Meeting of the Parliament

Meeting date: Thursday, June 16, 2016

Official Report 909KB pdf

---

Points of Order

I thank Margaret Mitchell for waiting for the end of First Minister’s questions to raise her point of order.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer—

I will take Margaret Mitchell first, if I may, Mr Adam.

Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I seek your guidance on whether the line of questioning from Kezia Dugdale in the exchanges with the First Minister has breached the Parliament’s purdah rules in advance of next week’s referendum—the test of which is, I believe, that the content is likely to influence the outcome of that referendum.

If those rules have been breached, what opportunity will there be to point out that the unfettered free movement of people will deeply damage the economy and our public services; that, as the fifth-largest economy in the world, the UK, with its talented and innovative people, is more than capable of surviving outside the European Union; and that, in fact, it has been NATO and the United Nations that have preserved our security, not the EU?

Before I respond, I ask Mr Adam whether his point of order is on the same issue or a separate issue.

It is on a different issue.

I thank Margaret Mitchell for raising that point of order; I think that she is quite right to do so.

As members may know, the Parliament has decided, in a meeting of business managers in the Parliamentary Bureau, to observe our legal guidance—legal advice on how we are affected under the European Union Referendum Act 2015—that the Parliament should not use parliamentary resources to promote one side or the other during the referendum.

Members may also be aware—given that I believe that it is as a result of an oversight rather than an intent that the Parliament is covered by the referendum act—that I wrote on behalf of the Parliament to the Speaker of the House of Commons and the Secretary of State for Scotland to voice our concern that we should be covered in that way.

I listened to the questions and the answers very carefully, and it is my judgment that they did not breach that agreement, as they did not take a side on either side of the referendum debate. That was my decision, and I listened very carefully to what was said. [Interruption.] They did not use parliamentary resources to promote one side of the argument.

Mr Adam, you may now raise your point of order.

Thank you, Presiding Officer. I, too, seek your guidance. Earlier, Willie Rennie stated that Save the Children said that there was a lack of investment in early years. I have read Save the Children’s recent press release, and it does not say anything of the sort. Is it correct that Mr Rennie should come to the chamber and misrepresent a very important charity?

I thank Mr Adam. That is a point of information or accuracy—

On a point of order, Presiding Officer.

One second, Mr Findlay.

That is a point of information or accuracy for Mr Rennie. I am sure that he is aware of and heard Mr Adam’s comments, and it is for him to reflect on them. That is not a point of order.

In reply to Margaret Mitchell’s point of order, I think that, whichever side people are on in the referendum, they have the right to be heard and to have their views put forward in the chamber.

Presiding Officer, you expressed the view that parliamentary resources would not be used—I am not making a point on side or the other—but given that we use power and we have the Official Report, which are parliamentary resources, I think that we need absolute clarity on the issue, because it is very important.

I thank Mr Findlay. The point that he makes is exactly the one that we considered in the bureau and with our legal advisers. The use of official report staff to report on our proceedings is a use of parliamentary resources. In this case, I did not judge that either the questions or the answers were an abuse of those resources. That was my judgment.

Margaret Mitchell and Neil Findlay have made their points of order, but my ruling so far is that neither of them is a point of order. However, I have taken them on board.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I raised a similar point of order during yesterday’s members’ business debate on trade union membership, and I still await a response. Will that be forthcoming?

Yes, I think that the member will receive a response from one of the Deputy Presiding Officers. The information will be passed to the member—I imagine that that will happen before the close of proceedings today. Just for information, our decision was that yesterday’s point of order was not a point of order, either. However, more information will be passed to Elaine Smith later.

Before there are any more points of order, I suggest that we move on to members’ business. I ask members to leave the chamber quietly.