Meeting of the Parliament 28 October 2025 [Draft]
I did, and I will come to that. For example, in group 7, a member who has two amendments will get five minutes to speak to them, as will a member who has no amendments. A member who has 15 amendments will also be given five minutes—or 20 seconds for each amendment.
The Parliamentary Bureau was asked for some latitude and to allow speakers up to 10 minutes in groups in which they have numerous amendments. That has obviously been rejected. It could be argued that, if the member with 15 amendments had split those among their colleagues, giving them one each, that would have created an extra 75 minutes of debating time. I am not going to play that sort of game. Ideocracy would perhaps appease some but would increase the speaking time by seven times--that is why it is a nonsensical format.
I am a committed parliamentarian. I am also a realist. I want to debate issues. I want to make good legislation for the people of Scotland that everyone in the chamber can be proud of. I accept that not all amendments will be approved, but preventing them from being fully explored when the advice is that the bill is flawed and ill-conceived is undemocratic.
I urge members to vote against the business motion. It shows the very worst of the Parliament, which is being given an archaic clerical formulary procedure that shuts down debate and increases the likelihood of bad legislation. To be clear, a vote for the business motion is a vote to put timekeeping before debate and over good legislation, which is an affront to democracy. On that basis, I urge members to vote against the motion.