Bail, Judicial Appointments etc (Scotland) Bill and National Parks (Scotland) Bill: Timetable
The next motion is S1M-1092, the timetabling motion relating to stage 3 of the Bail, Judicial Appointments etc (Scotland) Bill and of the National Parks (Scotland) Bill.
I reserve my position—if there are any questions, I will try to address them.
I move,
That the Parliament agrees that for Stage 3 of the Bail, Judicial Appointments etc. (Scotland) Bill and the National Parks (Scotland) Bill, debate on each part of the proceedings, if not previously brought to a conclusion, shall be brought to a conclusion at the following times (calculated from the time when Stage 3 of the Bail, Judicial Appointments etc. (Scotland) Bill begins) –
Bail, Judicial Appointments etc. (Scotland) Bill
Group 1 to Group 4 – no later than 1 hour 15 minutes
Group 5 – no later than 1 hour 45 minutes
Group 6 to Group 10 – no later than 3 hours
Motion to pass the Bill – no later than 3 hours 30 minutes
National Parks (Scotland) Bill
Group 1 to Group 4 – no later than 4 hours 30 minutes
Group 5 – no later than 5 hours 15 minutes
Group 6 to Group 7 – no later than 6 hours
Group 8 to Group 11 – no later than 7 hours
Motion to pass the bill – no later than 7 hours 30 minutes.
I wish to speak against motion S1M-1092. This is the third time that I have opposed a timetabling motion in recent weeks, and I am mindful of what Mr McCabe said on those previous occasions.
When Mr McCabe moved a timetabling motion on Thursday last week, for stage 3 of the Education and Training (Scotland) Bill, he said:
"Timetabling motions—particularly the one on today's debate—are not about guillotining or restricting debate, but are the exact opposite. Having a timetabling motion with particular knives that come down at specific times ensures that specific sections of the bill are protected."
He went on to say:
"This motion is simply a timetabling motion that allows the chamber to know when the debate will finish. No specific sections are mentioned, and the whole time is open for debate on the amendments."
Mr McCabe spoke at 10.05 am last Thursday. After 10.45 am, the Presiding Officer said that time was so short that he
"would be grateful if opening speeches could be limited to four minutes and other speeches to three minutes."
Fifteen minutes later, after 11 am, he said:
"I apologise to two members who, for time reasons, I cannot call."
After 11.15 am, he told the chamber that he would have
"to conclude stage 3 by 11.30 or time will be taken off"
subsequent statements. Two minutes later, he was asking people
"to give bullet points only".—[Official Report, 29 June 2000; Vol 7, c 862-91.]
A minute after that, he was asking members whether they would mind waiving their rights to speak or respond.
Disgraceful.
Indeed, it was disgraceful. Mr Canavan is absolutely right. As he has worked out—and he is one of the sharper members in the chamber—what Mr McCabe said turned out not to be true, although I do not question his motivation for saying it.
In the previous week, Mr McCabe said:
"I emphasise that the purpose of a timetabling motion is not to restrict debate."—[Official Report, 21 June 2000; Vol 7, c 476.]
I accept that that is the purpose of motion S1M-1092, which we are debating now, and of the timetabling motion that we debated last week. However, such motions restrict debate. If I can cite five instances within one hour of a single debate, of when the person in the chair has to stop members speaking; to cut speakers out of the debate; to restrict time; to say to members that they should "give bullet points only"; and to tell ministers that they have no time to respond, then the timetabling motion is wrong and should not be agreed to.
I ask the Executive to think again about timetabling motions: using them as a matter of course has the effect—it might not be the purpose—of restricting debate in the chamber, and I hope that no member wishes that. I oppose the motion.
We initially indicated that we would vote against the timetable motion, but since then, the Minister for Parliament has substantially extended the time limits. As he listened to our request on that matter, we will not oppose the timetable motion. [Interruption.]
Order.
Scottish National Party members speak for themselves—they do not speak for Conservative members.
Our strong view is that the lateness of the marshalled list of amendments gives members of the Scottish Parliament inadequate time to study the detail of the changes proposed. That matter should be referred to the Procedures Committee. Decisions made by the Executive in haste and at the last moment can easily be repented at leisure.
If I may treat that as a point of order, I should like to say that I agree entirely with Lord James Douglas-Hamilton. We discussed that issue in the Parliamentary Bureau yesterday, and, in my view, the standing order does not allow enough time between the completion of the lodging and deletion of amendments, and the marshalling of lists and timetabling of motions. A letter on that subject is currently winging its way from me to the convener of the Procedures Committee, and I hope that the matter will be reviewed. Things are being far too rushed in the process.
