Plenary, 24 Sep 2003

Meeting date: Wednesday, September 24, 2003

Official Report 417KB pdf

---

Parliamentary Bureau Motions

The next item of business is consideration of 21 Parliamentary Bureau motions. Given the significant number of motions, I ask the minister to move them en bloc. They are motion S2M-383, on the designation of lead committees; motion S2M-384, on membership of a committee; motions S2M-385 to S2M-387, on the approval of Scottish statutory instruments; motions S2M-388 to S2M-399, on the approval of SSIs; and motions S2M-400 to S2M-403, on the designation of lead committees.

Motions moved,

That the Parliament agrees that the Local Government and Transport Committee be designated lead committee for the Prostitution Tolerance Zones (Scotland) Bill and that either the Justice 1 or Justice 2 Committee (to be decided between the committees) be designated secondary committee.

That the Parliament agrees that the seventh member of the Subordinate Legislation Committee be a member of the Scottish National Party and that Alasdair Morgan be appointed to that committee.

That the Parliament agrees that the draft Mental Health (Care and Treatment) (Scotland) Act 2003 (Consequential Modification) Order 2003 be approved.

That the Parliament agrees that the draft Advice and Assistance (Assistance by Way of Representation) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2003 be approved.

That the Parliament agrees that the draft Scotland Act 1998 (Transfer of Functions to the Scottish Ministers etc.) (No.2) Order 2003 be approved.

That the Parliament agrees that the Food Protection (Emergency Prohibitions) (Amnesic Shellfish Poisoning) (West Coast) (No.3) (Scotland) Order 2003 (SSI 2003/365) be approved.

That the Parliament agrees that the Food Protection (Emergency Prohibitions) (Amnesic Shellfish Poisoning) (East Coast) (Scotland) Order 2003 (SSI 2003/366) be approved.

That the Parliament agrees that the Food Protection (Emergency Prohibitions) (Amnesic Shellfish Poisoning) (East Coast) (No.2) (Scotland) Order 2003 (SSI 2003/369) be approved.

That the Parliament agrees that the Food Protection (Emergency Prohibitions) (Amnesic Shellfish Poisoning) (West Coast) (No.5) (Scotland) Order 2003 (SSI 2003/381) be approved.

That the Parliament agrees that the Food Protection (Emergency Prohibitions) (Amnesic Shellfish Poisoning) (East Coast) (No.3) (Scotland) Order 2003 (SSI 2003/380) be approved.

That the Parliament agrees that the Food Protection (Emergency Prohibitions) (Amnesic Shellfish Poisoning) (Orkney) (No.2) (Scotland) Order 2003 (SSI 2003/321) be approved.

That the Parliament agrees that the Food Protection (Emergency Prohibitions) (Amnesic Shellfish Poisoning) (West Coast) (No.4) (Scotland) Order 2003 (SSI 2003/374) be approved.

That the Parliament agrees that the Food Protection (Emergency Prohibitions) (Amnesic Shellfish Poisoning) (East Coast) (No.5) (Scotland) Order 2003 (SSI 2003/394) be approved.

That the Parliament agrees that the Food Protection (Emergency Prohibitions) (Amnesic Shellfish Poisoning) (West Coast) (No.6) (Scotland) Order 2003 (SSI 2003/392) be approved.

That the Parliament agrees that the Food Protection (Emergency Prohibitions) (Amnesic Shellfish Poisoning) (West Coast) (No.7) (Scotland) Order 2003 (SSI 2003/397) be approved.

That the Parliament agrees that the Food Protection (Emergency Prohibitions) (Amnesic Shellfish Poisoning) (West Coast) (No.8) (Scotland) Order 2003 (SSI 2003/402) be approved.

That the Parliament agrees that the Food Protection (Emergency Prohibitions) (Amnesic Shellfish Poisoning) (East Coast) (No.4) (Scotland) Order 2003 (SSI /2003/393) be approved.

That the Parliament agrees that the Justice 1 Committee be designated as lead committee in consideration of the Gaming Act (Variation of Fees) (Scotland) Order 2003 (SSI 2003/403).

That the Parliament agrees that the Justice 1 Committee be designated as lead committee in consideration of the Children's Hearings (Provision of Information by Principal Reporter) (Prescribed Persons) (Scotland) Order 2003 (SSI 2003/424).

That the Parliament agrees that the Justice 2 Committee be designated as lead committee in consideration of the draft Title Conditions (Scotland) Act 2003 (Consequential Provisions) Order 2003.

That the Parliament agrees that the Justice 2 Committee be designated as lead committee on the Advice and Assistance (Scotland) Amendment (No.2) Regulations 2003 (SSI 2003/421).—[Patricia Ferguson.]

