Plenary, 19 Sep 2002

Meeting date: Thursday, September 19, 2002

Official Report 708KB pdf

---

Points of Order

I know that there are other points of order, but I turn first to the point of order that Mr Sheridan raised this morning with the Deputy Presiding Officer.

As was said this morning, when there are doubts about the admissibility of a stage 2 amendment, the final decision rests with the convener of the committee that is dealing with the bill at that stage. Any such decision can be made only in relation to a particular amendment that has been lodged, as the precise wording of an amendment can often determine whether it is deemed admissible or not.

However, it might be of assistance if I remind the chamber of the general principles that apply in making such decisions. One of the tests of whether an amendment is admissible is whether it would be

"inconsistent with the general principles of the Bill".

That test is explained in part 4 of the "Guidance on Public Bills". The relevant point is that if an amendment would remove or frustrate one of the principal components of a bill, it is treated as a wrecking amendment and as inadmissible. The attachment procedure provided for in the Debt Arrangement and Attachment (Scotland) Bill is clearly a key component of the bill and it follows that any amendment that prevented that procedure from being effective would be inadmissible. Whether any particular amendment that may be lodged would have that effect is clearly a matter of judgment and that is a judgment that is, at stage 2, for the convener of the committee, rather than me, to make.

I also remind members that, if the motion on the bill is agreed to today, there will be a further opportunity to vote on the bill at stage 3. Members who find themselves unable to amend the bill to the extent that they consider appropriate will have the opportunity to vote to reject the bill as a whole at that stage.

I hope that that clarifies the matter to everyone's satisfaction.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I draw your attention to a report on the front page of The Herald this morning, in which it is stated that the Deputy First Minister will announce the new Cabinet policy on proportional representation for local government at the Liberal Democrat conference in Brighton next week. Given the importance of that policy, should the Deputy First Minister not announce it in the chamber?

There is a distinction between party policy and Executive policy. If the Deputy First Minister is speaking at a party conference in his capacity as a party politician, that is up to him. The short answer to Mr Neil's question is that we will have to wait and see.

With all due respect, the way in which the story is written makes it clear that the Deputy First Minister will be speaking in his capacity as Deputy First Minister and will announce Executive policy. Is your ruling that, if it is Executive policy, it should be announced in the chamber?

That is normal procedure. It would be rather strange to announce Executive policy at any gathering in Brighton, whatever its nature. We will have to wait and see what happens. Mr Neil cannot ask me to rule on hypothetical questions.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Can you rule that, should the Deputy First Minister inadvertently speak at a party-political meeting in his capacity as Deputy First Minister, he would be out of order to refer to policy that might be enacted by the Parliament?

What I have said is simply guidance. I can consider matters only when they happen. I cannot rule on hypothetical issues.

Does Mr Sheridan want to come back on the main point?

I apologise. I thought that the other points of order were going to be on the main point.

Presiding Officer, can you give a ruling on the comments that the convener of the Social Justice Committee made earlier? I am not questioning the credibility of Johann Lamont, but today she said that she supported a specific aspect of the Executive's bill. Given her support for the exceptional attachment order, is it fair and proper that, as the convener of the Social Justice Committee, she will have a determining decision on whether an amendment is a wrecking amendment?

Yes, it is. I was in the chair when the convener was speaking and I listened carefully to her speech. She was speaking on behalf of the committee. When a convener is in the chair, she or he acts impartially and uses her or his best judgment, just as a Presiding Officer does in the chamber. Let me make it clear that there is no question of the Presiding Officers telling committee conveners how to do their job.