Hansard

I thank members for their forbearance on the comments that I would like to make.

We have been asked today to approve a stage 1 debate on the Fireworks and Pyrotechnic Articles (Scotland) Bill next Tuesday. The standing orders of Parliament are clear and state that a stage 1 report must be published at least five sitting days before Parliament considers the general principles of a bill.

Rule 9.6, paragraph 3A, of the standing orders states that

“The lead committee shall report to the Parliament in time to allow the report to be published not later than the fifth sitting day before any date allocated in a business programme for the Parliament to consider the general principles of the Bill under paragraph 4. The Parliament shall not consider the general principles of the Bill earlier than the fifth sitting day after the lead committee report is published unless it decides to do so on a motion of any member.”

There will be no full sitting days of Parliament between the stage 1 report’s suspected publication date and the stage 1 debate—none. To be clear, the stage 1 report has not even been published yet, as it is still being drafted by Criminal Justice Committee clerks as we speak—much to their credit. The Parliament is asked simply to breach standing orders for no obvious reason. If the Government has a good reason for that breach, it has not been made clear to us.

We have proved that, as a Parliament, we are more than capable of truncating the scrutiny process for emergency legislation, and I agree with that being done. However, there is no emergency here—none whatsoever. Indeed, I have proposed in my amendment another use for that debating slot. That is my first point.

The second point is that I am in the ludicrous position in which I want to tell the chamber why we should not have the stage 1 report next week due to the contents of the report, but I am restricted from talking about the report because it has not even been published yet. I can say to members, however, that it is at least 70 pages long and contains a large number of detailed technical responses to the bill as proposed by the Government, all of which require detailed scrutiny and analysis.

My third and final point is more than just procedural, as important as procedure is. It is that all members and stakeholders outside Parliament who participated in the consultation and gave evidence to the committee need time to digest the contents of the report and, more importantly, that I want to hear their feedback on the committee’s conclusions and recommendations that are contained therein. That is how we legislate, and how we legislate well.

It is not just Tory members who are deeply uncomfortable about the truncated timetable that is being forced upon us to scrutinise and pass the bill.

Presiding Officer, although decisions on the timetabling of debates is a matter for members to vote on, as we will do, are you comfortable for Parliament to breach standing orders for no good reason, as the Government is asking it to do? Can you intervene in any way to ensure that we do not breach standing orders on timetabling?

Finally, I make an appeal to members who have heard and followed my remarks. There is wide-ranging consensus on and support for the Government and what the bill seeks to achieve, which have been given in good faith that we would be afforded the time that is needed to make good law and to scrutinise it properly. Let us do our job properly. I ask members to support my amendment and give us much more time to digest the stage 1 report, and thereby to have a full and informed stage 1 debate within the normal timetable that people expect from us and—more important—that standing orders ask of us.

I move, as an amendment to motion S6M-04176, in the name of George Adam on a business programme, to leave out

“followed by Stage 1 Debate: Fireworks and Pyrotechnic Articles (Scotland) Bill

followed by Financial Resolution: Fireworks and Pyrotechnic Articles (Scotland) Bill"

and insert—

“followed by Scottish Government Debate: Long COVID”.