Motion without notice
Presiding Officer, I have given you notice that I would like to move a motion without notice, in my name, about the agricultural business improvement scheme. I submitted the motion to you this morning and I want to address the issue of whether it should be taken.
Under the standing orders, the decision whether to take such a motion is entirely mine. As the Rural Affairs Committee has reported this morning on ABIS, as the scheme ends on 31 December and as the application is supported by more than one party, I have decided that I should accept the motion. My decision allows the Parliament to decide whether to debate the issue. The motion that I am accepting is simply the motion without notice that an extra debate be added to this morning's business.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I appreciate your explanation, but it would be useful to stress to the chamber again the interpretation and ruling that you have just given.
I understand that the motion that has been referred to is a motion without notice to debate an issue and that the debate that we will now have will be on whether we should discuss the issue, not on the substantive details of the issue.
That is a clearer and longer version of what I just said.
I am grateful to Mr McCabe for clarifying the matter. It is important that we know what we are voting on.
I apologise for croaking, but I am croaking rather less than I was yesterday. This will be a long morning, so I will be brief.
Two issues are at stake—one is the issue of principle and the other is the issue of practice. The issue of principle is that this morning's time in the Parliament is Opposition time, which has been allocated to the Scottish National party. Yesterday, we chose to bring forward an urgent motion that was lodged on Monday, which seeks to redress an injustice that is being done to some 4,000 people and which involves £22 million. It is a matter of real hardship in many sectors of the agriculture community in Scotland.
With the report from the Rural Affairs Committee strongly recommending that action be taken on ABIS, it seemed only fair to give Parliament the opportunity to have its voice heard, particularly as the cut-off date for the scheme—
On a point of order. I am a little confused. Mr Russell seems to be implying that he had knowledge of the report of the Rural Affairs Committee before it was published this morning at
7.30. My point of order is that yesterday, he said— The Presiding Officer: It was well known yesterday that the report would be published first thing this morning. The committee convener supplied me with a draft of the report and I trust that the report is now in the hands of every member.
At the risk of incurring your wrath, Presiding Officer, I want to inform you that that was not the point of order. The point of order was connected to the fact that Mr Russell referred to items in the report in laying the motion without notice before the Parliament. That is a relevant point of order.
Please continue, Mr Russell.
Thank you very much.
Obviously, Mr Smith's long train journeys from Fife, to which he referred yesterday, are preying on his mind. The report, which is in the hands of everyone in the chamber, clearly indicates that an injustice is being done. In those circumstances, it is right that we consider the motion. If members had listened to the evidence in the committee, it would be surprising if they did not know that an injustice was being done, even before the report came out. Perhaps Mr Smith should read the evidence more often.
There is a wrong to be righted and this is the last opportunity to do so. It would be a huge failure of the Parliament if it did not take that opportunity and I am glad that the SNP is offering that opportunity. A decision on the matter involves all of us, particularly Liberal Democrat members, who should recall that at Westminster—and I am not
fond of many Westminster conventions—there is a convention that the vote must follow the voice. We have heard many voices raised by the Liberal Democrats against the injustice of ABIS. I hope that they will bear that in mind when they decide whether to vote for the motion.
This is sheer opportunism.
Obviously, the Deputy First Minister's vote will not follow his voice—that is a matter for his conscience.
The second point that I wish to raise this morning—[Interruption.]
Order. There is too much noise in the chamber.
The Deputy First Minister is unusually animated this morning.
The second matter of great importance for the chamber is that this morning is SNP Opposition time. If we choose to bring a motion for debate, it should not be subject to veto by the Executive. There is a basic principle about allocation of parliamentary time, which I have addressed repeatedly in the Procedures Committee. In the circumstances, it would be wrong for the Parliament and any member on those benches to vote not to allow the SNP to use its time in the way that it wishes. If the Parliament were to do that, it would be a great blow to democracy here.
On a point of order.
Is it a real point of order, Mr Jenkins?
It is a killer point.
Mr Russell makes a point about abuse of the parliamentary system. The motion in Mr Russell's name—which I signed—was e-mailed to me, and I was told that it would not be debated. If anybody is abusing the parliamentary system, it is Mr Russell—[Interruption.]
Order. I will allow a short debate on this, until 9.45 am. If members wish to make points, they may do so, but there should be no points of order, please.
We have heard another Liberal Democrat whose vote will not follow his voice. I regret that, because this is an issue of parliamentary privilege; it is an issue about how the Parliament operates—whether the Executive dominates it or parties have a shot at things. If members vote against the motion, they are not only condemning 4,000 people to considerable financial hardship—remember that—but voting against Scottish democracy. I ask members to bear that in mind when they vote this morning.
I move,
That motion S1M-392 be taken at this meeting of the Parliament.
