Points of Order
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I understand that a written question was lodged today concerning the Regulation of Care (Scotland) Bill. The Parliament may be surprised to learn that we have tried to amend UK reserved legislation. I thank the Executive in advance for its answer.
The SNP would like to complete the powers of the Parliament in areas such as finance, but we want to do so deliberately, not by accident. I understand that it is in nobody's interest to delay the progress of the bill, but I am concerned about how the Parliament has been informed about the problem and its remedy by use of section 107 of the Scotland Act 1998, which is what I understand has been agreed to by Scottish ministers today.
Do you agree that it is important that the Parliament should take a close interest in any proposed use of the Scotland Act 1998 in respect of our legislation? Will you reassure the Parliament that the procedure that is being followed today—a written question being lodged and answered on the same day—is not a precedent? Also, will you look at a procedure to determine how the Parliament views this use of the act? It may have more serious significance in future.
I am grateful to the member for giving me notice of that point of order. I shall explain the situation for members who may not know what we are talking about.
As members know, after a bill has been passed by the Parliament, it goes to the law officers for a month before I send a letter to the Queen, asking her to give it royal assent. On this occasion, the lawyers spotted a minor technical problem with the Regulation of Care (Scotland) Bill, which was brought to my attention yesterday. With my agreement, the First Minister has agreed to rectify the matter under section 107 of the Scotland Act 1998. An answer to a parliamentary question, informing members of that action, was available from 4 o'clock this afternoon.
In answer to the member's point of order, I do not regard this as creating any kind of precedent. Should a similar problem arise in the future—and we hope that it does not—I would expect us to revisit the options that are open to us.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I wish to raise a point of order under standing order 1.6, which refers to the code of conduct for members of the Scottish Parliament. Under section 2.10—accountability and openness—the code states:
"Members have a duty to be as open as possible about their decisions and actions."
As the Minister for Parliament misled the Parliament last Thursday when he stated that to his certain knowledge no ceremony was being planned to take place in the new Parliament building in March 2003 and as he has not replied to the letter that I sent to him last Friday, in which I provided proof of the initial planning for such a ceremony, I ask you to rule that, in accordance with the Scottish ministerial code, paragraph 1.1(c), the minister should give
"accurate and truthful information to the Parliament, correcting any inadvertent error at the earliest opportunity."
I refer to only the first sentence of that paragraph, as I have no proof of the relevance of the second sentence, which states that
"Ministers who knowingly mislead the Parliament will be expected to offer their resignation".
I regret having to raise this matter at this time, but it is the last opportunity for the minister's misleading statement to be corrected before the Parliament goes into recess. It is also, presumably, the last opportunity for you to be made aware that the Parliament's information officer was able to confirm the possibility of a ceremony, although the Minister for Parliament, replying for the Executive, denied it and stated that such a ceremony was a figment of my imagination.
It cannot be in order for such a misleading statement to stand uncorrected on the record. That implies a corruption of the Parliament's processes of accountability and of responsibility for public finances, as the planning—never mind the organisation—of a closing or opening ceremony has budgetary implications.
I heard the member say that she had written to the minister, but has not had a reply. No doubt she will get a reply in a few days' time. I am sure of that.
The minister may well have shared my view, which is that no such ceremony has ever been discussed by the parliamentary authorities and I make that quite clear. Reports that a ceremony is definitely going to take place on a certain date in March are simply untrue. It may well be that such a date is pencilled in on documents at the Holyrood site, because people must work to targets. As Presiding Officer, I would know if there were to be such a ceremony and I assure the member that there is not. If and when there is to be a ceremony, the Parliament will be the first to know. That is the answer to the substance of the question.
I do not think that the minister misled the Parliament.
With respect, and further to your ruling, Presiding Officer, the letter to the Minister for Parliament was delivered by hand last Friday. As the matter concerns the misleading of the chamber—however inadvertently—it appears that I have not been replied to "at the earliest opportunity", as the code of conduct for the Executive says I should have been.
The phrase "at the earliest opportunity" is rather elastic. Given that the letter was sent last Friday and today is only Thursday, by the general standard of ministerial responses, you still have a bit of time to go. [Laughter.] I do not mean that unkindly. It is not unreasonable to expect some days to pass before a minister replies to a letter. I advise Ms MacDonald that, if she has still not had a reply by the time we reconvene after the recess, she should raise the matter again.
On a point of order.
I think that the chamber has been patient with the member.
Indeed. I made a special effort to come here today because I think it important that the chamber not be misled. You have confirmed that the date may have been pencilled in and that there may be initial planning. If an Executive spokesperson confirms to newspapers that a plan has been pencilled in, can the allegation that it is a figment of my imagination be struck from the record?
I can only repeat that there is no plan to hold a closing ceremony for this parliamentary session. No decision has been made and there has not even been any discussion that there might be one. I think that that is the point that the Minister for Parliament was trying to make in response to the member. However, I will let him make a response to the member in writing and she can decide whether she is satisfied or not.