Hansard

I am pleased to contribute to this afternoon’s short debate. I have been a member of the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee for just a short time, but this is already my second debate on one of its reports.

I know that we are fairly time limited, so I will offer only a few brief thoughts. In short, financial resolutions are important. They are important because it is vital that any bill that is brought before Parliament, that may significantly influence the Scottish consolidated fund, be fully costed to ensure that members are aware of its full implications. The financial implications of a bill are always just as important as its policy implications, particularly now, in times of tight finances.

We are fast approaching the end of the third session of the Parliament, and there is no harm in doing a little spring cleaning with the standing orders. Indeed, the difficulties in costing the financial implications of proposed amendments to the Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Bill, as highlighted by the Finance Committee’s letter, demonstrated that it was perhaps time that we looked again at the rules governing financial resolutions. The Finance Committee’s desire to develop an approach to considering cost-bearing amendments when no financial resolution existed was clearly worthy of consideration.

As the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee report highlighted, voting on cumulative cost-bearing amendments in the standard marshalled-list order gives rise to the possibility of members failing to be afforded the opportunity to debate their own cumulative cost-bearing amendments. That could happen if amendments up to the financial threshold have already been agreed to in earlier sections of the bill.

I agree entirely with the committee that that is both “unfair and arbitrary”. The failure of any amendment should depend entirely on its merits and not on where it happens to fall in the bill. That is why I support the committee’s recommendation that, although cumulative cost-bearing amendments should be debated by subject matter, as they are currently, the putting of the question on those cumulative cost-bearing amendments that fall within the financial threshold should be deferred until the end of stage 2.

Some thought was clearly given as to whether stage 2 or stage 3 would be the appropriate time to consider cumulative cost-bearing amendments. In my eyes, stage 2 appears to be the natural choice, due to the obvious flexibility that it offers in comparison with stage 3 proceedings, which involve a strict timescale and many more members than a committee. I agree with the committee entirely.

I thank the clerks, all the associated staff, the convener and the other members of the committee for their hard work during the consultation and the preparation of the report. I fully endorse the committee’s recommendations and will support the convener’s motion.

16:50