Chamber and committees

Please continue.

Good. I call Rachael Hamilton to speak to amendment 114 and other amendments in the group.

Cabinet secretary, will you take an intervention?

Cabinet secretary, I respectfully suggest that you have thrown a grenade at these amendments, which seek to give some reassurance around the single most important issue in the bill: the rural support plan. The topic of this being a framework bill has been discussed by the Conveners Group, and the rural support plan was probably the one thing that was going to give stakeholders and parliamentarians some reassurance that there was a degree of understanding of this issue.

You have, on numerous occasions, suggested that you will lodge amendments at stage 3. Given that we really are at the business end of this and that we have only a matter of weeks before the Parliament will be asked to approve the bill as amended, I suggest that you commit to coming back to the committee with your suggestions for amendments to address some stakeholders’ concerns and to discussing them with the committee as a whole. That would give us an ideal opportunity to discuss the matter fully. I am concerned about your amendments being lodged at the very last minute and committee members—indeed, any parliamentarian—not having the time to re-lodge their own amendments. Would you consider coming back to the committee to discuss your views on how you will bring all these things together?

I get that, but why would you be reluctant to discuss any amendments with us as a group? You mentioned taking a holistic approach. The committee’s report suggested that more information was needed on the issue, but we did not get that. We did not get a significant response to our concerns during the stage 1 debate in the chamber, and we are not really getting any further reassurances about the type of amendments that you intend to lodge at stage 3. I am wondering why, prior to lodging those amendments, you are reluctant to discuss them at a committee meeting?

I am disappointed that we cannot look at those amendments as a committee, given that the rural support plan was one of the major aspects—if not the single most important aspect—highlighted in our stage 1 report.

The question is, that amendment 28 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The result of the division is: For 3, Against 6, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 28 disagreed to.

Amendment 29 was not moved, so the question is—[Interruption.]

Just to clarify, I called amendment 112 in the name of Colin Smyth and we disposed of that. I failed to call amendment 29 in the name of Colin Smyth.

Amendment 29 moved—[Colin Smyth].

The result of the division is: For 2, Against 7, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 32 disagreed to.

Amendments 115 and 116 not moved.

Amendment 117 moved—[Rachael Hamilton].