Meeting of the Parliament 13 November 2024
I rise to speak to the amendment in my name to the minister’s business motion for next week. The minister has lodged a motion that suggests that, next Wednesday, the Parliament will debate whether to treat the proposed prisoners (early release) (Scotland) bill as an emergency bill. In other words, the bill, which we have not seen yet—we will not see it until next Tuesday—will not be subject to the usual parliamentary scrutiny. Instead, if members agree, it will be rushed through with less than a week between stages 1 and 3. That will be a big call for MSPs, and I look forward to robust, well-informed and carefully considered debate. However, the minister’s motion goes on to list stage 1 of the bill for the following day—less than 24 hours after the vote on whether to give it emergency status.
I ask colleagues to think about what the minister is saying here. Next Wednesday, we will be asked whether we are prepared to commute a legislative process that was set out in the very founding principles of the Parliament to less than a week. There will be a debate for us to decide whether that is in the interests of the people of Scotland, the Parliament and, indeed, the prisoners and victims whom the bill will directly impact. The minister, however, is so confident that we will all ignore that debate and anything that anyone says in it—so certain is he that we will all dutifully press buttons in accordance with instructions, regardless of the debate—that he has peremptorily scheduled the stage 1 debate less than 24 hours later. The minister believes that, regardless of how significant the decision to treat the bill as an emergency bill is, we will all just do what we are told. How utterly disrespectful.
I will make arguments next Wednesday against treating the bill as emergency legislation. One of the arguments that I will deploy is that the more that we pass bills without scrutiny or challenge, and without the committee input that a unicameral Parliament must surely mandate in all but the most exceptional circumstances, the more that we risk legislation by fiat from a minority Government. I submit that that is exactly what the minister has inadvertently shown himself to be doing.
I believe in the Parliament and its role, so I propose an amendment to the business motion. Although I do not believe that the bill should be deemed emergency legislation, I respect the Government’s prerogative to call that debate and, as I respect my MSP colleagues, I do not presuppose its outcome. Instead, my amendment proposes that a stage 1 debate on the bill next week be replaced with a debate on Scotland’s prisoner population. Even if MSPs decided that the bill should be treated as an emergency bill, we would then have a debate on Thursday that would help to inform MSPs on that bill at a future stage 1.
The Parliament should always be genuinely consulted and never dictated to. The minister’s presupposing of how a debate will go next Wednesday is as disrespectful as it is arrogant. Those who respect the Parliament and the job that we, as MSPs, were sent here to do will vote for my amendment on principle and against the motion if my amendment falls. Those who feel differently will no doubt fall meekly into line and do what they are told.
I move amendment S6M-15423.2, to leave out “Stage 1 Debate: Prisoners (Early Release) (Scotland) Bill” and insert:
“Scottish Government Debate: Scotland’s Prisoner Population”.
17:14Motions, questions or amendments mentioned by their reference code.