The next item on the agenda is our discussion of stage 3 amendments to the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Bill. Members have been circulated with a note that sets out the background to the amendments that I have lodged to the bill. I ask the committee to agree that the amendments be moved on its behalf at stage 3 on Wednesday 24 April. As the note explains, they are probing amendments that consider the alleged effect of the bill on section 23 of the Scotland Act 1998. We are endeavouring to show that the bill does not have such an impact. I would prefer to lodge the amendments in the name of the committee and speak to them from that point of view. Are members agreed?
My question relates to processes, because I am trying to pick things up as I go along. What is the normal custom and practice with such amendments?
This is the first time that we have been in this situation, so we are establishing custom and practice. Although I could move the amendments in my name, they are not SNP amendments. In blunt terms, they allow the Executive to develop the argument that the bill does not impact on section 23 of the Scotland Act 1998. They simply allow the matter to be aired.
Why did the committee not see the amendments before they were lodged?
We were not informed about the matter in time to do so. As a result, I decided that the amendments should be lodged in my name to get them lodged before the deadline. I thought that it would be useful to move the amendments on behalf of the committee. However, if members are unhappy with that, I will simply move them in my own name.
Convener, I would prefer the amendments to proceed in your name, because I have not had the opportunity to scrutinise each phrase and line. We must be very careful with this issue.
That is not a problem. If the issue had been raised earlier, we could have debated it in advance. It was just the timing of things. I will move the amendments in my name.
Previous
Item in Private