Seòmar agus comataidhean

I will touch on your report in a wee minute, but what you have said is, in effect, that, because Scotland has 70 per cent of the UK’s peatlands, it might be more difficult for Scotland to afford the sort of peatland restoration that is absolutely critical to tackling climate change, because that work would account for a higher proportion of our budget than it would of the UK’s. In that case, does that aspect of the fiscal framework—that is, the aspect relating to climate change—have to be looked at again, or should it just be overlaid by the existing fiscal framework? What is your view on that?

You say in paragraph 33 that

“it is not possible to provide a full assessment of costs or savings until the regulations have been agreed”,

but in table 1 you give a figure of £1,414,474. You put quite precise figures into the table, despite the fact that, as you have admitted, the figures do not bear any real relation to what the costs will be. It seems very odd to be so precise in a document that is so imprecise.

Indeed.

First, I am quite astonished that publication of the updated financial memorandum is planned to happen after stage 2. An updated financial memorandum for any bill should be with us before stage 1. I do not think that what is proposed is appropriate at all, and I hope that work will be done to ensure that what I have suggested happens.

Secondly, I am quite surprised by the fact that the figures that are used in the financial memorandum relate to September 2022, which was 18 months ago. As Police Scotland pointed out in its submission, inflation peaked at 11.2 per cent a month after that point. Even if one does not agree with the costings that Police Scotland has provided, surely steps should have been taken to update the figures long before now.

If members are to deliberate on the general principles of a bill, it is appropriate that the Finance and Public Administration Committee scrutinise the financial memorandum—an updated financial memorandum—before it goes to the lead committee at stage 1. As far as I am aware, that is how it has always been done and should be done. It certainly should not be done after stage 2.

I understand your point that the bill was introduced in June last year, but it makes me even more bewildered that nine-month-old figures were used when, clearly, everyone knew that inflation was high—especially given that there have been nine months in which to update it since then. We are being presented with a set of figures that do not really mean anything. We could go through it all—I sat ready with all my nice wee yellow-highlighted bits and questions to ask, but you are saying, in effect, that the financial memorandum—all 22 pages of it—is not worth the paper that it is written on at this stage. Is that a fair assessment?

Good morning, and welcome to the 12th meeting in 2024 of the Finance and Public Administration Committee. Michael Marra will be joining us remotely.

Before we move to agenda item 1, I record the committee’s thanks to those who took the time to meet us as part of the interparliamentary finance committee forum visit to Portcullis house in London last Thursday. I am sure that I speak on behalf of all members involved when I say how worth while our meetings were with MPs on the Treasury Committee; the chair of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, William Wragg MP; David Gauke; the Office for National Statistics; the Institute for Government; and our Welsh colleagues. We look forward to meeting our Welsh and Northern Irish counterparts again later this year, possibly in Belfast.

Under agenda item 1, we will take evidence from the Scottish Government bill team on the financial memorandum for the Police (Ethics, Conduct and Scrutiny) (Scotland) Bill. We are joined by Scottish Government officials Graham Thomson, the head of legislation and divisional development, and Steven Bunch, the bill team leader. I welcome you both to the meeting.

I invite Graham Thomson to make a brief opening statement.

Okay. My colleagues are quite keen to come in, incidentally.

The financial memorandum refers to the £10,000 benchmark for materiality, which

“takes into account the relative cost of changes in proportion to the overall budget of the affected organisations ... and the difficulty in being precise when dealing with smaller estimates.”

However, the approach of presenting costs as material and immaterial and using the £10,000 figure as a benchmark is not the usual approach that is taken with Scottish Government financial memoranda. As the Finance and Public Administration Committee, we are trying to interrogate apples with apples, not apples with pears. Why have you decided to use that approach?

Yes. Paragraph 6 of your report says:

“The Scottish Government ... controls most public spending on Surface Transport in Scotland but many aspects of its regulation are reserved, for example banning polluting vehicles or imposing more stringent emission standards.”

You go on to say that that

“illustrates how policy decisions at the UK level are important in ensuring the Scottish Government can meet its net zero targets.”

Also thrown into that mix are shipping and aviation, for which responsibility is also reserved. How realistic is it to expect Scotland to meet its targets without very strong co-operation from the UK Government?

Ross Greer will open the questions from committee members.

LULUCF.