In following the usual double act, I want to make a couple of comments. Mr Russell referred to Mr McCabe's explanation at the end of the short debate last week; in fact, Mr McCabe seemed to go on for so long that I thought he was filibustering on his own timetabling motion. At one stage last week, he said that the motion was not a guillotine, and in the next breath he talked about a knife coming down. I have to say that I do not quite get the semantic distinction between a guillotine and a knife.
This week, we are considering the National Parks (Scotland) Bill, and Mike Rumbles has lodged some substantial technical amendments to clarify and correct points that were raised at stage 2. We are effectively to take it at face value that the technical problems from stage 2 will be rectified by those extremely technical amendments at stage 3. If we do not have the necessary time to debate those amendments, there is the risk that the Parliament will pass bad law.
My second comment is in response to Lord James Douglas-Hamilton's point that the Government has somehow has got over the problems by generously extending the timetable. As Mr McCabe would have it, the whole point of lodging a timetabling motion is to provide a guide for members and the chair on when different debates will be taken. However, if he has had to extend the timetable so much, it potentially ceases to be a realistic guide, because we might finish debates long before the times set down in the timetabling motion. I have to ask Mr McCabe again: why bother with the timetabling motion? Why can we not sit down and debate the amendments as they come up? We will get through them in good order; the Parliament is very sensible, and we have not had filibustering thus far. Let us get on with the debate and stop this nonsense with the timetable.
Furthermore, the danger with the timetable is that at some point, an Administration—certainly not this one—that wants to get something through quickly and to stifle debate will be in the habit of accepting timetabling motions willy-nilly. That is a bad thing for democracy.
I raised a question when today's business was put forward by Iain Smith on behalf of the Executive. Perhaps the issues should have been raised by some other members at that time.
I agree very much with Lord James Douglas-Hamilton's point that we must address the issue. Presiding Officer, I am very happy that you have written what will be—I am sure—a highly sensible letter to the Procedures Committee, which will reinforce my own feeble efforts in that direction. The committee has already discussed my paper on the timetabling of amendments.
As for today's business, I am advised that the Parliamentary Bureau has provided a reasonably generous allocation of time to debate what members have proposed in various amendments and to allow us to get the legislation through. As members have said, the bureau has misjudged the situation two out of the past three times. However, being a very long-suffering person, I am personally prepared to give the bureau the benefit of the doubt on this occasion.
That said, before we start debating legislation in the autumn, we must properly sort out the whole timetabling issue. It is madness to spend all this time on pre-legislative scrutiny and then to have a final sprint at the end when, as Alasdair Morgan pointed out, we might get some of the amendments wrong. As far as I am concerned, this is a yellow card to the Parliamentary Bureau.
With respect to marshalled lists of amendments, I want to draw attention to the fact that, when stage 2 of the Bail, Judicial Appointments etc (Scotland) Bill was cleared on the Thursday, all amendments to the bill had to be lodged by the Friday evening to allow the production of the marshalled list, which, as has been acknowledged, is coming out too late. However, it is difficult to see how, with such a time scale, that situation can be improved, unless there is no time to lodge amendments.
With respect to guillotines, everyone in the chamber sympathises with Mike Russell's point. On today's business, there is no doubt that there has been movement, which should allow us to contain the business within a reasonable time scale. However, many of us identify with the principles that Mike Russell set out.
Does Mr McCabe wish to reply?
Briefly, Presiding Officer—members in the chamber are concerned about time, but they seem to spend inordinate amounts of time discussing the same thing every week.
In response to Mr Morgan, as a member of the SNP group, he should understand knives—just look at his back. The SNP group would do well to listen to Lord James Douglas-Hamilton's advice—the SNP speaks for itself, and not for other parties. That should be mentioned to Mr Sillars this morning when he holds his press conference with Mr Rifkind, although the SNP might not want to mention that.
Mr Russell seems to have changed his argument. A few weeks ago, he was happy with an overall end time for the debate. Now that argument has changed, so that members are not given notice of when the debate will end. The more some people complain about Westminster, the more they want to be the same as Westminster.
It is striking to note the arguments that are being put forward to try to defend a position that more and more simply reflects divisions within the SNP group. Mr Russell's arguments are becoming weaker and weaker. He now has to invoke the help of Mr Canavan—a good choice, I must say—but clearly he is losing the argument if he has to invoke the help of other members.
Will the minister give way?
No, I will not. We are not wasting any more time.
