On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I understand that you were asked earlier to rule on a point of order that alleged that I had misled a parliamentary committee on the legislative competence of an amendment that Mr Canavan had lodged to the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Bill. In fact, no one questioned the legislative competence of the amendment concerned, least of all me, because I propose to give effect to the proposal at stage 3. However, the amendment potentially called into question the legislative competence of other consequential provisions in the bill. The Executive and, subsequently, the committee agreed that those provisions might better be considered at stage 3.
That is a fairly hard point of order to deal with at 17:18. At this point, I can say that Mr Canavan was kind enough to share his point of order with me in advance. His point of order was given fairly serious consideration by the clerks prior to my ruling. Legislative competence, admissibility and consequent provisions are a tricky area. I would like to reflect on the matter overnight so that I can give a more considered view tomorrow, if that would be acceptable.
Further to your ruling, earlier this afternoon you indicated that I would have the opportunity of returning to the matter in question at stage 3. I am quite happy with that, provided that I get the opportunity to lodge a similar amendment. It is my understanding that the minister seemed to be saying that my amendment or its consequences might be outwith Parliament's legislative competence.
Those are fine points. I reiterate what I said: you will have a second chance at stage 3, at which point I will consider admissibility. I will respond to Mr Wilson as soon as possible tomorrow.
Previous
Decision Time