Plenary,
Meeting date: Wednesday, May 19, 1999
Official Report
611KB pdf
Scottish Parliament Wednesday 19 May 1999
[THE PRESIDING OFFICER opened the meeting at 10:00]
Before we start on the business of the day, I have one announcement to make. I want to correct the announcement of the vote on prayers that was made yesterday. The figures were transposed, and should have been announced as follows: For 69, Against 37, Abstentions 15. The motion was carried. The incorrect announcement makes no difference to the vote, but I am sorry that it was made.
We are also having teething troubles with the business bulletin, and I ask for your indulgence on that. It has now been suggested and agreed in informal discussion with the Parliamentary Bureau that we will not take the motion on the summer recess today because it has not yet been agreed. Mr McCabe will withdraw the motion that is on the business bulletin, and Mr Russell will withdraw his amendment. Instead, there will be a short business motion dealing with the formal meetings over the bank holiday. It will be lodged by Mr McCabe now and be taken at the end of this afternoon's debate.
I have been considering the fact that a very large number of members want to speak in today's main debate. For that reason, I am proposing that the debate should be extended until 12 pm, that we should then adjourn for lunch, and that we should debate the appointment of junior ministers in the afternoon for an hour from 2.30 pm. That will enable more members to participate. Normally such motions would be ordered in advance, but I hope that members will find this a more convenient arrangement that will allow a more extended debate.
I also propose that there be one debate, with separate votes at the end on the amendments that I have selected. At the start of the debate, after the First Minister has moved his motion, I shall ask that the two amendments that I have selected be moved formally. We will then have a general debate, taking the votes on the amendments at the end. Instead of splitting up the proceedings into short debates on each amendment, there will be one general debate. I hope that that, too, will be to the convenience of Parliament.
Is it agreed? It is agreed.
On a point of order. Amendments S1M-4.1 and S1M-5.1 conflate the names of two individuals—in the case amendment 4.1, those of James Wallace and Ross Finnie, and in the case of amendment 5.1, those of Nicol Stephen and Iain Smith. It would be far more appropriate to take separate votes on the appointment of those individuals, particularly in the case of amendment 5.1, as the business bulletin shows that a number of motions were lodged relating to Nicol Stephen, but only one relating to Iain Smith. Conflating them in this way creates difficulties for members who wish to vote for one or other candidate. I ask you to separate out those votes.
I took that into account, but decided that there had to be a limit to the number of amendments that I could accept if we were to have rational debate. I took the amendments that were broader in scope; in other words, those that included two names. You can, Mr Russell, distinguish in the debate between Nicol Stephen and Iain Smith, but I am afraid that as far as the vote is concerned, Mr Smith will have to suffer guilt by association.
In accordance with section 47 of the Scotland Act 1998, the First Minister may, with the approval of Her Majesty, appoint ministers, but before doing so he must have the agreement of Parliament. I call the First Minister, Mr Dewar.