On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I am concerned about a possible breach of parliamentary rules in relation to the Justice 2 Committee's stage 1 report on the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill. What I read in today's press gives me concern. I know that—rightly—you will tell us that that is a matter for the Standards Committee, and I have alerted Mike Rumbles to the fact that I shall write to him. However, the matter is very serious. The Executive has not read the report and cannot comment on it in the press, and committee members cannot respond to the press reports. Because the matter is so serious, will you consider whether the rules about such matters could be tightened up?
I sympathise with the convener of the Justice 2 Committee. It is a serious matter when a committee's report, which has been carefully considered by all the members of the committee, appears in the newspapers before it has been published. However, that is a matter for the Justice 2 Committee at its next meeting, rather than a matter for me. No doubt the Standards Committee will tell us whether it thinks that anything can be done about it within our standing orders. It is a matter for the Justice 2 Committee first of all, but I take a very serious view of it.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I seek your guidance in relation to motion S1M-3379, on the designation of lead committees. Designating the justice committees as the lead committees on the Council of the Law Society of Scotland Bill creates a—
I am terribly sorry, but you have missed your moment.
No. The motion was moved formally, then there was a point of order and then this point of order.
All right. Let us hear the point of order. However, you sound as though you are debating the motion.
No. I am asking whether it is appropriate that two committees that have members of the Law Society of Scotland on them should be the designated lead committees to deal with the Council of the Law Society of Scotland Bill.
The committee members who are members of the Law Society have registered their interests.
That is certainly true with regard to the standing orders of the Parliament but, with regard to article 6 of the European convention on human rights, would the fact that members of the Law Society are scrutinising the bill not threaten the bill's integrity?
With respect, that is a very interesting debating point, but it is not a point of order. I think that we have passed on from that matter. We now come to decision time.
Presiding Officer, I sought clarification. I have to say that I am considerably more mystified now than I was when I first got to my feet.
Well, so am I. We will move now to decision time, although I will read carefully what the member has said.
Previous
Parliamentary Bureau MotionsNext
Decision Time