Point of Order
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I wish to raise a point of order under rules 13.6, 7.3 and 14.1 of standing orders.
You will recall that, this afternoon, at First Minister's questions, the First Minister failed on two separate occasions to confirm whether the Scottish Government had sought legal advice on its policy of withdrawing from the common fisheries policy. He said:
"The circumstance in which Scotland will be able to effect that policy is when Scotland becomes an independent country."
On 27 November 2007, Linda Fabiani, the Minister for Europe, External Affairs and Culture, said in a written reply:
"Scotland's membership of the European Union, currently as part of the United Kingdom, requires it to meet all obligations with relevance to its devolved competences, including the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP)."—[Official Report, Written Answers, 27 November 2007; S3W-6214.]
However, in the consultation paper "Safeguarding Our Fishing Rights: The Future of Quota Management and Licensing in Scotland", the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and the Environment clearly states:
"The Scottish Government is seeking to withdraw from the CFP."
He did not mean at some vague time in the future, but now—potentially placing this Government in breach of its devolved responsibilities as outlined in the answer given by Linda Fabiani.
It would therefore appear that, in his answer to the chamber, the First Minister may have misled Parliament. Furthermore, either he or his cabinet secretary may be in breach of section 1.1(b) of the ministerial code, which states:
"Ministers have a duty to the Parliament to account, and be held to account, for the policies, decisions and actions taken within their field of responsibility".
You may wish to ask the First Minister to clarify to the chamber whether he is right, or whether his cabinet secretary is the one who is correct.
Furthermore—and perhaps most worrying—in a briefing to the press at lunch time, the First Minister's spokesperson indicated that the First Minister did not answer because it is the Government's policy not to reveal whether legal advice has been sought or given. If that is true, that answer should have been given to this chamber by the First Minister, and not to the press by his spokesperson. However, that is unfortunately not the policy of this SNP Government. On 7 June 2007, in an emergency statement to Parliament, the First Minister said:
"I consulted the Lord Advocate for advice on the significant legal matters involved yesterday".—[Official Report, 7 June 2007; c 588.]
He therefore confirmed that legal advice had been sought and given.
In briefing the press on an answer and not giving that answer to the chamber, the First Minister has been discourteous to the chamber and is again in breach of standing orders.
On 28 February, this Parliament resolved that the Government should
"bring forward a statement to the Parliament"
when the review was concluded. Parliament also resolved that it believed that
"the best way of ensuring independent oversight is for the Parliament to appoint a person independent of government to investigate alleged breaches of the Scottish Ministerial Code."—[Official Report, 28 February 2008; c 6538.]
Given that—week in, week out—ministers are holding this Parliament in contempt and failing to answer legitimate questions, it is essential that that statement is brought forward as a matter of urgency. I would therefore urge you to use your good offices to ensure that a statement is brought before Parliament urgently so that Parliament can fulfil its legitimate role in holding this Government to account.
First, I thank the member for giving me notice of her point of order.
Karen Gillon has raised two issues. First, she asked whether I wish to ask the First Minister to clarify his position to the chamber. I repeat—I have said this many times before—that it is not the role of the Presiding Officer to establish the veracity of statements made by ministers. It is open to all members, if they feel that ministers have misled the chamber—deliberately or otherwise—to ask them to return to the chamber. It would be expected that they would do so. However, that is a matter for members and not for the Presiding Officers.
Secondly, Karen Gillon asked about the completion of the review of the ministerial code. That is a matter for the Scottish Government, but I am sure that members are aware that the matter has been raised at the Parliamentary Bureau in recent weeks. If the member wishes it to be raised again, I suggest that she discuss the matter with her business manager.
Further to the point of order, Presiding Officer.
Am I correct in interpreting Karen Gillon's question to the First Minister as being in order, as she simply asked whether legal advice had been sought?
I am not entirely certain what point of order the member is raising. I repeat that the veracity of members' replies and answers is for them to determine, not for the Presiding Officers to determine. There was nothing wrong with the question, if that is what Ms MacDonald is asking.
With respect, Presiding Officer, I think that the First Minister did not give a yes or no answer.
That is a matter for the First Minister, as I have made clear on many occasions.