Seòmar agus comataidhean

Under our second agenda item, we will consider the Budget (Scotland) (No 4) Bill at stage 2. We are still joined by the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government. Officials who are present for this item are unable to participate in formal stage 2 proceedings, as is set out in standing orders.

Committee members should have with them a copy of the bill as introduced, the marshalled list of amendments and the groupings of amendments document, which sets out the groupings of amendments in the order in which they will be debated.

As members are aware, only the Scottish Government can lodge amendments to budget bills. The cabinet secretary has lodged six amendments to be considered today. Should there be a division, voting will be done by a show of hands. It is important that members keep their hands clearly raised until the clerks have recorded the vote. The committee is required to indicate formally that it has considered and agreed to each section of the bill, so I will put a question on each section at the appropriate point.

Section 1 agreed to.

Schedule 1—The Scottish Administration

Thank you, convener.

One key issue is that there is no clear definition of a framework bill. It seems that every cabinet secretary and minister has a different view on that and, indeed, sometimes, they do not even agree with their own bill team. For example, the Finance and Public Administration Committee looked at the Police (Ethics, Conduct and Scrutiny) (Scotland) Bill’s financial memorandum, about which we had some concerns. The bill team advised us that it was a framework and enabling bill, but the cabinet secretary, when she came before us, told us that it was an amending bill. There is a real issue there.

We tried to get clarification on that from a number of people in the Scottish Government, including from the Minister for Parliamentary Business, the Presiding Officer and so on. The permanent secretary said that he would put

“something in writing around the definition so that we can be clear about what is and what is not in that bracket”.—[Official Report, Finance and Public Administration Committee, 21 May 2024; c 12.]

So far, we have not had that clarification.

You probably know that the UK Government Cabinet Office’s “Guide to Making Legislation” calls a framework legislation

“A bill ... that ... leaves the substance of the policy, or significant aspects of it, to delegated legislation”,

which might amount to a series of powers providing for a wide range of things that could be done, leaving the detail on those things to be set out in the regulations. It is yet to be seen whether the Scottish Government and Parliament will consider a definition of a framework bill that aligns to that one or whether it will be something different.

That is not really the point that we want to make as the Finance and Public Administration Committee. The committee has been very clear that we want to see the scrutiny prior to stage 1. We are keen to have a definition of a framework bill. It does not have to be written in tablets of stone, but the problem is that, if it is too woolly, we might be comparing apples with oranges and we might be in a situation whereby the Government’s view of a bill is X and ours is Y. We do not want to be in that position.

Some of the bills that we are talking about can involve hundreds of millions of pounds, so, certainly with the financial memoranda, we need to batten down the hatches a wee bit before we get to stage 1.

The best way to ensure that we have the ability to make savings and get value for money is to have everything on the face of the bill and a financial memorandum that dots every i and crosses every t. That way, not only the Finance and Public Administration Committee but other MSPs can query some of the costs.

That level of scrutiny at the start of a bill process is critical, otherwise we can disappear down a rabbit hole. If a bill already costs several hundred million pounds and then we add all the bits and bobs to it through secondary legislation, we could end up with a kind of hydra, or something that is not what was initially envisaged. When there is stakeholder involvement and co-design to a minimal degree before a bill is passed and then a lot is added to it afterwards, we end up with an act that does not resemble what was proposed in the first place. I do not think that that is appropriate or democratic. It is not only about scrutiny, efficiency and cost; it is about ensuring that the legislation that the Government proposes is the legislation that is delivered. That is really important.

At the moment, we more or less have a “take it or leave it” situation in relation to secondary legislation. Secondary legislation cannot really be amended, so, when it is brought to us, we either vote for it or we do not. That restricts the role of the Parliament. The more opportunities that the Parliament has to scrutinise both the financial memorandum and the overall objectives of a bill, and the outcomes that it hopes to deliver, the better it is for everyone.

There is absolutely no reason at all why co-design and stakeholder involvement cannot happen before a bill reaches stage 1. That would be the best way forward—and that is definitely the view of the Finance and Public Administration Committee.

Good morning. I think that, in fact, the risks are much greater if you do not design everything before you go to stage 1. It could go in all sorts of directions and there could be all sorts of costs added to it. We are concerned about cumulative risks and affordability. We are also concerned about the inefficiency and potential overspending with that approach. However, what is important with any legislation is that we know that it will do what it says on the tin, and we cannot have that if we have co-design post stage 1.

What is important when it comes to scrutiny is that committees feel empowered to say no. For example, when the Finance and Public Administration Committee was presented with a financial memorandum to the National Care Service (Scotland) Bill that we did not think was appropriate to that legislation, we simply sent it back to the Government for it to think again. It was just not acceptable to the committee. Committees should not just shrug their shoulders or bite their lip and say, “Well, this isn’t really what we are looking for, but we’ll just nod it through.” They have to have the strength to say, “No, I’m sorry, but we do not really think this is doing what it should be doing.”

We should also remember that it does not help the Government to pass legislation that, ultimately, is going to come back in its face some years down the line. It certainly does not help the people of Scotland whom we represent. What is important, therefore, is that we do as much of the work as we can at the earliest possible opportunity in the bill process, and I think that that will lead to better outcomes.

Yes. One of the things that my committee has expressed concern about is consistency in how bill teams address financial memorandums. For example, it was clear when we were taking evidence on the Police (Ethics, Conduct and Scrutiny) (Scotland) Bill that the bill team did not know what was expected of them when it came to the financial memorandum. That is why we had to get the cabinet secretary in.

We then wrote to the Scottish Government to urge it to

“put in place enhanced training and development for Bill Teams to improve the quality and consistency of presentation of future”

financial memoranda. We said that that

“should include promoting the importance of applying each of the steps in the”

Scottish public finance manual.

A consistent approach is needed. I will give an example at random. When figures are presented, some are rounded and some are precise, so we are not comparing like with like. It is vital that, whether figures are presented in one way or the other, there is consistency in the way in which financial memoranda are presented to the committee.

I just want to thank the committee for inviting us along.

If it is going to be a spectrum, it might be helpful to at least know the parameters in a specific piece of legislation, which would make the scrutiny function much easier for whichever committee is scrutinising.

Sure, aye.