Points of Order
Before we come to decision time, there are four points of order.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Is it in order for the Minister for Environment and Rural Development, Ross Finnie, to lay a letter before the Transport and the Environment Committee at 9.30 this morning, at the beginning of its meeting, to inform us of his intention to appoint directors to the board of Scottish Water? The Presiding Officer will recall that, during the stage 1 debate on the Water Industry (Scotland) Bill, there was almost universal agreement that the bill as it stood was unsatisfactory in respect of how appointments to the board should be made. Is it in order for the minister to proceed to make appointments—as announced at lunch time today—before the matter has been considered at stage 2 by the Transport and the Environment Committee?
I believe that Fiona McLeod wants to make the same point.
Presiding Officer, I seek your guidance under rule 9.7 of the standing orders about the conduct of stage 2 of a bill. As John Scott said, stage 2 consideration of the bill began this morning, yet the minister issued a press release today detailing the number and the names of the members of the board of Scottish Water. I seek your guidance as to whether rule 9.7 comes into play.
I am grateful to both members for giving me notice of the matter, which enabled me to make inquiries.
The minister's letter to the committee and the subsequent press release make it clear that the appointments to the board of Scottish Water are prospective. [Interruption.] Order. The appointments are subject to the Parliament's approving the bill in its current form. Should the part of the bill that deals with the composition of the board be changed at stage 2 or stage 3, or should the bill fall, it would be for the Executive to amend its plans accordingly. The timing of the Executive's announcement of its intentions is a matter for Scottish ministers. It is open to the committee to pursue the matter with the minister if it wishes, but the matter is not my responsibility.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer, on the same issue. If the members are prospective, can we take it that they cannot be paid any salary or expenses that are voted on by the Parliament until they become officially and legally members of the board?
I think that that is the case, but I am sure that the matter is not my responsibility. It must be a matter for the minister.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I seek your guidance on the two-tier system that seems to be operated by ministers in respect of answering written parliamentary questions. I lodged a question to Ross Finnie on 29 November, which was answered on 13 December. The minister referred me to his answer to the same question that had been lodged on 5 December by Tavish Scott and answered the following day. I asked my question a week before Tavish Scott and was referred to an answer that was given a week before I received an answer.
Will the Presiding Officer state that that is discourteous, underhand, a waste of resources and shows contempt for parliamentary questions? Will the Presiding Officer state that all members should be treated equally by ministers? Will he investigate the issue and ascertain whether Tavish Scott's question was planted by the Executive?
I do not think that members should put words into my mouth on what I shall say in any ruling. However, I will deal with the issue of substance, which is whether a later question has gazumped an earlier one, if I can put it that way. I draw members' attention to Tom McCabe's comments to the Procedures Committee in May. He said:
"It has been stressed strongly to ministers that when they wish to make an announcement through an inspired PQ, they should always check to see whether a question that has been lodged already could be used instead." —[Official Report, Procedures Committee, 1 May 2001; c 724.]
Ah!
Order. That guidance was wise, and appears not to have been followed fully in this case. As a result, the member has a grievance.
The next point is important, and refers to the second part of Alex Fergusson's point of order earlier this afternoon. I undertook to respond to that point of order, which was raised by the convener of the Rural Development Committee, concerning the future handling of the Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Bill. I have consulted both the convener of the committee and the bill's promoter, and I hope that it will be helpful if I spell out the current position.
The Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Bill is now the Parliament's property. As members know, the bill has completed stage 2 and the Parliamentary Bureau has yet to schedule a date for stage 3 proceedings. Although nothing in our standing orders prevents Mr Watson from participating if he wishes to do so in the debates on amendments during stage 3, it is also open to him to designate another member as the member in charge of the bill.
I do not need to remind the chamber that this is a non-party bill in which the whips are not involved and on which there are strong feelings on both sides of the argument, both inside and outside the Parliament. Furthermore, the convener has informed me that 36 amendments have been made to the bill since it left the chamber. Some of those amendments have been substantial, and some go against the promoter's wishes. When it comes to my selection of amendments at stage 3, I shall inevitably—and impartially—have to include discussion on amendments of substance, including both those that were narrowly defeated and those that were narrowly approved at stage 2.
I hope that that clarifies the issue before we come to discuss the bill after the new year.