I would like to support Mr Russell's desire to have the issue heard in the Parliament. I was part of the Rural Affairs Committee, which heard evidence from all sides of the debate. The committee felt sympathy towards the Minister for Rural Affairs because it became obvious, through the process of gathering evidence, that he had been handed a poisoned chalice by his predecessor, Lord Sewel. One of the principles at stake is the extent to which the actions of the present Administration should be led by the promises of the previous one.
What is more important is that there was all- party agreement in the committee about the fact that many applicants have spent considerable sums of money applying for the scheme. They are, under the present circumstances, very unlikely to get that money back. It is essential, for the sake of democracy and principle, that the matter be debated in this chamber.
Mr McCabe's name has come up on the screen. Would he prefer to wind up at the end?
Yes.
I am a member of the Rural Affairs Committee, involved in the questioning of the minister on 3 December.
I am shocked at the behaviour of the convener of the Rural Affairs Committee in rushing out this interim report in the early hours of the morning. I have not had the opportunity to read fully the interim report because of an earlier clash of committees. This is a disgraceful use of parliamentary time. This is using the financial problems of our farmers and crofters in the Highlands and Islands to make party political points. I suggest that we do not discuss the motion today.
Once again, we have seen the coalition between the Scottish National party and the Conservative party. I hope that the Conservative party will take the time— [Interruption.]
Order.
On a point of order. Is not it the case that we were all elected to represent the interests of all the people of Scotland, irrespective of political party?
That is a truism, but not a point of order.
That is true. I hope that the Conservative party—[Interruption.]
On a point of order.
Just a moment, Mr McCabe. Is this a real point of order?
Mr Rumbles would not allow me to intervene. Could I continue?
No, you cannot. That is not a point of order. Please sit down, Mr Ewing.
Thank you, Presiding Officer. I will finish the point that I was trying to make. I hope that when the Conservative party wraps itself in a union flag, it will remind the people who voted for it that it has spent so much time supporting the nationalists in the Parliament. On second thoughts, the Conservative members can save their time—we will do that for them.
On a point of order.
Is this a first—a real point of order?
As far as I am concerned, it is. I have heard Mr McCabe say that this is an issue for party co-ordination and co-operation. He is wrong. This is an issue—[Interruption.]
Order. That is not a point of order, Mr Gallie.
Mr Gallie misunderstands my point. This is another issue on which the Conservatives and the SNP agree.
This is not an attempt by the Executive to veto the democratic rights of the Parliament—the people who are abusing parliamentary process are SNP members. We have a business motion that has been accepted by the Parliament and agreed by every party in the Parliamentary Bureau, yet, even though the SNP had the opportunity to amend the motion, it has used the guise of short notice to gain political advantage. I am glad to hear—
The minister is wasting our time.
I am glad that Mr Russell appreciates my clarification—we will try to enlighten the SNP at every possible opportunity. Perhaps we could enlighten SNP members further—I refer to their behaviour this morning. I implore you, Presiding Officer, to pay more attention to the heckling and disgraceful behaviour that happens regularly.
The SNP had an opportunity to alter Parliament's business. The issue could have been dealt with and the scheme discussed today, if members had had sufficient notice to prepare for the debate. The fact that Mr Ewing had a motion in the business bulletin as early as Monday would have provided the SNP with sufficient time to make the necessary representations in the bureau and thus alter the business that was planned for today. It is a discourtesy to members to expect them to participate in a debate for which no prior notice was given.
To replace Mr Ewing's motion, lodged on Monday, with another lodged by Mr Russell, and to expect it to be debated today, is an abuse of parliamentary time and its procedures.
As we are talking about abuse of parliamentary procedure, why does the 12.15 pm statement on Hampden not appear on the business bulletin, when the minister has been spinning since Sunday that he would make a statement today?
Is the Scottish National party suggesting that we should not have a statement on Hampden? It has been requesting such a statement for some time.
The kind of behaviour that we have seen from the SNP brings this chamber into disrepute. It is also of concern that such behaviour is coming from a member of the Procedures Committee. I hope that that committee will examine the tactics that have been used by the SNP to disrupt today's business plan, for which members have been preparing for some time.
On a point of order.
It is not the Parliament's fault that the SNP is unable to organise its own business plans to avoid the need for disruption to this Parliament.
On a point of order.
I hope that this is a real point of order, because I am getting tired of false ones.
On a point of order. If the Procedures Committee is going to follow Mr McCabe's recommendation, I hope that it will also look at—
That is not a point of
order.
It is a point of order—
It is not a point of order; it is a point of argument. Carry on, Mr McCabe.
This is not a new issue. It has been widely known that ABIS would end on 31 December. The Rural Affairs Committee has considered the matter over a number of weeks and if there had been a need for debate before the end of the year it would, no doubt, have brought something forward before yesterday.
