Points of Order
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. You will be aware that the legal opinion, sought at very short notice and delivered to you this morning, suggested that your agreement to accept the Executive's amendment to today's stage 1 debate on the member's bill in my name was contrary to rule 9.6 of standing orders on the conduct of debate at stage 1 on members' and other bills.
The legal opinion makes it clear that the Executive's amendment draws into the debate issues that are beyond the remit of the bill and that would have been more appropriately dealt with at stage 2, when detailed amendments will be considered. The Executive has the opportunity either to move that the Parliament refers the bill back to the lead committee for further consideration of any issue that the Executive feels needs further consideration or, alternatively, to vote against the general principles of the bill.
Presiding Officer, you have allowed the Executive to abuse the standing orders of the Parliament by allowing it to put forward a statement that justifies it voting against the general principles of the bill. Like the Conservatives, the Executive does not deserve the opportunity to put such a statement forward. It has the right to vote for or against the bill or to refer it back. You are creating a special case for the Executive. It does not augur well for the future conduct of debates on members' bills if the Executive is to be allowed to interfere in this manner.
I assure Mr Sheridan that I have given this matter careful thought during the morning. I must rule that there is nothing in the standing orders to prevent notice from being given of an amendment to a motion to agree to the general principles of a bill. Notice of amendments can be given at any time after a motion has been lodged. In this case, the rules relating to giving notice of motions and amendments have been complied with fully.
I will write to Mr Sheridan to respond in detail to the points raised in the legal opinion that he passed to me. However, the main argument in that opinion relates to the information contained in amendment S1M-772.1, which, it is argued, introduces matters outwith the scope of the general principles of the bill. The amendment to the motion does not attempt to amend the bill or the general principles of the bill. That is the point. It is my ruling, therefore, that there is nothing to prevent such information from being introduced in the debate this afternoon.
It is quite true that the Executive could simply oppose the general principles of the bill, as the member suggested, but there is nothing out of order in its lodging a motion giving its reasons for opposing the motion, which is what has been done.
That is my ruling. I will write to the member in detail.
On a point of order similar to that raised by Tommy Sheridan, I would like you, Presiding Officer, to address the wider issue of whether the key principles of the constitutional steering group report, which underpins the ethos of this Parliament, have been breached.
The CSG report is clear that
"the Scottish Parliament should embody and reflect the sharing of power between the people of Scotland, the legislators and the Scottish Executive."
The effect of accepting the Executive's amendment will be that no member's bill will ever become law unless it has the explicit support of the Executive. That is unacceptable, intolerable and flies in the face of what the CSG anticipated and what the people of Scotland expect.
Like Mr Sheridan, I do not believe that under standing orders it is competent to accept an amendment that changes the general principles of any bill.
I must interrupt on that specific point. My point is that the amendment does not change the general principles of the bill, which is why I have given my ruling.
I accept that an amendment such as that lodged by the Executive is not explicitly ruled out by standing orders. However, it is my view that, for all the reasons given by Tommy Sheridan and me, it should be. Will you therefore, Presiding Officer, raise this matter with the Procedures Committee as a matter of urgency so that the Parliament can have confidence in itself and its procedures, and so that the spirit of the consultative steering group report is upheld?
Further to that point of order, Sir David. Rule 9.6.4 of the standing orders says that
"the Parliament shall consider the general principles of the Bill in the light of the lead committee's report and decide the question whether those general principles are agreed to."
The amendment in the name of Mr Jim Wallace introduces material that the lead committee has not considered. There would therefore be a clear breach of rule 9.6.4 if the amendment is ruled to be in order.
I am afraid that that is a misunderstanding of the rule, Mr McAllion. This is the point that I have been trying to address to Mr Sheridan. The fact that the standing order refers to the stage 1 debate being conducted
"in the light of the lead committee's report"
clearly does not prevent any other matters from being introduced. That is the legal advice that I have had. I think that it is correct.
On the wider issue as to whether those matters should have been introduced at an earlier stage and debated in committee, I have a great deal of sympathy with what members are saying. However, that is a matter of political argument in this afternoon's debate, and indeed outside this chamber; it is not a matter of order for me in the chair.
On a point of order. I take what you say, Presiding Officer, but is there not something fundamentally suspicious and perhaps incompetent about an amendment that says that it agrees with the principle of what a bill is trying to achieve but goes on to say, in the same sentence, that it disagrees with the principles of the bill? I have never seen an amendment phrased or couched in such a manner in any of the Parliaments that I have been in. Is there not something fundamentally suspicious about an amendment that tries to take the standing orders and have it both ways?
That is a point for perfectly legitimate political argument this afternoon. With regard to a point of order for me in the chair, I have simply to rule whether the amendment is in order or not in order. I have to rule that it is in order, and I will give my reasons in much greater detail in a letter to the original complainer, Mr Sheridan.
That, I am afraid, is all that I can say on the matter, and I suspend the meeting until—
Presiding Officer, will you refer the matter that I raised to the Procedures Committee?
I apologise. I forgot to respond to that specific request. The answer is that it is not always for me to refer matters to the Procedures Committee. Members are free to do so themselves, and I encourage Tricia Marwick to raise her point with that committee.
I am currently in correspondence with the convener of the Procedures Committee as to whether I should be referring matters to it. Any member is entitled to do so, and I think that Tricia Marwick raised a fair point which the committee ought to consider.
Meeting suspended until 14:30.
On resuming—
Before we begin question time today, I am sure that members would like to welcome the group of Norwegian parliamentarians, led by Gunnar Skaug, who are in the gallery to observe our proceedings. [Applause.]