Meeting of the Parliament

Meeting date: Thursday, June 28, 2012

Official Report 1110KB pdf

---

Points of Order

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. At 9.45 this morning, the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning made a statement on the reform of post-16 education. During his statement, he twice stated that members of the Education and Culture Committee had been sent a letter advising them of the appointments of individuals who would lead the college regionalisation process. That was not the case.

On returning to my office, I checked my inbox to see that the letter had in fact been e-mailed to committee members at 9.47, after the cabinet secretary had begun his statement. The letter itself was embargoed until 28 July—yes, July. I do not blame the clerks for this. They were given the letter late by the cabinet secretary’s office. They then noticed the error and were unable to correct it in time; they were forced to issue the letter containing the incorrect information, because no time was left to amend it before the statement was made.

I know that you place great importance on the rights of members and their ability to do their job properly, Presiding Officer. Can you assist members of the Education and Culture Committee in this matter, and in future ensure that correspondence that is referred to by ministers is released at the same time as statements?

I thank the member for the point of order. I have made inquiries.

The original letter was received by the committee clerk at 9.17. The committee clerk was in a meeting until 9.30. It was spotted that the original letter contained an error, in that it said that the embargo was until 28 July, not 28 June. The cabinet secretary’s office was aware of that. It set about sending a corrected letter to the committee clerk. The corrected letter was received in the committee mailbox at 9.51. The assistant clerk to the committee requested that the original letter be sent out to the committee, and that letter—containing the error—was sent to members at 9.47. I understand that Mr Findlay was notified of that timeline at 11.39 this morning.

Every attempt was made—as it should be made and will always be made—to communicate with the clerks of the committee. That is, of course, the intention of every cabinet secretary. In education, we continue to do so, despite the fact that, on a previous and recent occasion, communication to members was leaked, ahead of the end of the embargo, by the Labour Party.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I know that you take seriously the issue of ministers advertently or inadvertently misleading Parliament. This morning, the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning said, in response to a question that was asked by my colleague Hanzala Malik:

“There is no reduction in funding for colleges in financial year 2012-13.”

The cabinet secretary said that twice. However, yesterday, during a members’ business debate on college cuts in Glasgow, his ministerial colleague Alasdair Allan, said:

“The motion highlights—and this has never been a secret—that North Glasgow College, like every other college, has had to withstand budget reductions”.—[Official Report, 27 June 2012; c 10704-5.]

Clearly, those two comments—made in the chamber in the past 24 hours—are incompatible. Before the education ministers go on their summer holidays, will you ask whichever minister has misled Parliament to make an apology?

As I have said to a number of members today, I am in no way responsible, as Presiding Officer, for the accuracy of what is said by members in the chamber. That, Mr Bibby, is not a point of order.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I recognise what you say on that specific point, but we have a serious situation. We have two ministers in the same department saying two different things on two different days. If, as you say, it is not for you to ensure that this Parliament is given accurate information—and, clearly, the ministers concerned do not give a damn about whether what they say is accurate—[Interruption.]

Order. Mr Henry, I would appreciate it if you withdrew the word “damn”.

Damn? Interestingly, then, Presiding Officer, I will withdraw it—

Just withdraw it, please.

I will withdraw it, and in the future when we talk about people being damned, I will make sure that that word is not used—

I think that you should sit down now, Mr Henry. You have made your point, and the point that you are making does not change the original point of fact—

No, Presiding Officer—

Mr Henry, please resume your seat.

Members: Hooray!

I do not need cheers.

When I am speaking, I expect members to resume their seat. I consider that you have made your point, Mr Henry. I do not consider that it is a point of order. It is a follow-up to the point that was made by Neil Bibby. As I have said repeatedly and will continue to say, matters of accuracy are not matters for me as the Presiding Officer. That has been the position of every Presiding Officer until now, and I uphold that position.

Neil Findlay rose—

Is it a further point of order, Mr Findlay?

Will you confirm how long members have to make a point of order? I would have thought that a member is allowed to make their full point and then you will make a judgment, rather than your making a judgment in the middle of their point.

Mr Findlay, I am quite sure that you are aware that members have up to three minutes to make a point of order. I did not consider that Mr Henry was making a point of order.