Meeting of the Parliament 18 February 2025
I will set out why we cannot accept the request for a statement and cannot agree to the amendment in Tess White’s name. First, she has clearly indicated that the rationale for lodging the amendment was her disappointment that an urgent question—I do not know whether it was in her name or another colleague’s name—was not selected for answer today. That is your prerogative, Presiding Officer, and not the Scottish Government’s prerogative. Where any question is put to the Scottish Government that you have selected, we will, of course, come to the chamber to answer it.
With regard to the request for a statement, there are three reasons in particular why I do not think that we can accept it. The first is the schedule that we have before us, which is already busy. The Government is always open to ensuring that we are—rightly—held to account by members. That is the very reason why I stood up to move a motion on an amendment to business just a moment ago. There was a request by the Conservatives for a statement on the future of Grangemouth; I proposed that we schedule it for today, and the Parliamentary Bureau has agreed to that. There was a request from the Labour Party that we schedule a statement on the Promise; I agreed to that and it was agreed at the Parliamentary Bureau, and I proposed that we schedule it for tomorrow.
There is a debate being added on a legislative consent motion on the Great British Energy Bill. I had suggested that the LCM required only to be moved and then voted on, because an LCM had already been brought to the chamber. It was suggested that there could be interest in having a wider debate on the issue, and I have acceded to that.
This Government is not afraid of being held to account by members, but I am afraid to say that what we have already added to our parliamentary schedule this week does not allow us to accommodate another statement.
The second issue is that we need to be conscious of the law. I do not think that any of us would suggest that any individual—here, in the Government or in any Administration—is above the law. Notwithstanding Ms White’s feeling that she has navigated safely and is staying on the right side of sub judice, I believe that there is an inherent danger. We heard quite clearly the rationale for the request for the statement, which relates specifically to an individual employment tribunal, so there is a danger that we could stray into that territory. I do not think that any of us would want to step across that on-going process and put it in jeopardy. That would not be fair to any party that is taking part in that process.