On a point of order, Presiding Officer. During the debate, it became clear that members across the chamber were seeking more clarity on issues to do with the financial resolution on the Creative Scotland Bill. In that light, I ask that we may withdraw the motion on the financial resolution so that we can bring it back to the Parliament next week and allow clarity to be provided.
The minister has requested permission to withdraw the motion. I have to put it to Parliament—
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Can I clarify whether, if the motion on the financial resolution were to be moved and members were to vote it down, the Creative Scotland Bill would fall?
I can clarify the position. The motion on the financial resolution has already been moved. Were it to be voted down, standing orders are clear that the bill would fall.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Given that the motion on the financial resolution has been moved, is it not up to the Parliament whether the minister can withdraw it?
If members stop making points of order, I will get round to my next question, which is to ask for Parliament's approval for the minister's request to withdraw the motion on the financial resolution. Is that agreed?
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. We need some clarity on the process that has allowed us to arrive at this point. This is the second time that the Government, when it has faced defeat in a vote in this Parliament, has asked to withdraw its motion rather than allow Parliament to take its decision. The Government surely cannot be allowed to deploy that tactic to avoid facing the shambles that it has brought before the Parliament.
I will take a point of order from Bruce Crawford before I return to Mr McMahon.
I am clear from my discussions and from what I heard of the tenor of the debate that no one wants the bill to fall this afternoon and that members are prepared to see it go to stage 2. If we do not withdraw the financial resolution this afternoon, the bill will fall. I think that the Parliament would like to see the bill proceed and would like to give it a chance by having the other information brought before it next week. That is a fair way to proceed and it is nothing to do with the issues outlined by the Opposition.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. In the circumstances in which the matter has been brought to the Parliament, would it not be better that we do not vote on the motion on stage 1 of the bill, or on the motion on the financial resolution, and that we bring them back next week for the vote?
The Government has not at this point sought leave to withdraw the motion on stage 1 of the bill and I am clear that it does not seek to do so.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I am conscious, as the Presiding Officer will be, that many members are not aware of the proceedings this afternoon that led us to the current situation. I ask the Presiding Officer to rule on whether the Minister for Parliamentary Business should bring us an explanation this evening of why he is withdrawing the financial resolution.
As I am sure the member is aware, that is not a point of order for me; it is a debating point. The minister has requested, and given his reason for requesting, to withdraw the motion, and he is quite entitled to do so. The decision is for Parliament to take, and members can choose to oppose.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. As the member who created this evening's stushie by moving against the financial resolution, I seek clarification that, despite the minister's suggestion that the financial resolution should be brought back to the Parliament next week, it is for the Parliamentary Bureau to determine when the financial resolution should be timetabled for debate. The bureau could refer it to the relevant committee, or committees, if members wished to take further evidence on the financial memorandum before it came back before the Parliament.
You are absolutely correct. It is for the Parliamentary Bureau to timetable any such motion.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. As the convener of the Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee, I ask the Government to consider this shambles very carefully. No one in the chamber wanted this situation to arise. There is considerable good will on the establishment of a national cultural agency for Scotland, but I ask the Government—
Have you a point of order?
The point of order is that the Parliament should be given the opportunity to do the right thing and consider the bill and the financial resolution on the same day, and that both decisions should be taken at a later date when agreed by the Parliamentary Bureau. That is the right thing to do.
Both motions have been moved, and the Government has requested to withdraw one of them. Therefore, the question I put to the chamber is whether it approves the withdrawal of the motion.
It is not a point of order; it is a motion without notice. I ask that the financial memorandum be withdrawn and that the Parliamentary Bureau timetables the motions for next week's business.
Members will have to excuse me for deliberating carefully. These are serious issues. My problem is that both motions have been moved. The Government has sought permission to withdraw one of them. The position is that I must put that question to the chamber.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. The Minister for Parliamentary Business predicated his argument for withdrawing the motion on the basis that the financial memorandum needs to be further clarified. Clearly, if there was a debate, it did not reach a satisfactory conclusion on which members could decide. How is it possible for a serious member of Parliament to vote on a bill without willing the means for its delivery through the financial resolution?
That has to be a judgment for members when they cast their vote.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer.
I seek order from other members, please. These are serious issues.
We strongly support the setting up of creative Scotland, but I ask the Minister for Parliamentary Business to withdraw both motions in the interests of establishing creative Scotland as quickly as possible. If he does not do so, he will jeopardise the quick creation of creative Scotland.
Again, that was not a point of order. I am looking at the Minister for Parliamentary Business but he is not choosing to accede to that request. He is quite entitled to do that.
No.
That is not agreed. The question will therefore be put at decision time.
Next
Energy Bill