– in the Scottish Parliament at 2:41 pm on 21 June 2000.
Before we begin stage 3 proceedings, I will make the usual announcement about the procedures that will be followed. By now, members will be becoming familiar with them.
First, we will deal with amendments to the bill and we will then move on to debate the question that the bill be passed. For the first part of the debate, members should have the bill, which is SP Bill 9A—the bill as amended at stage 2—the marshalled list containing all the amendments that I have selected for debate, and the groupings, which I have agreed.
The amendments have been marshalled in the order that the Parliament has just agreed, with schedules being dealt with after the sections that introduce them. Amendments will be debated in groups, where appropriate. Each amendment will be disposed of in turn, and an amendment that has been moved may be withdrawn by agreement. It is possible for members not to move amendments if they wish.
The electronic voting system will be used for all divisions; I will allow a voting period of two minutes for the first division in each group—I might revise that ruling later if we find that two minutes are not necessary, but we will allow two minutes for the moment.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Mr McCabe said that motion S1M-1036 was for the guidance of the chair, but its terms seem to be fairly prescriptive. How do you and your deputies intend to structure the debate when you come up against the rigid time limits in the motion?
We all agree that our previous experience was a rather unhappy one, not just because of the breakdown in the electronics, but because the timetabling was too tight. We think that we can cope with this timetable, and I point out that the cut-off point for each part of the debate indicates a maximum time. In other words, if we do not use the whole two hours for the first part, that will allow more time later. I encourage members to bear that in mind.
The occupants of the chair are bound by the motion that you—members of the Parliament—have just passed. We are your servants, and we will apply the cut-off point as set out in motion S1M-1036.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. My point relates to your
For the benefit of other members—
If I may finish this point— [Interruption.] The amendment was in exactly the same terms as the amendment lodged by Mr McMahon at stage 2, at the Local Government Committee. The amendment raised a key issue of principle, which goes to the very heart of the debate on section 2A—
But what is the point of order for me?
The point of order is that I think that, in the exercise of the discretion of the chair—by failing to call for debate by 129 members of this Parliament the key issue of principle that goes to the very heart of the bill—you have been in error, and you do the Parliament and the public no service by that decision.
It is quite clear in the standing orders that the selection of amendments is a matter for the chair—it is totally at my discretion. However, guidance was also issued, to which all parties signed up. One of the elements of that guidance—from memory; I do not have it in front of me—is that, where an amendment has been fully debated and decided on in committee, the balance of probability is that it will not be selected for debate at stage 3. That is not a hard and fast rule, but it is guidance to which everyone subscribed.
As I explained to Mr McLetchie on the telephone, if I may refer to our earlier conversation, in this particular case—I will not always give reasons—everything that was contained in the amendment that I did not select is contained in an amendment that I did select.
There is therefore no stifling of debate. Every member can talk on everything that was in the amendment that I did not select.
With respect, Mr McLetchie, that was not a point of order. The standing orders say that the selection of amendments is at my discretion. You may disagree with my selection, but that is tough. [Applause.]
It is frankly scandalous that this Parliament does not get the opportunity—
—to debate an issue that is at the heart of the debate—
Order. Mr McLetchie, you cannot challenge something that is at my discretion. I am sorry about that: you may feel strongly about it and you can tell me what you like about it in private.
We should proceed, as we are wasting time. The clock will begin at 14:50. Everyone should bear that in mind—it means that the first part of the debate will end two hours from now.