Plenary, 26 Apr 2000

Meeting date: Wednesday, April 26, 2000

Official Report 386KB pdf

---

Decision Time

There are no Parliamentary Bureau motions so we come straight to decision time. The only question to put is that motion S1M-752—

On a point of order. After the earlier vote on the motion without notice, I received information on the voting, which seems to have been incorrect. I would like to record the fact that I understand that Maureen Macmillan, John Munro and Rhoda Grant all voted for the motion—the information that I received previously was that that was not the case. Secondly, I would like to record that I voted for the motion, whereas I am recorded as having not voted. I thought that it was appropriate to put that on the record.

Those are two distinct points.

On the first point, I understand that the member asked for a copy of the division list. Those lists come out of the machine with numbers and dates on them, but without a title. In error, he was given the wrong one, but the voting list is correct.

The second point is more serious and affects all members. The member is saying that he voted, but that he is recorded as having not voted. I have seen the list, and that is how he is recorded. This has happened before; there are three possible causes. First, a console might be faulty occasionally—Fergus Ewing's will be checked to see whether that is the case; it does not happen often, but it can happen. Secondly, the cards can be faulty as they can get damaged in members' pockets or handbags—that also happens occasionally. However, we have found in the past that the most common cause has been that the card has not been properly inserted in the console.

I am making no—[Interruption.] Order. I am saying merely that Mr Ewing should leave his card behind when he leaves—his console and card will be checked to see what happened. He has now recorded his vote by raising the point of order.

We now come to the decision on the motion. The question is, that motion S1M-752, in the name of Alex Johnstone on behalf of the Rural Affairs Committee, on the impact of the Scottish Adjacent Waters Boundaries Order 1999, be agreed to.

Motion agreed to.

That the Parliament notes the terms of the report by the Rural Affairs Committee, The Impact of the Scottish Adjacent Waters Boundaries Order 1999 (SP paper 42), in particular its dissatisfaction and concern about the level of consultation carried out prior to the introduction of the boundaries order, that the introduction of a boundaries order appears not to have identified any inconsistency with the Civil Jurisdiction (Offshore Activities) Order 1987, and that the amount of fishing activity in the disputed area does not appear to have influenced the Order, and further notes the Committee's recommendation that the Secretary of State for Scotland should either introduce a new, revised Order, or support a Bill calling for a revised boundary proposed in the House of Commons by Archy Kirkwood MP.

That concludes decision time.