Two members, both of whom are from the Scottish Socialist Party, have indicated a wish to speak against one of the motions. I ask them to clarify who will speak on which motion. Mr Fox, which motion do you oppose?

Motion S2M-387.

Mr Sheridan, which motion do you oppose?

I will defer, because I oppose the same motion.

In that case, Mr Fox, you have three minutes in which to speak against motion S2M-387.

I oppose motion S2M-387. The functions that will be transferred in the draft Scotland Act 1998 (Transfer of Functions to the Scottish Ministers etc) (No 2) Order 2003 are the serious powers to open or read any piece of mail, e-mail, fax correspondence, computer file or other private correspondence of any private citizen in Scotland. Mail might be opened by security agencies throughout Europe, no matter how spurious their suspicions and without any safeguards for our civil liberties.

The powers that the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 gave to the Home Secretary, David Blunkett, are straight out of "Nineteen Eighty-Four". George Orwell must be spinning in his grave. Every civil liberties group in Britain opposed the act, as does the Scottish Socialist Party. The thought that Mr Wallace rather than Mr Blunkett might open my mail is no comfort whatever. [Interruption.] Even the thought of Ms Jamieson doing so is no comfort. I suspect that after I have made this speech, my e-mails will receive more scrutiny than anybody else's.

The plans to extend the powers should have been the subject of at least a full debate in the Parliament, rather than treated in the way that they have been.

I oppose the statutory instrument to which motion S2M-387 refers.

I am afraid that Colin Fox not only identified the relevant minister wrongly, but he got the principle wrong. The SSP is fully committed to immediate independence and not to the half-hearted approach of saying, "Maybe we will, maybe we won't," that John Swinney would take after a referendum and which Alex Neil opposes. If the Parliament accepted Colin Fox's suggestion, it would not prevent the introduction of the powers, but would leave them with United Kingdom ministers at Westminster. It is bizarre that a party of independence wants to prevent Scottish ministers from being given more powers and to leave more powers with Westminster, which would prevent the Scottish Parliament from scrutinising Scottish ministers.

The order had full cross-party support when it was considered in committee and it deserves the Parliament's full support. The order will devolve from Westminster to Scotland powers to tackle serious crime. It is in the interests of everyone in the Parliament to ensure that the war against crime is waged effectively. It is strange for any member to want to give powers back to Westminster, but the fact that a party of full independence wants to do that turns all its policies on their head. I ask members to reject Colin Fox's proposal.

Mr Sheridan said that he would defer to Colin Fox, but if he opposes another group of motions, he must do so now. I understand that Mr Sheridan wants to oppose motions S2M-388 to S2M-399, which are on orders that deal with amnesic shellfish.

As members know, amnesic shellfish poisoning is the talk of the steamie in Glasgow. We oppose the statutory instruments in principle for three reasons. The first reason is that many more issues in Scotland are important, such as Faslane, drug deaths and cancer clusters. We should be concerned about them, rather than amnesic shellfish poisoning. [Interruption.] If the members who are behaving like children are quiet for a moment, I will give the second reason. Nobody has ever fallen seriously ill as a result of amnesic shellfish poisoning, so the measures represent bureaucratic overkill.

The third reason for our opposition is that we should address the environmental causes of amnesic shellfish poisoning, rather than ignoring it and restricting the areas in which we fish. [Interruption.]

Order. I ask for a little quiet, please.

Thanks very much, Presiding Officer—although that was a bit late.

I oppose the motions for those three reasons.

We have debated the principles behind such orders many times and sometimes it is difficult to think of a new way to say the same things. However, to be fair, Mr Sheridan has advanced a few new arguments.

Mr Sheridan said that we should spend more time on researching the causes of amnesic shellfish poisoning. Considerable research is being conducted to find the cause of the toxin that builds up in scallops. The plain facts are that we do not know how it builds up or why and how it dissipates, but both those developments happen. However, while they happen, it is important for public health that we take appropriate action.

One alternative would be not to test at an earlier stage, but to move to end-product testing. That would mean that if large amounts of scallops were harvested and we found later that they had high levels of the toxin—domoic acid—they would be no use for any other purpose and would have to be scrapped. In effect, we would have an exercise that would be costly for the industry and to conservation and that would have an extremely detrimental effect on the reputation of a Scottish industry that is held in high world wide regard. We should not simply refuse to carry out this activity just for the sake of it; it is in the interests of public health. The Food Standards Agency is exploring various avenues of research and is engaged in a conversation with the UK to ensure that the response to the phenomenon is proportionate. That conversation will continue. As a result, I urge the chamber to resist Mr Sheridan's pleadings.

I think that members will agree that we do not want 24 separate divisions at decision time, if that is at all possible. Mr Sheridan, are you taking a principled stand against all the motions that you have objected to? If so, I could probably put them to one vote.

Absolutely.