Plenary, 03 Mar 2004
Meeting date: Wednesday, March 3, 2004
Official Report
425KB pdf
Point of Order
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Section 31(2) of the Scotland Act 1998 empowers the Presiding Officer to
"decide whether or not in his view the provisions of the Bill would be within the legislative competence of the Parliament".
Rule 9.10 of our standing orders empowers the Presiding Officer to determine any dispute about the admissibility of an amendment to a bill.
This morning, the Environment and Rural Development Committee was considering an amendment of mine to the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Bill. My amendment—amendment 247—sought to extend the scope of the bill to land that is owned by the Queen in her private capacity. The Deputy Minister for Environment and Rural Development persuaded a majority of committee members to vote down my amendment by telling them that it was outwith the Parliament's legislative competence. When I challenged him on that, he referred to paragraph 3(3)(c) of schedule 5 to the Scotland Act 1998, which states that
"the compulsory acquisition of property held or used by a Minister of the Crown or government department"
is a matter that is reserved to Westminster. I submit that the Queen is not a minister of the Crown or a Government department.
Furthermore, paragraph 4 of the schedule states explicitly that paragraph 1 of the schedule does not reserve property that is held by Her Majesty in her private capacity, so it would appear that my amendment was not ultra vires and that the committee was misled by the deputy minister. Therefore, I ask you as Presiding Officer to rule that my amendment is within the Parliament's legislative competence so that we can return to the matter at stage 3.
You are, of course, right that legislative competence is a matter for me and I determine that in terms of the bill. In relation to the business that was before the Environment and Rural Development Committee this morning, a view was taken by the convener and that is where the matter rests at this stage. It is perfectly legitimate for you to lodge your amendment again at stage 3 and, at that point, I would make a judgment on its admissibility.