Points of Order
I have notice of two points of order.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer, of which I have given you notice. At First Minister's question time on Thursday last week, I asked the First Minister about an Executive minister whom The Scotsman quoted as saying that Scottish Enterprise was like
"an oil tanker running out of control".
The First Minister's reply was:
"I will make two straight, factual points. First, no minister made to any newspaper the comment that Murdo Fraser has cited. That will be confirmed in due course."—[Official Report, 6 March 2003; c 19174.]
Notwithstanding the First Minister's reply, I am unaware that any confirmation has been issued and I understand that The Scotsman sticks to its story.
The issue is serious, as it gives rise to the concern that the First Minister might have breached paragraph 1.1(c) of the ministerial code of conduct, as he might not have given
"accurate and truthful information to Parliament."
The same paragraph says that ministers should correct
"any inadvertent error at the earliest opportunity"
and that
"Ministers who knowingly mislead the Parliament will be expected to offer their resignation".
Presiding Officer, I would be grateful if you could advise me whether the First Minister has contacted you to request permission to make a personal statement to Parliament under rule 13.1 of standing orders, to correct the statement that he made at question time last week and to which I referred.
I am grateful to the member for giving me notice of the point of order. The First Minister has not approached me about making a personal statement. On the wider point, I make it clear that the matter is not for my authority or for standing orders. The ministerial code of conduct is a matter for the First Minister and the member will have to pursue the issue with him.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer, of which I gave you notice yesterday. We are to debate stage 3 of the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Bill today and we received 92 amendments to the bill from the Executive at precisely 4.28 pm on Friday—two minutes before the deadline for lodging amendments.
I understand that the Executive has offered an informal deadline of five days for lodging amendments. [Interruption.]
Order. I am being addressed on a point of order. Let us hear it.
That informal deadline of five days has no clear status. I would like guidance on whether the Executive gave an undertaking to comply with that deadline by ensuring that all amendments were lodged by it, or whether it is merely an aspiration.
The SNP accepts that, with issues that need extensive consultation and which are politically sensitive, compliance with the deadline might not always be possible, even with the best will in the world. However, the present situation is different. At least 90 per cent of the amendments are purely technical and one expects them to be agreed to unanimously. Why were those technical amendments not lodged by the five-day deadline? The clear and inescapable conclusion is that those 80 or 85 technical amendments were deliberately withheld until the last minute.
The serious disadvantage of such action is that those with a serious interest in the topic have not had a proper opportunity to consult us and to ensure that we do our job properly. The consequence is that, without bad intent on anyone's part, we might pass bad law that is technically imperfect, because the Executive flouted its undertaking and deadline.
I thank the member for giving me notice of the point of order, which has allowed me to consider it. I confirm what he says: the Executive's amendments were lodged very close to the deadline on Friday, but they were lodged by the deadline, so the Executive has done nothing that is inconsistent with standing orders. Like the member, I have noted that the Executive has its own target of lodging amendments five days before proceedings. That is normally met, but on this occasion it was not, for reasons that I do not know. That is a matter not for me, but for the member to pursue with ministers.
I have considerable sympathy with the point that the member makes. In the past, I have accepted manuscript amendments only when they were last-minute amendments to correct an obvious flaw, but as members have lacked time to consider all the amendments to the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Bill, I have selected all the manuscript amendments that have been lodged. I think that that is the right thing to do in the circumstances and I hope that that will enable the Parliament to proceed to the debate in an orderly manner.
Further to that point of order, Presiding Officer. I hope that it is in order to say that, during stage 2, I as convener of the Rural Development Committee had more than once to ask the Executive to lodge amendments as timeously as possible. Once, the Executive lodged amendments after the deadline had passed, which put me in a fairly difficult position. I sought your guidance at the time and I think that we reached a happy conclusion.
I appreciate that the Executive has worked with other groups to produce positive, consensual amendments, but consistent late lodging of amendments makes proper scrutiny by committees and the Parliament extremely difficult. [Interruption.] Labour members might groan and moan, but the Parliament and its committees are meant to undertake proper scrutiny. I hope that they agree about that.
I have some sympathy with the point that the member has made as convener of the Rural Development Committee. I have noticed criticism of the Parliament—in which, let us all face it, we are all involved—by people outside the Parliament that the legislative process from one stage to another is too hasty. People say that they would like more time between stages.
I know that the Parliamentary Bureau, the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body and the Conveners Group have all been applying their minds to how we can pace things a bit better in the second session. There are lessons to be learned; this is a new Parliament and a new institution and we are not perfect. I hope that in four years' time we will not have such a rush and a logjam at the end of the four-year period as we have had this time. That is the basic root of the problem.
Everything is now in order and we can now begin.