Plenary, 17 Jan 2008

Meeting date: Thursday, January 17, 2008

Official Report 742KB pdf

---

Dormant Bank and Building Society Accounts Bill

I inform members that motion S3M-1087, in the name of Jim Mather, on the Dormant Bank and Building Society Accounts Bill, which is United Kingdom legislation, will not be moved by the minister.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer.

It will be obvious to members in the chamber who have looked at the Business Bulletin that, in respect of Jeremy Purvis's amendment, there was the potential for no agreement to be reached on the legislative consent motion this evening. That is the case as far as I am aware. [Interruption.] If members give me a moment to explain why it has been necessary to withdraw the motion, all will understand why.

It is because the Government was going to lose the vote.

Order.

It is not quite as simple as that.

There is still time within the process at Westminster to bring another LCM back for discussion next week, once the parties have had a chance to have a further look at their positions. I say that because clause 19(2) of the Dormant Bank and Building Society Accounts Bill—a clause that pertains to the Scottish Parliament—states:

"Before making an order under this section the Scottish Ministers shall consult the Big Lottery Fund and such other persons (if any) as they think appropriate."

A requirement for the Government to consult on the issue is built into the UK bill, but Jeremy Purvis's amendment would make that process difficult. Clause 19(3) states:

"An order under this section may not be made unless a draft of the statutory instrument containing it has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, the Scottish Parliament."

That would be the appropriate time for members to suggest solutions and ideas about how the moneys accruing from the sources mentioned should be used.

I suggest to members that I am trying to act in as reasonable a manner as can be achieved—[Interruption.] I hear some members say "Rubbish", but I am trying to build up an effective relationship with the UK Government—[Interruption.] Some members may laugh, but the business of this Parliament needs to be discharged in an effective way, just as the business at Westminster needs to be discharged in an effective way. If we have agreement on both sides, I see no reason for causing unnecessary conflict when that is not necessary. [Interruption.]

Order.

Presiding Officer, I am sure that you agree that, in the circumstances, I am acting in a reasonable way as the Government's business manager. We hope that we will have some time to discuss the matter and to bring it back next week.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer.

In nine years in the Parliament I have seldom heard such a weak excuse for sleight of hand by the Government. The reality of the matter is that the Government was set to lose the vote on our very reasonable amendment. All the furore and smokescreens that the Minister for Parliamentary Business has used as an excuse for coming to the Parliament's officials to withdraw the motion some 15 minutes before the debate on it was due to take place does not disguise that reality. The point about conflict with the UK Government is irrelevant; the issue is what will happen when the Westminster bill becomes law and comes into operation in Scotland.

Jeremy Purvis's amendment would do nothing to constrain the requirement for consultation that the bill provides. It would in no way limit such consultation, apart from by setting the direction of travel for the use of the funds on youth services and facilities. I can tell members that there will be considerable outrage across Scotland, in the youth sector in particular, at the withdrawal of the legislative consent motion. The issue is not that we could not reach consensus—that happens on many issues—but that had the Parliament voted on the motion and amendment today, it would have made a decision that would then need to be taken forward.

I will come to the point of order that those points presaged. I seek your guidance, Presiding Officer, on whether, as the Parliamentary Bureau motion states that the debate should take place today during this slot, it would be appropriate for the motion to which the amendment in the name of Jeremy Purvis relates to be moved by a member who is not a minister. If so, I will seek to do that.

Will Mr Brown repeat that last point? I did not catch it.

Is it possible for another member to move the motion—as happens when committees consider amendments—to enable it to be debated by the Parliament this afternoon?

Secondly, is whether the debate should be removed from today's agenda not within the control of the Parliament, given that it was included by the Parliamentary Bureau?

On a point of order, Presiding Officer.

I will respond to Mr Brown before I take the point of order from Jackie Baillie.

The standing orders are quite clear that, in these circumstances, the motion must be moved by the member who lodged the motion or by another member who has expressed approval for it by supporting it by the end of the preceding day.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer.

I think that we need to set the record straight. The legislative consent motion has been withdrawn because the SNP opposes the amendment on youth facilities and it would have lost this evening's vote. I might add that a similar proposal has won support at Westminster. I understand why the Minister for Parliamentary Business is keen to say how reasonable he is—I think that I counted five occasions on which he said that—but his saying so does not necessarily mean that it is the case.

