Good morning. Before we begin this morning's business, I want to deal with a point of order that was raised yesterday by Michael Russell—I see that he is not with us, but I will deal with it anyway. He said that I had promised to come back to him or to make a ruling on a point of order that he raised two weeks ago. In fact, I did not promise to make a ruling; I said that I would reflect on the matter, and I have been reflecting for two weeks. That is my defence. However, I would like to make a ruling all the same.
I am sorry that I missed it, too.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I have reflected on the points that you made yesterday on my challenge to your ruling. I have checked the amendments for a number of weeks, and it is clear that amendments from single members, or at least from members from one political party, are added to the amendments that are accepted. My good colleague Robin Harper had an amendment accepted three weeks ago, with only his name on it. I hope that you will give some written guidance on the submission of amendments, because there is clearly a divergence in the success rate of amendment acceptance. The amendment that you refused today would have had the effect of providing £150 million extra for council housing in Scotland. It is a shame that you did not accept the amendment, given that I am sure that the mover of the motion would have accepted it.
I will not get into that argument. I gave guidance yesterday; I read it again this morning in the Official Report and it is clear. I said that it is not the case that an individual member can never have an amendment accepted, but the chance of an amendment being accepted depends on two things. One is the scale of support for the amendment and the other is whether there are other amendments. My recollection is that, in the case of Mr Harper's amendment, there were not two other competing amendments. I hope that that is clear. I have to select amendments and make for a sensible debate, and priority is given to those amendments that are shown to have substantial support in the chamber.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I gave you notice yesterday of the point of order that I am raising this morning. I ask you to rule on whether it would be appropriate in the forthcoming debate for members of the Health and Community Care Committee to use or refer to, obliquely or directly, any material that is in the draft community care report, as that report's conclusions have been discussed but not yet published. The good standing of all committee reports is at risk if committee members are allowed to refer to such material.
I am grateful to you for giving me advance notice of that point of order, Dr Simpson, as that allowed me to reflect on it in advance. My ruling is that there is nothing to prevent members from using material from unpublished committee reports so long as that material has been discussed in public meetings of the committee and is therefore already in the public domain. I warn members before the start of the next debate that they could be in breach of section 9.4 of the "Code of Conduct for Members of the Scottish Parliament" if they refer to Health and Community Care Committee conclusions and recommendations that have not yet been published. I hope that that ruling is clear.
Next
Community Care