I thank Mr McCabe for giving way. Is he aware that a member of the Labour party supports the motion? Rhoda Grant, during a meeting of the Rural Affairs Committee, said to Ross Finnie:
"I am suggesting that you could ask the Treasury to underwrite this scheme."—[Official Report, Rural Affairs Committee, 3 December 1999; c 278.]
I sincerely hope that Ms Grant will support this motion today as she did on 3 December.
That is just another distortion from the SNP. No one is saying that there is no support for the principle of ABIS.
So debate it.
Debate it.
We are saying that the way in which the motion has been brought before this Parliament is wrong and shows discourtesy to the Parliament.
The report from the Rural Affairs Committee has been published only today. It has taken the committee nearly two weeks to compile it; equally, the Executive needs time to consider it and make a response.
Will the member give way?
I am more than happy to give way—it is the member's time.
Does the member agree that Mike Rumbles should withdraw his attack on the Rural Affairs Committee, given that he was not at the meeting at which it was decided to publish the report?
I am sure that the SNP would like Mr Rumbles to withdraw his relevant comments, but I am sure he will not oblige.
I was not at the Rural Affairs Committee meeting because I was convening the Standards Committee at the same time. The Standards Committee cannot meet without the convener.
As I understand it, the report that we are discussing this morning is an interim report. The Rural Affairs Committee requires to make further investigations before it reaches a final view. Surely that will not happen before 31 December. Matters of concern have already been discussed in the Rural Affairs Committee, and the minister has already spoken to the committee. No new issues have been raised since then. ABIS has also been addressed in written and oral parliamentary questions. The scheme will result in some £16 million of Executive grants going to Highlands and Islands farmers. In an ideal world, of course, there would be more money, but it is equally true that £16 million is not an inconsiderable sum.
Will the minister give way?
It would be wrong to debate the issue so soon after the production of an interim report. I oppose Mike Russell's motion.
We must come to an immediate decision.
The question is, that the motion in the name of Mike Russell, that motion S1M-392 be taken at this meeting of the Parliament, be agreed to. Are we all agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
FOR
Adam, Brian (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Campbell, Colin (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Canavan, Dennis (Falkirk West)
Crawford, Bruce (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perth) (SNP)
Davidson, Mr David (North-East Scotland) (Con)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James (Lothians) (Con)
Elder, Dorothy-Grace (Glasgow) (SNP)
Ewing, Dr Winnie (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP)
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Fergusson, Alex (South of Scotland) (Con)
Gallie, Phil (South of Scotland) (Con)
Gibson, Mr Kenneth (Glasgow) (SNP)
Goldie, Miss Annabel (West of Scotland) (Con)
Gorrie, Donald (Central Scotland) (LD)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Hamilton, Mr Duncan (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Harding, Mr Keith (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP)
Johnston, Nick (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Johnstone, Alex (North-East Scotland) (Con)
Lochhead, Richard (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
MacAskill, Mr Kenny (Lothians) (SNP)
Marwick, Tricia (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Central Scotland) (SNP)
McGrigor, Mr Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
McGugan, Irene (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
McIntosh, Mrs Lyndsay (Central Scotland) (Con)
McLeod, Fiona (West of Scotland) (SNP)
McLetchie, David (Lothians) (Con)
Monteith, Mr Brian (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Mundell, David (South of Scotland) (Con)
Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Paterson, Mr Gil (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Quinan, Mr Lloyd (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Reid, Mr George (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
Russell, Michael (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Salmond, Mr Alex (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Sheridan, Tommy (Glasgow) (SSP)
Stone, Mr Jamie (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross)
(LD)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow) (SNP)
Tosh, Mr Murray (South of Scotland) (Con)
Ullrich, Kay (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Wallace, Ben (North-East Scotland) (Con)
White, Ms Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP)
Wilson, Andrew (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Young, John (West of Scotland) (Con)
AGAINST
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)
Dewar, Donald (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab)
Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD)
Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab)
Godman, Trish (West Renfrewshire) (Lab)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (Edinburgh Pentlands) (Lab)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Hughes, Janis (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Jackson, Dr Sylvia (Stirling) (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)
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)
McAllion, Mr John (Dundee East) (Lab)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
McCabe, Mr Tom (Hamilton South) (Lab)
McConnell, Mr Jack (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab)
McLeish, Henry (Central Fife) (Lab)
McMahon, Mr Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (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)
Munro, Mr John (Ross, Skye and Inverness West) (LD)
Murray, Dr Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)
Oldfather, Ms 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)
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)
Smith, Margaret (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Thomson, Elaine (Aberdeen North) (Lab)
Wallace, Mr Jim (Orkney) (LD)
Watson, Mike (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Wilson, Allan (Cunninghame North) (Lab)
The result of the division is: For 52, Against 61, Abstentions 0.
Motion disagreed to.