³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

Plenary, 21 Nov 2002

Meeting date: Thursday, November 21, 2002

Official Report 712KB pdf

---

Presiding Officer's Ruling

Before we move to the next item of business, I am in a position to give a response to the point of order that was raised by Stewart Stevenson when Murray Tosh was in the chair. Members will recall that the point of order related to Sewel motions.

Rule 9.1 of the standing orders requires a financial resolution to be agreed in certain circumstances and applies only in relation to bills introduced in the Scottish Parliament. An equivalent procedure exists at Westminster and bills introduced there are subject to that procedure. In agreeing to a Sewel motion, members should therefore be aware that it is implicit that responsibility for considering the financial implications of a Westminster bill rests with Westminster.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I object to the term "Sewel motion". Can we communicate with Westminster so that we can have such motions more accurately named "Westminster motions", so that Sewel does not just become a euphemism over the years?

That is a good point.

It is, of course, a convention and your views are noted.