clarity, I note that a point of order should describe which procedure you think has not been followed or is not being followed.
I understand, Presiding Officer. I am just attempting to put context around it.
John Swinney failed to disclose that when I questioned him at First Minister’s question time last week. Instead, he resorted to the usual angry bluster and deflection. It seems that a two-tier system is at work—one tier for the SNP First Minister and his spin doctors, and another tier for everyone else in Scotland.
John Swinney, his SNP Government and the Lord Advocate reckon that we should all just go away quietly and forget about it. We cannot and we will not. This is about parliamentary scrutiny and Government accountability—
Mr Findlay, I am very keen that you identify the procedure that you are concerned about in relation to our standing orders.
I am just doing so.
This is about parliamentary scrutiny and Government accountability—[Interruption.]—so can you please tell me whether—
Let us hear Mr Findlay.
Can you please tell me what methods or mechanisms are available to me, or to any other member, to compel the Lord Advocate to provide a full statement to this Parliament?
If a member seeks a ministerial statement, they can speak with their business manager, who would bring the request to the Parliamentary Bureau, or they can directly approach the Minister for Parliamentary Business and Veterans. If the minister is content to grant the request, the bureau will consider it before the statement request comes before the Parliament. Of course, Mr Findlay will be aware of other means of scrutinising the Government, including through oral questions, written questions, Opposition business and so on.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I seek your guidance on some of the issues that were raised just seconds ago. Mr Findlay said that the answers that the Lord Advocate gave last week were too comprehensive, and he said that the dump, as he described it, of 70 pages today was too comprehensive, too. [Interruption.]
Let us hear Mr Stewart.
I seek your guidance, Presiding Officer. What do you think would be answers that are too comprehensive?
I would suggest that that is not a point of order, Mr Stewart. When I feel that my intervention is required, I will make one.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Can I ask you directly why you interrupt points of order from Conservative members but allow SNP members uninterrupted time to make their points of order? [Interruption.]
Mr Ross, it is not appropriate to challenge the chair. I am making my decisions in the chair, live, according to what I have heard. I ask that you consider whether you think that challenging the chair is appropriate. It is not.
Further to that point of order, Presiding Officer.
Is it on the same subject?
It is further to that point of order.
I call Douglas Ross for a point of order on another subject.
Our standing orders are there to protect all members—not just those of the SNP and not just the Presiding Officer. [Interruption.] Standing orders are very clear that each member is allowed up to three minutes to make their point of order. You interrupted Russell Findlay a number of times. Last week—
Mr Ross, please take your seat. I am wholly impartial and fair in this chair.
No, you are not.
Members: Oh!
Mr Ross, I ask you to withdraw that. I would very much like you to remain with your colleagues until the end of the day. I think that it is very important that you have the opportunity to do so, but it is simply not appropriate for you to challenge the decisions and the authority of the chair in this Parliament. I would very much like you to stay with us, so I would be grateful if you would withdraw your remarks.
I will withdraw them even though I believe them.
Thank you, Mr Ross, but I afraid that that is not satisfactory and I now regretfully ask you to please leave the chamber.
No.
I would be grateful if we could suspend proceedings for a moment.
18:25
Meeting suspended.
The rest of this Official Report will be published progressively as soon as the text is available.