���˿���

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.

It is important that we focus on outcomes, but they have to be funded. We must therefore have an element of realism in a financial memorandum. If there is going to be a framework bill, we need to know that the outcomes that the Scottish Government seeks to achieve will be fully funded. The Finance and Public Administration Committee took evidence from stakeholders that suggested that the delivery cost of the bill could be as much as twice what the Scottish Government said it would be. Clearly, that level of difference gives serious concern.

The committee took a lot of evidence on the National Care Service (Scotland) Bill, and you will be aware that it was not willing to accept the Scottish Government’s financial memorandum. It had to completely rethink not only the financial memorandum and the costs inherent in it, but also its objectives and outcomes. For example, the initial proposal to have 32 boards became a proposal to have one board, and the proposal to transfer 75,000 council workers to those boards was dropped. We have to get the finance right if we are going to deliver the outcomes that we want, but we cannot do that if we do not know what the bill will ultimately deliver because that is not set out in the primary legislation.

Although I could give my own view on that, I would have to speak to colleagues on the committee to hear what they think, because I am here to represent the views of the committee, not to give my own views.

There has been an element of frustration within the ranks of the Finance and Public Administration Committee regarding some of the legislative proposals that the Scottish Government has introduced. We take the view that stakeholder engagement and co-design are really important parts of the legislative process but that that should take place before we get to primary legislation.

The reason for that is straightforward. First, it is far easier to scrutinise primary legislation than subordinate legislation. When the Government enacts legislation after a bill has been passed, it is quite difficult for us to scrutinise that.

Even before we get to that stage, if we do not have a proper bill design that includes all the proposals that the Scottish Government intends to implement through that bill, we cannot ascertain the ultimate costs for the Scottish Government or for stakeholders, which is very inefficient in our view. That also poses risk to the Scottish budget. A bill could be introduced that has been costed at £X million, but we could find that cost multiplied by several factors once secondary legislation has been added.

Our view has been consistent across the legislative profile in the Parliament that framework bills, although we are not particularly keen on them, if they are to be used, all the co-design work and stakeholder engagement should be done prior to the bills coming to the committee, so that we can fully analyse the costs.

I agree with that. I think that everyone would expect consistency throughout the Parliament, one way or the other, and that has not happened.

Every year, we raise with the finance secretary the fact that the same budgets have the same money taken out year in, year out. It seems to us to be the wrong way to set up the budgets, because we are not given an accurate picture of what the budget is. From everyone’s perspective, transparency is important.

Similarly, last year, I raised the issue of public-private partnership payments. Those were listed as being £133.9 million in 2024-25 for the trunk road network, which was much the same as the previous year. However, it is seen only in trace amounts across the budget document, despite a written answer from you last week showing that £14,699 million in PPP payments remain outstanding. As agreed last year, should appropriate figures not be shown across all portfolios, so that we can compare in the interests of transparency? Why is that information not in this year’s figures across each portfolio?