Plenary, 03 Mar 2005
Meeting date: Thursday, March 3, 2005
Official Report
722KB pdf
Edinburgh Tram (Line One) Bill: Financial Resolution Edinburgh Tram (Line Two) Bill: Financial Resolution
The next item of business is consideration of two financial resolutions.
Motions moved,
That the Parliament, for the purposes of any Act of the Scottish Parliament resulting from the Edinburgh Tram (Line One) Bill, agrees to any expenditure of a kind referred to in Rule 9A.14.3(b)(ii) of the Parliament's Standing Orders arising in consequence of the Act.
That the Parliament, for the purposes of any Act of the Scottish Parliament resulting from the Edinburgh Tram (Line Two) Bill, agrees to any expenditure of a kind referred to in Rule 9A.14.3(b)(ii) of the Parliament's Standing Orders arising in consequence of the Act.—[Mr Tom McCabe.]
On a point of order, Presiding Officer.
I am concerned that the current mechanisms for dealing with private bills may not necessarily deliver consistent analysis of the financial aspects when significant contributions from the Scottish consolidated fund are involved. My comments should in no sense be taken as a criticism of either of the two tramline bill committees.
The Arup report, which was commissioned by the Edinburgh Tram (Line One) Bill Committee, raised several issues concerning the promoter's assumptions, the evidence base for those and the possibility of a significant shortfall in the available funding. I hope that the Minister for Finance and Public Service Reform will assure the Parliament that, before the Executive agrees to commit its agreed share of the overall cost, it will ensure that the business case for both tramline proposals is robust and fully supported by evidence, that the cost estimates are well founded and that the promoter is able to meet its financial obligations.
Because of the remit of each of the two tramline bill committees, it is not possible for either bill committee to consider the overall financial implications of the two schemes taken together. Given that the two schemes could involve the expenditure of £375 million by the Executive, that seems anomalous.
More generally, we need to ensure that there is a consistent standard of scrutiny for current and future schemes. The consideration of schemes that are legislated for through private bills needs to link in with wider budget scrutiny. As convener of the Finance Committee, I wish to be involved in discussions on the financial scrutiny aspects under the review of private bills. Urgent consideration must be given to the financial scrutiny of private bills that are likely to lead to significant expenditure from the consolidated fund.
Given Lord Fraser of Carmyllie's findings, I am sure that members will agree that we do not want to be in a position in which financial scrutiny has not been seen to be consistently applied.
The convener of the Finance Committee has raised an important issue, of which I am grateful that I received advance notice. I must advise that the matter is best raised with the Procedures Committee, which is currently in the midst of an inquiry into private bill procedures.
Mr McNulty seeks ministerial assurances on the business case concerned, but that is not directly a matter for the Executive. More properly, the matter is for the private bill committees to investigate. However, I remind Mr McNulty that the minister gave assurances in the chamber during both tramline bill debates that the Executive's financial commitments were conditional on robust business cases being presented.
Further to that point of order, Presiding Officer.
I want to clarify the role of the Edinburgh Tram (Line One) Bill Committee. As members will be aware, the process of consideration for private bills is contained within one committee, with no role for secondary committees. Our committee employed Arup, which is an expert in the field, to provide us with a robust and independent analysis of the promoter's business case, which was subjected to rigorous scrutiny by the committee. In reality, that process provides much more detail than the financial memoranda that the Finance Committee ordinarily receives. In fact, my colleague Des McNulty agrees that that scrutiny has been robust and I note that, in the opinion of our expert advisers, the promoter's financial information is as robust as could reasonably be expected at this stage. The committee will of course return to the business case before the conclusion of stage 3.
It is the case that the terms of any financial resolution are a matter for the Executive and I am sure that the Executive will want to consider the funds that it has agreed to commit. That said, I very much support the need to review the private bills process. In that context, I also support the contention that there might be a need for consistent scrutiny across bills whose provisions might make substantial claims on the consolidated fund.
Thank you for that helpful comment. I do not think that I need to add to my response to Mr McNulty's point of order.