Official Report 429KB pdf
That takes us to the final agenda item. For the sake of members who were absent last week, I should explain that, following a division, the committee agreed to lodge an amendment to Mike Watson's motion on the Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Bill, which is due for debate tomorrow. I have to bring this matter back before the committee because the wording agreed for the motion was questioned by the chamber desk. I do not doubt its reasons for doing that, but I did not feel able to lodge an amended version of our amendment without bringing the matter back before the committee. That is why the amendment has not been lodged.
I was one of the people who objected to the amendment that Elaine Murray suggested last week and thought it would be better to proceed with the amendment agreed by the committee. However, having read Elaine's amendment, which is slightly different from the one that she was proposing last week, I suggest that the committee support it. It has already been lodged and it is a reasoned and sensible amendment. I hope that other members of the committee take the same view.
Do you mean that the committee should give formal backing to the amendment lodged by Elaine Murray?
That would be helpful.
I understand that that is procedurally allowed.
I was not present at the committee's previous meeting, so I would like clarification of what is meant by formal backing.
I take that to mean—members may correct me if I am wrong—that I as convener would sign Elaine Murray's motion on behalf of the Rural Development Committee.
Are we absolutely certain that that is permitted under standing orders?
I have taken guidance on the matter and have been told that it is procedurally allowable.
I suggest that we give formal support to Elaine Murray's motion.
How do other members feel?
The amendment that is before members is somewhat different from the off-the-cuff proposal that I made at our previous meeting. My suggestion is similar: that the evidence that we took and the issues that arose from it be forwarded to the Executive, with a view to dealing with those concerns through an amendment to the Wild Mammals (Protection) Act 1996. Following a discussion with the chamber desk, I reworked the amendment into a form that would be more compatible with standing orders.
Last week, the committee agreed that it would lodge an amendment that all members could support. Despite what Elaine Murray says, I think that the committee's formally backing her amendment would have resonance and strength. If we do not do that, we will depart from the position that we adopted last week. If the committee will not adopt Elaine's suggestion formally, we should revert to our original idea of lodging a committee amendment. However, I would prefer it if all committee members backed Elaine's amendment.
My recollection accords with that of Mike Rumbles. We decided that it would be preferable for the committee to lodge an amendment. We agreed the wording of an amendment, which was adjusted slightly in discussions through the usual channels.
I have some sympathy with that view. I wonder how Elaine Murray feels about that.
I accept that we did not take evidence on the Wild Mammals (Protection) Act 1996 or the legislation that applies to domestic animals.
So you do not intend to remove all those words.
I do not.
I appreciate that Elaine Murray is trying to achieve consensus, but as I have said I do not think that consensus exists. I cannot support Elaine's position. Much as I respect the work that she has done to try to arrive at a position that will accommodate everyone, I do not feel able to support her amendment. I would prefer it if the committee did not submit a further amendment and if Elaine's suggestion of members signing up individually to the amendment if they support it were followed.
I agree with what Cathy Jamieson says. Also, I do not think that we can take a different amendment forward from this meeting on the basis that we voted by a majority to have an amendment last week. You cannot suddenly change that amendment. We need to consider the amendment as something new and take a different vote. I do not know that we can just substitute one amendment for another.
I will vote against any amendment to the motion tomorrow because I believe that, in a stage 1 debate on a member's bill, members should vote on whether to allow that bill to move to stage 2. That should be the focus of any such debate. Any amendments would be a distraction and they should not be allowed in those circumstances. The committee took its decision last week. I do not think that any third way should be introduced in tomorrow's debate—because that would be a distraction from the member's bill. That is why I will vote against any amendments.
You make a fair point, but the committee wanted to lodge an amendment so that it could draw attention to its report, on the drawing up of which it has spent a great deal of time over the past two years. The committee felt—by division, I accept—that the motion did not draw sufficient attention to the report and that, in the context of the debate, it was necessary to do that.
Further to what Cathy Jamieson, Rhoda Grant and Richard Lochhead have said, I too could not support a committee amendment. I appreciate what Elaine Murray is trying to do, but I cannot support her amendment.
Perhaps I could clarify that. The intention was to allow focus on the report in the debate, not in the outside world.
I suggest that members who speak in the debate will probably refer to the committee's report anyway. I do not wish to support an amendment. Tomorrow should be just a matter of voting on whether the bill is allowed to proceed to stage 2. Amendments can be made to the bill at stage 2, if it proceeds to that point.
Members have made it clear that we will not reach agreement on the issue, as Cathy Jamieson rightly said. Therefore, I must put a series of questions to the committee.
No.
There will be a division.
For
The result of the division is: For 5, Against 5, Abstentions 1.
No.
There will be a division.
For
The result of the division is: For 4, Against 7, Abstentions 0.
No.
There will be a division.
For
The result of the division is: For 5, Against 4, Abstentions 2.
Meeting closed at 15:35.
Previous
Subordinate Legislation