Hansard

I thank and am grateful to my committee for its work over the past few years. I am also grateful for the back-up that the clerking team, the lawyers and the officials have provided. Their help has been exceptionally good.

I will speak first about financial resolutions, before I briefly cover rule changes on financial memoranda. The committee’s inquiry stemmed from stage 2 scrutiny of the Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Bill. The limited ability of the existing procedures to accommodate scrutiny of cost-bearing amendments became apparent when such amendments were lodged at stage 2 of that bill, and the matter was highlighted to the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee by the Finance Committee. The rules relating to financial resolutions and the changes that the committee has proposed are technical in nature, which is probably why the chamber virtually emptied when the previous debate ended.

I will begin with the background. At present, the Presiding Officer considers whether a bill requires a financial resolution, in advance of its being formally introduced. That process is based on the criteria that are set out in rule 9.12.3 of standing orders. For example, if a bill would significantly increase expenditure from the Scottish consolidated fund for a new or existing purpose, it requires a financial resolution. When the Presiding Officer deems that a financial resolution is required, it must be passed by Parliament to allow a bill to progress to the amendment stages. If it is disagreed to, the bill falls. Regardless of who introduces a bill, it is for the Government to decide whether to produce a financial resolution.

The committee began its inquiry by considering the basis for the existing rules on financial resolutions. That included questioning whether financial resolutions were necessary at all and, if so, whether the Government should retain its current role in relation to them. The balance of submissions that we received supported the underlying principle on which the financial resolutions rule is based, which is that it is for the Government to retain responsibility for, and therefore control of, overall levels of expenditure and income. The committee agrees with that and does not propose any change to the Government’s role in relation to financial resolutions.

The committee does, however, consider that there is scope for change in relation to the procedures for considering cost-bearing amendments when a bill does not require a financial resolution. Rule 9.12.6 provides that no proceedings may be taken on such amendments, which prevents Parliament from formally debating and agreeing cost-bearing amendments that fall below the threshold for triggering the need for a financial resolution.

The proposed rule changes would allow such amendments to be debated and voted on at stages 2 and 3. The changes would also allow for stage 2 debate on amendments that, on their own, are too expensive to be made to the bill. That should serve a number of purposes. First, it would allow the member who lodged the amendment to put on record the policy that they advocate should appear in the bill. Secondly, it could generate sufficient support that the Government is persuaded to propose a financial resolution. Thirdly, the discussion on the policy could generate an idea for a new stage 3 amendment that might be less expensive and could therefore be made to the bill.

Throughout the inquiry, the committee was aware that proposed changes to procedures should be proportionate. We were also aware that, so far, Parliament has considered only one bill in which the rules on cost-bearing amendments have proved to be limiting. Fundamental changes to established procedures would not be appropriate, so the committee has tried to keep changes to stage 3 procedure to a minimum. However, the committee has also been guided by the principle that there should be an opportunity to consider all cumulative cost-bearing amendments alongside each other, in addition to the usual consideration of amendments that are grouped according to subject. That is because when only a limited number of cumulative cost-bearing amendments can be agreed, decisions must be taken on the merit of each amendment and on whether one amendment is of more merit than another.

The committee recommends that, when cost-bearing amendments are lodged, an additional debate should be held at the end of stage 2. Such amendments and any related amendments should be voted on after that debate. When that procedure requires to be followed, it will disrupt marshalled-list order consideration at stage 2, so the proposed rules have been carefully worded to keep such disruption to a minimum.

On financial memoranda, the proposed rule change is far more straightforward than those for financial resolutions. It will extend the period of time that will be available for scrutiny of revised financial memoranda that require to be produced to reflect changes that have been made to a bill at stage 2. That will allow the Finance Committee and individual members the same period of time to scrutinise a financial memorandum as the Subordinate Legislation Committee has to scrutinise a delegated powers memorandum.

I thank the Finance Committee for highlighting the need for consideration of the rules on financial resolutions and financial memoranda to the attention of the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee. I consider that the committee has, through in-depth deliberations, developed sensible rule changes that are proportionate and conducive to ensuring open debate on all policy matters, including those that have financial implications.

I move,

That the Parliament notes the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee’s 1st Report 2011 (Session 3), Financial Resolutions and scrutiny of revised Financial Memoranda (SP Paper 565), and agrees that the changes to Standing Orders set out in Annexe A to the report be made with effect from 1 April 2011.

16:44