I want to raise four issues. First, is it in order for the SNP to withdraw the legislative consent motion at this late stage, given the business programme that has been approved by the Parliamentary Bureau and the Parliament? Secondly, will you reflect on whether it is in order for any member of the Parliament to move a legislative consent motion? I understand that that is acceptable, so I ask you to reconsider. Thirdly, is it not the case that as the Parliament agreed the business motion, its agreement must be sought for such a motion to be withdrawn? Finally, my esteemed colleague, the Minister for Parliamentary Business, quoted the Dormant Bank and Building Society Accounts Bill. Has the Presiding Officer and the business team, on that basis, misunderstood the bill?

I have read the standing orders on this point. It is acceptable for the minister not to move the motion. It is clear that only the minister can move the motion—or withdraw the motion or not move it, whichever—and it cannot be moved by somebody else at this stage, or at least there is nobody competently qualified to move it at this stage.

It is not my job to express a point of view on what the business team or the Parliamentary Bureau understood when it had its meeting. That is beyond me.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer.

I make a point of order under rule 8.2.6 of standing orders. The Minister for Parliamentary Business stated that there has been a lack of consideration of the issue by the Parliament and its committees and by civic Scotland. On 28 June 2007, at First Minister's question time, I raised the Dormant Bank and Building Society Accounts Bill and how the funding will be distributed. I said:

"The UK Government plans to spend that money on voluntary youth services in England. There is no constraint on the devolved Administration spending a consequential amount to guarantee the same level of voluntary youth services provision in Scotland. Will the First Minister confirm to the Parliament that he will do that?"

The First Minister replied:

"I will pursue the issue with the United Kingdom Government. I thank the member for pointing it out to me; he makes a very useful point."—[Official Report, 28 June 2007; c 1275-6.]

On 3 October, the Minister for Enterprise, Energy and Tourism, Jim Mather, wrote to me, stating:

"I understand you favour adoption of the spending priorities already identified for England—voluntary youth services."

It simply is not the case—

Order. Mr Purvis, we are getting points of debate. I fail to ascertain a point of order.

I hoped that you would understand, Presiding Officer. I understand that I have three minutes to make a point of order.

That is precisely the point. You have that time to make a point of order, not to make political points or points of argument. I would be grateful if you could get to the basis of the point of order.

The basis of my point of order is that I have a case under rule 8.2.6, which I will come to after your intervention, Presiding Officer.

Jim Mather also stated:

"a Legislative Consent Memorandum will be required to allow the UK Parliament to legislate on Scotland's behalf on this issue."

Over the past eight years, SNP spokesmen have attacked the procedure of Sewel motions in the Parliament. In 2004, Bruce Crawford described that process as an abuse of Parliament. The action that has been taken this afternoon has been an abuse of Parliament. Since June—and since October—a case has been developed for the issue to be addressed today, as was published in the Business Bulletin. Civic society, youth services and others have seen that Parliament will debate this vital issue. It would be an outrage if Parliament were denied the opportunity to debate it today. Therefore, under rule 8.2.6 of standing orders, I seek leave to move a motion without notice that we consider the matter—as stated in the Business Bulletin and as Parliament deserves.

In view of the issues that members have raised, I intend to suspend this meeting of the Parliament. I will give members my decision on the points of order immediately prior to the scheduled time for decision time, which is 5 o'clock.

It is my intention to suspend the meeting, but as I have not yet done so I will hear Mr McLetchie if he wishes to make a point of order.

Further to the point of order, Presiding Officer.

To add to the matters that you may wish to take into consideration—

And bearing in mind that the time for consideration will get shorter with every minute you speak.

There is indeed a heavy irony in Mr Crawford's expressed desire for co-operation between the Scottish Parliament and Westminster, given the few opportunities that the Government has wasted to provoke conflict. That said, and in fairness to him—this goes to the heart of the amendment's competence—Mr Purvis's amendment would appear to seek to impose an obligation on the Scottish ministers to pursue a course of action that is inconsistent with the statutory obligation that clause 19(2) would lay on them.

Will you consider whether it is competent to take a motion with notice on an amendment—to a Sewel motion—that would place an inconsistent obligation on the Government?

Order. We are having points of debate rather than points of order. A request has been made that the Presiding Officers accept a motion without notice. The Presiding Officer or I will rule on that immediately prior to decision time, when this meeting will reconvene. I suspend the meeting until 5 o'clock.

Meeting suspended.

On resuming—