���˿���

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 ���˿��� 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.

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?

I am sorry, folks, but I will have to call a halt or we will be in breach of the standing orders. I apologise. All that I can do at this point is thank the cabinet secretary for her evidence. We will consider the evidence received and publish a report on the Scottish budget before the end of this month.

Looking at the office-holders, and ignoring the fact that there are others in the pipeline, we find that the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman has a 6.7 per cent increase in its budget, the Scottish Information Commissioner has a 6.3 per cent increase, the Scottish Human Rights Commission has a 6.9 per cent increase, the Commissioner for Ethical Standards in Public Life in Scotland has a 5.2 per cent increase, and even the Scottish Biometrics Commissioner has a 6 per cent increase. We are seeing significant above-inflation increases for those office-holders in the bid—why is that the case?

Some of the increase relates to salary, as you mentioned, but MSP staff salary provision will increase by 3.2 per cent, so it looks as though our own staff will receive a lower level of increase than the increase for any of the office-holder staff other than the Standards Commission for Scotland staff, for whom the figure is 2.8 per cent.

Okay. I suppose that I am happy with that.

Let us move on to parliamentary staff numbers. In your submission, you state that you

“remain committed ... throughout Session 6”

to the staff baseline agreed in 2022-23. You also talk about a couple of posts having been added in security in order to

“deliver a new service to monitor social media activity referencing ���˿���”,

noting that those increases have

“largely been offset by other reductions across the permanent staff complement”,

meaning that there is no overall change in staff numbers.

Can you tell us what that social media referencing monitoring service is?

Yes, they might welcome increased scrutiny, and I am sure that the Parliament would as well, but the issue is who would do that. We have an increased number of commissioners. How close to capacity is the SPCB in carrying out scrutiny? The committees are saying, “Hold on—we’re at capacity.” I do not think that this committee could scrutinise all the commissioners, especially if more are coming down the pipeline. Where are we on that?

Time is marching on and I have loads more questions. I will ask only a couple more, or possibly three, to enable my colleagues to come in.

At a time when universities are struggling due to a reduction in student numbers, the student support and tuition fee payment line is falling by 10.5 per cent. Is the tuition fee payment stuck at £1,820 per student for the 18th consecutive year? If so, how does that enable universities to be globally competitive?

In his submission to the committee, Professor Alastair Florence, director of continuous manufacturing and advanced crystallisation at the University of Strathclyde, pointed to analysis by UK Research and Innovation that shows that

“£63 is generated for the wider economy for every £1”

that is spent on research. Even if that number was out by a factor of 10, it would still represent a huge return on investment. Should we not direct a fairly modest resource, as needed, to ensure the long-term growth of facilities such as that at the University of Strathclyde—which, like all universities, seems to be under the cosh at the moment?