Chamber and committees

To be fair, all our public sector organisations—local government, the national health service, whatever—try to do that, but sometimes it is simply not possible.

I will not pursue that any further at this point, because colleagues are keen to come in.

That would be appreciated.

One of the responses that you have given with regard to the medium-term financial strategy is that you want

“to ensure that the public finances are set on a sustainable footing over the medium-term.”

I am interested in what the Government means by “a sustainable footing”. The Government always balances its books—it must, because that is a legal obligation—but the committee has expressed concerns about, for example, the huge increase in social security spending and the impact on other portfolios, which are being squeezed, as a result. What does the Government mean by “a sustainable footing”?

You said that you aim to deliver the work before June. I might be a wee bit cynical, but I am not aware of many Government strategies that have come ahead of schedule. The committee is concerned that nothing seems to happen in originally envisaged timescales, which has been a real issue throughout the parliamentary session.

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

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.