Skip to main content

Language: English / Gàidhlig

Loading…
Chamber and committees

Plenary, 29 Mar 2001

Meeting date: Thursday, March 29, 2001


Contents


Armed Forces Bill

The next item of business is consideration of motion S1M-1795, in the name Jim Wallace, on the Armed Forces Bill, which is UK legislation. I ask Iain Gray to move the motion.

Mr Lloyd Quinan (West of Scotland) (SNP):

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I believe that the Armed Forces Bill, to which the motion refers, is incompetent, as it refers to an organisation that does not yet exist: the police service of Northern Ireland. I spoke today to the Royal Ulster constabulary, which was somewhat surprised to discover how it was titled in the bill. I suggest that we cannot vote on the bill as, technically, it is incompetent.

You gave me advance notice of your point of order, Mr Quinan. As your objection relates to specific clauses of a UK bill, rather than to procedure, it is not a point of order, although the minister may wish to address it.

Dennis Canavan (Falkirk West):

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. The Armed Forces Bill proposes substantial increases in the powers of Ministry of Defence police in Scotland, such as the power to act as constables outside their normal jurisdiction without the consent of, or even being asked by, the chief constable or an ordinary constable of the area's police force. It also contains provisions to exempt MOD police recruits from firearms legislation, as well as extending other powers. Surely the Parliament ought to have the opportunity to debate those matters before we vote on the motion.

The motion is to allow the matter to be debated by the UK Parliament.

The Deputy Minister for Justice (Iain Gray):

Presiding Officer, you make the important point that this is a Sewel motion, which will allow the issues to be debated at Westminster. The Scottish people will be represented there by Scottish MPs, who will scrutinise the legislation on our behalf.

I have already given evidence on the Armed Forces Bill to the Justice 1 Committee of the Scottish Parliament. The motion refers to that UK bill, the purpose of which is to allow MOD police officers, while travelling between MOD sites, to intervene as police officers in strictly defined emergencies, such as stopping acts of violence or saving lives.

I move,

That the Parliament agrees the principles contained in the provisions of the Armed Forces Bill as they relate to the Ministry of Defence Police in Scotland and that the Scottish Ministers should consent to the measures on jurisdiction being commenced in Scotland, and agrees that the relevant provisions to achieve these ends in the Bill should be considered by the UK Parliament.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer.

I will hear Mr Neil's point of order first.

Alex Neil:

Just before Mr Gray rose to speak, Presiding Officer, you said that the purpose of the motion was to allow the House of Commons to debate the bill. However, the motion states:

"This Parliament agrees the principles contained in … the … Bill".

The point made by Mr Canavan and Mr Quinan was that, before we agree the principles of the bill, we should have the opportunity to debate it. We should not agree something of such import without debating it.

Mr Quinan, do you have a further point of order?

I have a simple question. You asked the minister whether he would clarify the bill's reference to an organisation that does not exist. Would the minister be kind enough to address that point?

Phil Gallie (South of Scotland) (Con):

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Is not it the case that, under the Parliament's standing orders, the committees are able to debate such bills? That is precisely what happened in this instance. MSPs agreed to the Parliament's constitution, so what's the beef?

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I ask for a ruling from the chair on whether we can now have a short debate on the bill. I pressed my request-to-speak button so that I would be able to make a brief speech against the motion.

No. The bill has been considered by the Justice 1 Committee, Mr Canavan. The motion has come to the chamber, and you will have a chance to vote on the specific text of the motion during decision time in a few minutes.