Plenary, 04 Oct 2001

Meeting date: Thursday, October 4, 2001

Official Report 575KB pdf

---

Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Bill: Financial Resolution

The next item of business is a financial resolution. I ask Angus MacKay to move motion S1M-2280, on the financial resolution in respect of the Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Bill.

Motion moved,

That the Parliament, for the purposes of any Act of the Scottish Parliament resulting from the Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Bill, agrees to—

(a) the expenditure payable out of the Scottish Consolidated Fund of the expenses of the Scottish Ministers in consequence of the Act; and

(b) any payments made to the Scottish Ministers under the Act.—[Angus MacKay.]

Some members might recall that, when the Parliament debated stage 1 of the bill, I raised the following point because I believed at that stage that a financial resolution would not be forthcoming. There was debate in the Rural Development Committee about the extent of the financial and economic impact of the bill on the south of Scotland, particularly the Borders. My concern is based on the fact that it has been made clear that there will be distinct implications for some businesses and areas of employment in the region. I assume that the motion, if passed, will make it admissible for the bill to be amended to allow compensation schemes to be introduced.

The bill is a matter of grave concern to many people in the Borders and it would be appropriate for the minister to say whether the Executive—although I appreciate that the bill is not an Executive bill—will allow it to be amended to permit an appropriate compensation scheme to be introduced for those whose businesses and employment will close down should it be implemented.

That is not the response from Murray Tosh that I had anticipated. Those questions were asked at an early stage of the bill—the drafting stage. Assurances were given that such an amendment would not be necessary. I cannot give assurances, nor can the minister I suspect, about whether amendments to the bill will be accepted, because that is a matter for the convener of the Rural Development Committee at stage 2.

The evidence that was taken at stage 1 was conflicting. The financial resolution seems to deal with the areas for which additional costs—rather than compensation—might be necessary. The questions that Murray Tosh asked cannot be answered today. I hope that the Parliament will recognise that the bill requires a financial resolution, as the Finance Committee decided.

Forgive me for correcting one thing, but the question whether a financial resolution is needed is decided by me, not by the Finance Committee.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. My question was not about the admissibility of an amendment to allow compensation schemes. I said that I assumed that such an amendment would now be admissible. My question to the Minister for Finance and Local Government, who moved the resolution, was whether at the point at which amendments are voted on the Executive will allow amendments that provide for the principle of compensation to be passed. I do not think that that is a question for Mr Watson; his intentions will not be relevant. The Executive will decide whether it is prepared to fund compensation.

It is the Minister for Finance and Local Government's turn to speak.

The rules of the Parliament are clear. The Presiding Officer decides whether a member's bill requires a financial resolution; only Scottish ministers can lodge such a resolution, which is why we are doing so today.

It would be entirely inappropriate for the Executive to refuse to move a resolution in the circumstances. The Parliament voted in favour of the principles of the bill on 19 September. The financial resolution is not about the wider economic impact of the bill, but about the possible costs to the Executive, payable from the Scottish consolidated fund. We are ensuring today that that is provided for. The bill as it is currently drafted contains licensing provisions. There may be modest costs, which might fall to the Executive, associated with setting up licensing conditions and a licensing scheme.

It is absolutely not for me or the Executive to determine what the Parliament or its committees will accept by way of amendments. That is a matter for the will of the Parliament.