Chamber and committees

On a related point—this is a bit of a hobby-horse of mine from my previous tenure on the committee—I have always had a fear that the way that block grant adjustments are calculated becomes risky as time goes on. Fundamentally, you are indexing back to 2016. When you are in fiscal year 2017, that is fine, but the moment that you are into fiscal year 2021, let alone 2031, that becomes an increasingly synthetic exercise.

Was that explored as something that will need to be reviewed and revisited in future years? Especially when you hit the 10-year mark, unwinding all the different fiscal decisions made by the UK and Scottish Governments in order to benchmark and then calculate block grant adjustments becomes very prone to human error—or it certainly becomes a very synthetic exercise. Was that explored in the discussions, even if that might be something for future negotiation?

What you have just set out explains why the sequence happened, from an intergovernmental perspective, but do you acknowledge that that has not necessarily accommodated the parliamentary process that one might want?

This issue is perhaps something for the committee to explore—I am mindful that I am a substitute member. Some have questioned the timing of the release of the independent report and the final negotiations. I understand the Deputy First Minister’s explanation that the issue is very technical, and I concede that there is probably a limited audience of interest, but nonetheless we are talking about the fiscal envelope that is available to the Scottish Government, which is of fundamental importance to everything that we do.

Has there been some thought in the Scottish Government that there should perhaps be a period to allow for scrutiny and discussion, because these matters are complicated? We have had quite an interesting and constructive discussion this morning, which can help analysis. Will the Scottish Government undertake to have the possibility of scrutiny and, at the very least, enable independent reports to be digested? Having those things concurrently undermines the ability to scrutinise.

Even if you are looking at forecast error, ultimately, that will be driven by the size of tax receipts, not by inflation. Both those borrowing pots, for want of a better description, are indexed not against inflation but against the GDP deflator. It just strikes me that, even using the Treasury’s logic, it is not indexing against the right thing.

Frankly, the classic exchange is that Opposition parties, as the convener alluded to, say, “You must do X, Y, and Z,” and the Government, with some justification, says, “Where does that come from?” Until you have a complete level of clarity about how things, especially those that are below level 1, are flowing through and pan out, it is difficult to have that conversation. That information would improve the level of debate. The level that you get to is for further discussion, but I will make that observation.

You mentioned that I prefigured some of your response; you prefigured my next question, which is about COFOG. I am glad that it continues to be there. I will ask one last clarification question. We had a brief exchange about capital borrowing regimes and, in recent weeks, there has been some discussion about the issuing of bonds. That is interesting, but people’s minds have been racing ahead of themselves in some quarters. My understanding is that the process will fall within the limits of the fiscal framework. It is probably worth all of us being very clear that extra money is not being raised; this is happening within the fiscal framework and would be an alternative to the other sources of capital borrowing that are available to the Scottish Government. Is that a useful clarification?

Your answer almost demonstrates my point. At the moment, we do not know how this will all fit together. We do not know whether the co-design might actually come forward with things that would require different powers and abilities. The point of scrutiny is to look at whether the correct powers, procedures and fiscal measures are in place in order to support the policy intent and the outcomes of that legislation. The point is that you can look at it as a discrete package and not make it up as you go along.

I fundamentally fail to understand why the co-design is not done first, so that local authorities can set out what powers and financial considerations they need so that you can ensure that the legislation is in place to make sure that it works. Why not just do that co-design first, up front, and front-load it prior to introducing legislation? I just do not understand.

I suggest that it is up to the Government to bring forward legislation that works, not legislation that does not. I also direct the minister to the Official Report of this meeting, where she will see that I clearly said that co-design could arrive at packages of measures that could be legislated for together. She might want to do that.

Finally, is this not a bit of a “Shakespeare in Love” approach to government? In the film, Geoffrey Rush’s character was frequently asked how on earth he was going to pull it off and deliver the play, and he said, “I don’t know. It’s a mystery.” Is that not the case with this, where we have a big plan, but we do not really know how it will be delivered?

We cannot amend. You understand that fundamental principle: we cannot amend and it is a single-stage process.

I am not used to all this lavish praise, convener.

I want to follow up on a couple of points that were discussed, particularly around transparency. I am always struck by the fact that, essentially, the discussion and debate around budget time is always at level 3 and level 4, yet the actual budget bill is, essentially, at level 1, and, critically, when you look at the outturn, you see that it is, by and large, specified at level 1.

I want to ask about transparency. I fully take on board your point that overprovision of information can be a problem, and I do not want to cause officials panic about lots more work, but is there a case to explore on whether outturn could be specified in a greater level of detail? I ask that because, ultimately, my basic point of principle is that, when you are setting a budget, you need to look at how you performed against last year’s budget, and the importance and the level of scrutiny is at level 3 and level 4. Do you think that there is a case to be made for looking at the degree to which we can report back at that level on outturn?

I quite agree that you do not want individual bits of legislation for individual items or processes. I also totally understand the need for co-design: you have to get the detail right. What I struggle to understand, however, is why that co-design cannot happen prior to legislation being introduced. By all means, why not do that co-design and bring forward legislation in stages to deal with things and package them up together—for example, following consultation and co-design, deal with single-use items and the coffee cup measures in conjunction with measures for plastic carrier bags? Is there not a risk, given the complexities and given that we are seeking to recoup the full costs of the recycling and waste that is incurred? That is inherently complicated. If you take this legislation forward in a piecemeal way without a degree of interrogation and the three-stage parliamentary process, is there not a danger that we will get that wrong? Can you clarify why we cannot do the co-design first, prior to legislation? Do you not accept that, if detail is important, it is better to have more scrutiny rather than less?