Plenary, 26 Jan 2006

Meeting date: Thursday, January 26, 2006

Official Report 726KB pdf

---

Points of Order

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I would like to raise a point of order in connection with the item of business that we are about to consider. As you are aware, I submitted what I considered to be a reasoned amendment to the motion lodged by Mr McCabe at stage 1 of the Budget (Scotland) (No 3) Bill, asking ministers to reconsider provisions in the budget. I did so because, as far as I am aware, it is beyond the power of individual members who are not ministers to move amendments to the budget at stage 2 of the Parliament's budget process.

I felt that the only opportunity that I had to consult Parliament about my concerns and to force a vote on issues in the budget provision would be at stage 1. I was therefore rather surprised to hear that my amendment had not been selected for debate this afternoon by the Presiding Officer. Can you give any further explanation of why it was not selected and, if possible, will you reconsider the decision not to select for debate the amendment that would have given Parliament the opportunity to address specific concerns about the contents of the budget? Such concerns cannot be pursued at any other stage in the process by a member who is not a minister.

On a different point of order, Presiding Officer.

I should probably respond to Mr Swinney's point of order before I take a different one.

The amendment in question was admissible. It was not selected and, as Mr Swinney and all members will be aware, the Presiding Officers do not give reasons for the selection or non-selection of specific amendments. By raising his point of order, Mr Swinney has put his point on the record.

Presiding Officer, is it in order for you to take a motion without notice? I propose that all MSPs present in the chamber this afternoon should associate themselves with a motion to the effect that we are disappointed in our colleagues for their showing at question time.

It is competent for me to accept such a motion, but I exercise my discretion not to do so. Again, your point is on the record. Members are aware that, from time to time, the Presiding Officers have expressed regret and misgiving about attendance—and, in some respects, performance—at question time, particularly in relation to members who have lodged questions but not turned up to ask them.

In pursuance of my point of order, Presiding Officer, I do not want to deave you, but it is better if it comes from MSPs speaking of their peers than if it comes from the Presiding Officers.

That is a statable opinion, which is now on the record.

I return to my point of order. I appreciate the comments that you made in response, but can you shed any further light on the limitations that are placed on members' ability to amend the budget, which is one of our most important responsibilities during the parliamentary year, if we are unable to debate admissible amendments in the stage 1 debate on the bill, inviting ministers to reconsider provisions in the budget, and if we are unable to move any amendment to the budget at stage 2, which the Finance Committee must consider within a matter of days, on Tuesday? Do the Presiding Officers have any advice for members on alternative means by which we can pursue our concerns about the contents of the budget if admissible amendments cannot be considered?

In deciding not to select an admissible amendment, the Presiding Officer was not attempting to restrain or constrain members; he simply made a decision about a specific amendment on a specific occasion. The reasoned amendment process is not out of order in any sense.

On the second part of Mr Swinney's point, the opportunity to raise those matters exists at committee as well as in the chamber and in the circumstances—

But not to amend.

Not to amend, but to raise matters for discussion.

I do not want to prolong the discussion, but the issue is important. I have no right to raise an amendment to the budget at any stage in the process. The only opportunity that is available to me is to raise the issue at this stage and invite ministers to reconsider, in the hope that they will bring alternative provisions to the Finance Committee on Tuesday. I am unable to move an amendment, because to do so is outwith my powers as a member. It is important that the Presiding Officers reflect on the fact that, on this occasion, members who are not ministers have been denied the one opportunity that is available to them to amend—or to encourage ministers to amend—the budget bill.

That qualification was important. We have talked about amendment but the issue is encouragement to amend, because the standing orders expressly prevent amendment of the budget bill other than by the Executive. In raising the matter as he has done, Mr Swinney has encouraged ministers to consider his point. That is as much as he could have done if the amendment had been selected. I cannot offer any further advice, other than to say that the point has now been ventilated.