Plenary, 20 Jun 2002

Meeting date: Thursday, June 20, 2002

Official Report 766KB pdf

---

Business Motion

The next item of business is consideration of business motion S1M-3230, in the name of Patricia Ferguson.

Motion moved,

That the Parliament agrees—

(a) the following programme of business—

Wednesday 26 June 2002

2.30 pm Time for Reflection

followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions

followed by Committee of the Whole Parliament: Stage 2 of the University of St Andrews (Postgraduate Medical Degrees) Bill

followed by Stage 3 Debate on University of St Andrews (Postgraduate Medical Degrees) Bill

followed by Executive Debate on Action on Waiting and Delayed Discharge

followed by Motion on Police Reform Bill – UK Legislation

followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions

5.00 pm Decision Time

followed by Members' Business

Thursday 27 June 2002

9.30 am Parliamentary Bureau Motions

followed by Stage 3 Debate on Scottish Parliamentary Standards Commissioner Bill

followed by Finance Committee Debate on its Report on Stage 1 of the 2003/04 Budget Process

followed by Business Motion

followed by Motions on appointment of Scottish Public Services Ombudsman and Deputy Ombudsmen

2.30 pm Question Time

3.10 pm First Minister's Question Time

3.30 pm Executive Debate on Better Communities in Scotland: Closing the Gap

followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions

5.00 pm Decision Time

followed by Members' Business

(b) that Stage 1 of the Title Conditions (Scotland) Bill be completed by 21 November 2002; and

(c) that the Justice 1 Committee reports to the Justice 2 Committee by 2 September 2002 on the Sheriff Court Fees Amendment Order 2002 (SSI 2002/269), the Court of Session etc. Fees Amendment Order 2002 (SSI 2002/270), the Act of Sederunt (Fees of Solicitors in the Sheriff Court) (Amendment No.2) 2002 (SSI 2002/274), the Act of Sederunt (Fees of Witnesses and Shorthand Writers in the Sheriff Court) (Amendment) 2002 (SSI 2002/280) and the Gaming Act (Variation of Fees) (Scotland) Order 2002 (SSI 2002/281).—[Euan Robson.]

Fiona Hyslop has asked to speak against the motion.

Next week we are due to consider a Sewel motion on the Police Reform Bill, which will introduce much needed amendments to legislation dealing with sex offender orders. It is in everyone's interest that we take responsibility for closing the loophole that exists. The issue is how we do that.

My office contacted the parliamentary authorities at Westminster to find out the time scale for consideration of the Police Reform Bill. The bill originated in the House of Lords and is presently in committee in the House of Commons. The bill is due to complete its committee stage either this week or next. It must then be debated at third reading before being sent back to the House of Lords. I understand that the amendments that will close the loophole to which I referred may not be made until some time in October. Even then, the bill will have to receive royal assent before coming into force.

I would like to make a suggestion to the chamber, which I am prepared to discuss constructively with other business managers at next week's meeting of the Parliamentary Bureau. Would it be possible for the Scottish Parliament to legislate on and take responsibility for the changes that are proposed? We discuss many issues, some of which are less serious than closing loopholes in the legislation that deals with sex offender orders. I respectfully request support from other business managers for revisiting this issue at next week's meeting of the Parliamentary Bureau. We could consider a bill during the first week in September, to ensure that we deliver the changes that we need to make to legislation in Scotland before Westminster does the same for the rest of the UK.

There is some inconsistency in the line that the SNP is taking on Sewel motions. Last week we considered a business motion that proposed that the chamber debate a Sewel motion, and that business motion was taken without demur. The Sewel motion was agreed to yesterday, with abstentions from SNP members. Those abstentions were on a bill that will allow the carriage in private hire vehicles of guide dogs for the blind and assistance dogs for people hard of hearing.

Fiona Hyslop posed an interesting question. She said that the issue was how we make the amendments that are proposed in the Police Reform Bill. The Executive knows how it wants to make those amendments. It wants to make them quickly—which is why we have attached them to this piece of Westminster legislation—and it wants to make them consistently, so that Scotland is not out of step with the rest of the UK. If legislation is made separately, in separate places, at different times, with recesses intervening, it is likely that we will end up with legislation that is inconsistent across the UK.

If the Parliament agrees to the proposed Sewel motion, we will have the opportunity to close a very important loophole.

Westminster will have the opportunity to do that, not us.

Let us get matters straight—if we agree to the Sewel motion, we will give Westminster the opportunity to introduce a provision that will allow us to close this loophole across the UK. We will not be abdicating responsibility, but ensuring that everyone in the UK has the same protection under the law. That may not be important to the SNP, but it is important to the rest of the chamber.

The question is, that motion S1M-3230, in the name of Patricia Ferguson, be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Yes.

Did someone say no? [Interruption.] No. In that case, the motion is agreed to. [Interruption.] Order. I ask members to settle down, as we are losing time.

Motion agreed to.