Points of Order
Before we move to the next item of business, I have received notice of a point of order.
I seek your guidance on a point of order, Presiding Officer. Paragraph 13 of the policy memorandum to the Debt Arrangement and Attachment (Scotland) Bill states that the bill
"creates a new method of enforcement of legally constituted debt, known as attachment, to be permitted against corporeal moveable property in commercial cases. It makes provision, in exceptional circumstances where strict criteria are satisfied, for an order of court in respect of non-essential valuable assets in domestic cases."
However, as the long title shows, the bill does not make that distinction—the provision for the new method of enforcement that is enshrined in part 2 of the bill does not restrict the new diligence to commercial cases. Therefore, the bill clearly does not follow the policy of the policy memorandum.
In introducing the bill to Parliament on 19 September, the Minister for Social Justice said:
"Part 2 of the bill responds to recommendations from the Parliament, the working group and the consultation exercise that we should treat domestic and commercial situations differently."—[Official Report, 19 September 2002; c 13886.]
The minister agreed with the policy memorandum. Unfortunately, part 2 does not follow through with that response, which means that domestic cases could still be dealt with through the provisions that are being introduced for commercial cases. Therefore, there is doubt about whether Parliament was fully aware of the general principles of the bill during the stage 1 consideration.
Will the Presiding Officer rule whether that situation renders the bill incompetent under rule 9.3.3 of standing orders, which outlines the documents that should accompany Executive bills? I will refresh members' memories on that rule. Among the accompanying documents that are required for Executive bills is a policy memorandum, which must, among other things, set out the bill's policy objectives and its effects on a range of subject matters.
Standing orders also provide for the member who is in charge of a bill to refer part of the bill back to the relevant committee for further stage 2 consideration, provided that no more than half of the sections are referred. I ask for guidance on whether now would be the appropriate time to invite the minister to refer back sections 10 to 32 inclusive to the Social Justice Committee for stage 2 consideration under rule 9.8.6 of standing orders.
I am grateful to the member for giving me notice of the point of order.
On your first point, the content and accuracy of the policy memorandum is entirely a matter for the Executive, as the first paragraph of the memorandum makes clear. Rule 9.3.3 simply requires that a policy memorandum be provided when a bill is introduced. There is no procedural basis for challenging a bill after it has been introduced on the basis of a perceived inadequacy in the text of an accompanying document. The proper time for questioning those documents is during stage 1. In this case, the stage 1 report on the bill comments on those documents in detail.
On your final point, you are right that the member in charge has the right to move to adjourn stage 3 to a later day or, with notice, to refer back parts of the bill for further consideration in committee. Either motion may be moved only after the amendments on the marshalled list have been disposed of. I have no indication that the minister proposes to move either such motion, but that will be a matter for him to decide at the appropriate time.
Are you telling the chamber that a policy memorandum that is published by the Executive can bear no relation to the bill to which it refers and that that would still be a competent process?
I am not going to rule on hypothetical circumstances. My ruling is that responsibility for the accuracy and content of the memorandum is a matter for the Executive. Disputes about whether the memorandum represents adequately what is in the bill are a matter for political debate. There has been the opportunity—there will be further opportunity in the course of the day—to debate the politics of the issue.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I hope that you have received notice of this point of order regarding the amendment that I lodged to amend the long title of the bill—amendment 89—which would have deleted
"to abolish poindings and warrant sales"
and inserted
"to rename the diligence of poindings and warrant sales as ‘attachment'".
The Presiding Officer ruled that the amendment was not competent and he was good enough to give me guidance why. The amendment fell under criterion 1 of paragraph 4.58 of the "Guidance on Public Bills":
"Trivial amendments or amendments that are technically defective".
It is my view that a long title must be faithful to the bill and that the bill does not abolish poindings and warrant sales but renames them. Under the circumstances, I am not satisfied that amendment 89 is a trivial amendment. It strikes at the heart of the role of the long title. I seek your guidance on how I can take the matter further.
I am grateful to the member for giving me notice of the point of order.
As the member said, she has had the opportunity to discuss the matter with the Presiding Officer, who has given a degree of explanation. It is not the practice of the Presiding Officers to give detailed explanations about the selection of amendments. It having been stated on this occasion that, under criterion 1 of paragraph 4.58, the amendment could not be accepted, I believe that the Presiding Officer's judgment was that the amendment was technically defective. The Presiding Officer has given the member the opportunity to discuss the matter further. If the member wishes to pursue it, she might usefully seek some private guidance from the Presiding Officer. However, it is not a matter that we have ever chosen to discuss in the chamber and I do not propose that we begin to do so today.
Are you ruling that it is not competent to amend the long title? I seek that clarification.
No, I am not ruling that at all. I am saying that the amendment was not selected for reasons that I am not prepared to discuss any further. If the member wishes to clarify the matter further, she should raise it with the Presiding Officer. The same ruling has been given on several occasions at this stage in debates, and there is no profit in any further wrangling over it.