Chamber and committees

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.

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.

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?