Quite simply, the case has been made for a timetabling motion. I commend the motion.
The question is, that motion S1M-1092 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Alexander, Ms Wendy (Paisley North) (Lab)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Barrie, Scott (Dunfermline West) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab)
Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab)
Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab)
Curran, Ms Margaret (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab)
Deacon, Susan (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab)
Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD)
Galbraith, Mr Sam (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (Lab)
Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab)
Godman, Trish (West Renfrewshire) (Lab)
Gorrie, Donald (Central Scotland) (LD)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (Edinburgh Pentlands) (Lab)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Home Robertson, Mr John (East Lothian) (Lab)
Hughes, Janis (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Jackson, Dr Sylvia (Stirling) (Lab)
Jackson, Gordon (Glasgow Govan) (Lab)
Jamieson, Cathy (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab)
Jamieson, Margaret (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)
Jenkins, Ian (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Kerr, Mr Andy (East Kilbride) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Lyon, George (Argyll and Bute) (LD)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
Macintosh, Mr Kenneth (Eastwood) (Lab)
MacKay, Angus (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
MacLean, Kate (Dundee West) (Lab)
Macmillan, Maureen (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
McCabe, Mr Tom (Hamilton South) (Lab)
McConnell, Mr Jack (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab)
McMahon, Mr Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
McNeil, Mr Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab)
McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab)
Morrison, Mr Alasdair (Western Isles) (Lab)
Muldoon, Bristow (Livingston) (Lab)
Mulligan, Mrs Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Murray, Dr Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)
Oldfather, Irene (Cunninghame South) (Lab)
Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab)
Radcliffe, Nora (Gordon) (LD)
Raffan, Mr Keith (Mid Scotland and Fife) (LD)
Robson, Euan (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (LD)
Rumbles, Mr Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland) (LD)
Simpson, Dr Richard (Ochil) (Lab)
Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab)
Smith, Iain (North-East Fife) (LD)
Stephen, Nicol (Aberdeen South) (LD)
Thomson, Elaine (Aberdeen North) (Lab)
Watson, Mike (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Wilson, Allan (Cunninghame North) (Lab)
Against
Campbell, Colin (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Canavan, Dennis (Falkirk West)
Crawford, Bruce (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perth) (SNP)
Elder, Dorothy-Grace (Glasgow) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP)
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Harper, Robin (Lothians) (Green)
Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP)
Ingram, Mr Adam (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Lochhead, Richard (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
MacAskill, Mr Kenny (Lothians) (SNP)
Marwick, Tricia (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Central Scotland) (SNP)
McGugan, Irene (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway and Upper Nithsdale) (SNP)
Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Paterson, Mr Gil (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Quinan, Mr Lloyd (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
Russell, Michael (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Salmond, Mr Alex (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow) (SNP)
Swinney, Mr John (North Tayside) (SNP)
White, Ms Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP)
Wilson, Andrew (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Abstentions
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James (Lothians) (Con)
Fergusson, Alex (South of Scotland) (Con)
Gallie, Phil (South of Scotland) (Con)
Goldie, Miss Annabel (West of Scotland) (Con)
Johnston, Nick (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Johnstone, Alex (North-East Scotland) (Con)
McIntosh, Mrs Lyndsay (Central Scotland) (Con)
McLetchie, David (Lothians) (Con)
Mundell, David (South of Scotland) (Con)
Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Tosh, Mr Murray (South of Scotland) (Con)
Wallace, Ben (North-East Scotland) (Con)
The result of the division is: For 63, Against 28, Abstentions 14.
Motion agreed to.
That the Parliament agrees that for Stage 3 of the Bail, Judicial Appointments etc. (Scotland) Bill and the National Parks (Scotland) Bill, debate on each part of the proceedings, if not previously brought to a conclusion, shall be brought to a conclusion at the following times (calculated from the time when Stage 3 of the Bail, Judicial Appointments etc. (Scotland) Bill begins) –
Bail, Judicial Appointments etc. (Scotland) Bill
Group 1 to Group 4 – no later than 1 hour 15 minutes
Group 5 – no later than 1 hour 45 minutes
Group 6 to Group 10 – no later than 3 hours
Motion to pass the Bill – no later than 3 hours 30 minutes
National Parks (Scotland) Bill
Group 1 to Group 4 – no later than 4 hours 30 minutes
Group 5 – no later than 5 hours 15 minutes
Group 6 to Group 7 – no later than 6 hours
Group 8 to Group 11 – no later than 7 hours
Motion to pass the bill – no later than 7 hours 30 minutes.