Plenary, 17 Jan 2008

Meeting date: Thursday, January 17, 2008

Official Report 742KB pdf

---

Presiding Officer's Ruling

I ask members to take their seats as quickly as possible. I am aware of the exchanges that took place before I came back into the chair, I have discussed the situation with my Deputy Presiding Officers and with officials, and I would like to make the following brief statement.

I received intimation that the Minister for Parliamentary Business wished to withdraw motion S3M-1087. I reiterate that standing orders are absolutely clear that any member has the right to withdraw a motion in their name up to the point at which that motion is moved in Parliament. As motion S3M-1087 had not been moved in Parliament, under standing orders the Minister for Parliamentary Business had an inalienable right to withdraw it. The motion can therefore no longer be considered.

Following that, Mr Jeremy Purvis sought leave for Parliament to consider a motion without notice. Given what I understand to be a commitment by the minister to bring the matter back to Parliament next week and the fact that that proposal will go through the Parliamentary Bureau and normal parliamentary procedures, I am not minded to accept such a motion.

No.

Members may say no as often as they like, but that is the reality of the situation.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer.

Obviously, I accept your judgment on all of that, but the Minister for Parliamentary Business did not undertake to bring the matter back to Parliament next week or at any particular time; he said that he would bring it back to Parliament at some point in the future.

The motion is set down in the Business Bulletin for debate today, following the consideration of the Parliamentary Bureau, which is set up to deal with such matters. One can only imagine that the Government has a particular problem with its budget, such that it requires to eke out the funding in question in some other way. Against the background of uncertainty about when the matter will be brought back to Parliament, I ask you to review the information on which you have made your judgment.

I would like to give the Minister for Parliamentary Business an opportunity to respond on the commitment that I believe he made earlier.

You are entirely correct, Presiding Officer. If I did not make it absolutely clear, let me do so now. It is our intention to bring the legislative consent motion back next week. That will give all parties the chance to discuss the matter and to see whether agreement can be reached.

We are committed to a consultation process that considers all options. I make it absolutely clear that the intended consultation would not exclude support for youth services. I remind Parliament that when the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee considered the matter, it had no points to make in that regard. It is appropriate for the Parliament to take the opportunity to reflect on the issue before dealing with it next week. I repeat that any consultation that the Government holds will include youth services in as wide a sense as possible.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer.

I will take the point of order, but I take it from what the minister has said that a commitment has been made to bring the matter back to Parliament next week, as I said in my statement.

I absolutely understand that commitment, but the essential point that the minister made when he withdrew his legislative consent motion was that the amendment acted against the primary legislation. Is it in order to withdraw the motion and bring the matter back to Parliament if inherent in that is a requirement for you to take again a decision on an amendment that the Minister for Parliamentary Business says is not competent? Did you and your team get it wrong—

Oh!

Order. These are serious issues.

I ask that question because the minister is withdrawing the motion on the basis that the amendment acts against the bill.

I do not believe that we have got it wrong, Miss Baillie, and I am not persuaded by your argument. The member has the right to withdraw the motion; there is no doubt about that. If the motion is withdrawn, the amendment is no longer relevant because the motion will not be debated.

Further to the point of order, Presiding Officer.

To be absolutely clear, would you not rule out exactly the same amendment—which means that this is simply a debate delayed?

I certainly cannot rule out its coming back in the same form, if that is what you are asking. Next week's business will be up to next week.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer.

Of course you have the absolute right to make any determination with regard to the rules—[Interruption.]

Order. These are serious issues and I would like to be able to hear the points of order.

—and you need not explain your rulings. The Minister for Parliamentary Business gave a justification for the motion being withdrawn and, therefore, for my amendment becoming unnecessary. The argument was that the minister will return to Parliament next week after consideration and after hearing the views of members, but debates in this Parliament are the opportunity for the views of members to be heard and we had arranged for a properly timetabled debate on a properly consulted upon measure that others outside this Parliament knew would be debated. Indeed, from June, members have expressed views on the issue.

In your role as the Presiding Officer of this Parliament and as the person who represents this Parliament to others outside, can you tell me whether the reputation of this Parliament is to be undermined by a Government that withdraws motions in advance of a proper parliamentary debate at which members' views can be properly aired, after which the Government can make a consideration, based on our views?

I understand where Mr Purvis is coming from, but I do not consider that the actions of the Presiding Officers have negated a debate. This matter will come back to the Parliament next week. It will have to be approved by the Parliamentary Bureau and I would be surprised if the Parliamentary Bureau did not allocate time to ensure that there is at least as much debate as there would have been today.

I suggest that we move on.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer.

The view of Parliament is sovereign in any nation—[Laughter.]

Order. That is not helpful.

Is it your view that you are unwilling to test the will of Parliament this evening?

My view is what the Parliament decides at decision time at 5 o'clock. I repeat that the minister has the inalienable right, under standing orders, to withdraw the motion—whether anybody likes it or not. That is what has happened.

I strongly suggest that we move to decision time.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer.

Clearly my view is not shared.

I am genuinely trying to be helpful.

That will be a change.

It will, indeed.

Presiding Officer, I wish you to reflect on two issues. When did the Minister for Parliamentary Business come to believe that the amendment was not competent, and when did he inform you of his decision therefore to withdraw the motion?

The second issue relates to members signing up to legislative consent motions. Over the past eight years there has been a general understanding that if a Government or a party lodges a legislative consent motion there is no requirement for other members to sign up to that motion and that it will be debated in this Parliament. If that convention is not now to be followed by this Government, I ask you to reflect on that and refer the matter to the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee for its further consideration.

It is not for me to reflect on the member's second point. I have no doubt that the discussion will take place at the bureau next week. It is open to any member to refer matters to the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee if they wish to do so. I have already forgotten what the member's first point was—[Interruption.]

I can only go back to the fact that the reasons for withdrawing the motion are not for me to determine. The standing orders are quite clear. I will say this for the last time: the member whose name is on the motion has the right to withdraw that motion before it is moved in Parliament. That is what has happened, whether we like it or not.