Chamber and committees

My substantive line of questioning, which was on practical suggestions that you might have, has, I think, largely been dealt with by others, certainly with regard to amending and other such matters. However, I was interested in the Law Society’s evidence, which makes a number of recommendations on framework legislation, including on provision of enhanced supplementary material, enhanced consultation and the possibility of legislation being amended.

In that respect, I have two questions. First, are you suggesting, essentially, that we should have a different process for framework bills in order to cover those things? I also noticed that the submission suggested—as you have, Michael—that draft regulations could be put alongside such bills to give greater clarity.

Is that about having a different process for framework legislation? If so, should that process also apply to secondary powers, such as those that might not be in full-blown framework legislation, but which have some of those characteristics? Is the implication that there should be some sort of sifting mechanism to decide when such a process should be employed?

You are such an optimist—it is heartening. [Laughter.]

Ms Springham and Ms Crichton, do you have thoughts about enhanced material or other things that should be requested along with a framework bill?

I will push Jonnie Hall and Lloyd Austin on a couple of the points that they raised.

I understand the point about flexibility, but you have discussed the need for consultation and scrutiny. When powers are delivered through secondary legislation, there is actually less of a requirement. Parliament has very clear rules: our three-stage process is clearly laid out and is open, allowing people make submissions. However, there is no pre-configured format for what consultation the Government might require for legislation—sometimes, it is not specified at all. If you want scrutiny and consultation, would you not be better off with primary legislation?

You mentioned guidance and parliamentary scrutiny, earlier. Bills might specify that guidance needs to be laid before Parliament but, in essence, that is a notice period before the guidance is introduced. That process does not actually require any input, and there is no ability for Parliament to amend or update the guidance, although committees could take evidence, if they want to. Are you suggesting that some thought should be given to a parliamentary role in relation to guidance, particularly when it relates to a substantial matter?

Rosemary Agnew, I was interested in some of your previous answers. What you said was similar to some things that were said last week about there not necessarily being a hard and fast distinction between framework bills and non-framework bills, and the idea that the issue is more about how powers that are delivered through secondary legislation are framed and structured. You can have very broad and open powers and other powers that are very well specified. The broad parameters are set, but the issue is the detail or the levels that are left to secondary legislation.

Does that need to be an area of greater focus, so that we have models for framing secondary powers? Most legislation will involve some secondary powers—it is very rare for legislation to have none. Are you suggesting that we think about how secondary powers are framed and structured, rather than focus purely on whether a bill is a framework bill or not?

Oh, no—sorry. Apologies. I am comparing 2023-24 with the budget for 2024-25.

I would be interested to know whether that budget was spent.

Yes—perhaps that is something for debate this afternoon.

I want to follow on from points that have been raised by Murdo Fraser and Lorna Slater. The most important thing, as you have been seeking to stress, is that it is important to compare apples with apples and to look at things over the longer term. It is interesting that the Scottish Government is presenting the budget in a different way this year, using outturn figures for 2023-24.

The total budget lines under your responsibility show a fall from £1.9 billion to £1.3 billion, but that is largely because of the UK-funded annually managed expenditure of £519 million that occurred in 2023-24. I ask this on the basis of clarification, so that we have this right. AME is not directly at the Scottish Government’s discretion; as I understand it, it is largely spending on behalf of the UK Government. Is there an explanation of what that change was—just so that we are clear about how to compare the figures?

If we can get it in writing—

That might well be the case, but the problem is that, in the current landscape, you need to understand what shape of peg you are and find the right shape of hole. Sometimes, businesses find that they are a square peg but they can find only the triangle, the circle and the star on the pegboard.

I will ask my last question, which is about the longer-term shape and size of the budget. I am about to ask you about budget lines for which you are not necessarily directly responsible. It is one thing to look at the enterprise budget, but we should also look at employability and skills, which are significant levers that we have to impact on economic growth. For 2025-26, the employability line is set at £104 million; in 2022-23, it was £124 million, which was more than £130 million in real terms. You do not even need to get out your calculator to work out that that is a 30 per cent drop over that period. There was also an underspend of £10 million last year.

Likewise, with skills, we see that the proposed budget is £255 million; in 2022-23, it was £287 million, which was £312 million in real terms. That is an 18 per cent fall. I admire your personal commitment to and enthusiasm for the economy, but is that really being translated across the budget and across all of the Scottish Government’s levers to deliver real growth, which, when it comes to the skills budget, is about helping people to get better work and better wages? Do those budget changes really reflect the prioritisation that you have articulated?