Meeting of the Parliament
Meeting date: Tuesday, November 27, 2012
Official Report
946KB pdf
Points of Order
I seek clarity on the statement made by the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning during last’s Thursday’s debate on further education. While setting out the Government’s case for college reform, the cabinet secretary said:
“We must also be mindful of those who work in the sector. There is presently a complete Balkanisation of terms and conditions, with at least 42 different sets. I am keen to continue my dialogue with trade unions on those matters, and I commit myself to that. I think that the reforms will ultimately benefit staff; I know that many of them, while disagreeing with some or all aspects of change, concur with that view. For a start, staff will have the right to representation on boards and there should be a national set of terms and conditions—two things that are long overdue.”—[Official Report, 22 November 2012; c 13836.]
The cabinet secretary seems to be asserting in that statement that college staff are not represented on college boards, and that that is something that will be remedied by the Government’s on-going programme of college sector reform in a move that is “long overdue”. However, schedule 2—on the Constitution and Proceedings and Boards of Management—of the Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Act 1992, states:
“The board shall include ... a person appointed by being elected by the teaching staff of the college from among their ... number; ... a person appointed by being elected by the non-teaching staff of the college from among their ... number”.
Far from such representation being “long overdue”, college staff are already represented on boards of management and have been since the 1992 act came into force.
This appears to be another misleading statement from the education secretary. Either Mr Russell is mistaken about that aspect of reform—or in this case, continuation—or he has deliberately misled this Parliament. Under any circumstances, that would be a concern. In light of the background to last week’s debate, which I requested on the back of misleading statements by the First Minister and the education secretary on college funding cuts, the situation is all the more serious.
Presiding Officer, can you advise whether an early opportunity can be provided to allow the cabinet secretary to come to the chamber and clarify his comments on the matter?
I thank the member for advance notice of his point of order. I am sure that members will never tire of me saying this, but I will repeat it once again. All the Presiding Officers and Deputy Presiding Officers since 1999 have said that we are not responsible for the content or veracity of a member’s speech. The member is also well aware that it is not within the Presiding Officer’s power to order any minister to make a statement. However, I am sure that the minister will reflect on what Mr McArthur has said.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I have heard you make such statements many times and it seems likely that you will make such statements many more times in the future. Would it not be better if members quoted the section of standing orders that they believe has been breached when they make a point of order? If they do not, the Presiding Officer could stop members as soon as they know that a member is not making a point of order.
I thank Mr Gibson for his point of order, in which he did not quote the standing orders. However, Mr Gibson makes a point that I will reflect on, and I thank him for making it.