Chamber and committees

That would be very helpful.

I want to pursue a related issue. I do not know how many framework bills we have in the Parliament just now, but there are a lot. My understanding is that, from a Scottish Government perspective, one of the reasons for framework bills is to try to ensure that there is as much discussion as possible between the Government and relevant stakeholders to co-design—I think that that is the term that the Scottish Government uses. In other words, we have a better chance of getting good legislation if the stakeholders have had really good input into it. That is my understanding, and I think that that is the committee’s understanding. The problem is that the co-design process goes on beyond the publication of the financial memorandum, as you have just shown us, and beyond the initial stages of the legislation. Do you accept that that is also a problem, as it means that, if the process of suggestions coming in about the bill is still on-going, we will be unable to decide what the costs will be?

Why did you originally consider it appropriate not to provide us with an updated financial memorandum until after stage 2? Where is the logic in that?

From a practical angle, I understand that the Criminal Justice Committee is taking stage 1 evidence on the bill just now. Is that correct?

Do you know how long the stage 1 process will be?

I have a question, which is one of clarification. Professor Roy, you raised an interesting point about future Scottish budgets and said that it would be helpful if we could see the numbers on how much has been spent to mitigate climate change. Should that be done within each portfolio of the existing budget, or are you suggesting that there should be another section in the Scottish budget that shows a cumulative total?

That is very helpful. I asked the question because, as you know, there have been quite a few situations in which we have questioned how easy it is to track money through the Scottish budget. It is good to know from your expertise whether that is better done in one unit or throughout the system.

Good morning. Mr Thomson, the problem that this committee has, which the convener has rightly pointed to, is that we are asked to scrutinise the numbers that have to go behind a bill. This is the fourth bill in recent months about which we have had concerns because the accuracy of the numbers does not suit the scrutiny that we have to provide. Do you accept that, when a bill team makes a presentation to Parliament, it is essential that the financial memorandum that goes with the bill is understood and clearly set out before we get to any legislative process? Do you accept that as a bill team?

It is a long-standing convention of this Parliament—rightly so, as the convener has set out—that the financial memorandum must be presented in time for the legislative process. That is not after stage 2. If that is a misunderstanding, we have to correct that very quickly.

I suggest that there is also a wider problem here. We have to ensure that any legislation that we pass in this Parliament is fit for purpose and is good law. Whether parties vote in favour of or against the bill is not the main point. The main point is whether the financial memorandum is factually correct and whether the evidence supports it. At the moment, it is very difficult for us to understand why a bill team thought that it was appropriate to come with the numbers after stage 2, which is after the committee stage as well as the stage 1 debate in Parliament. Do you accept that we are right to have those concerns?

You will not be surprised to hear that I will come on to the issue of a finance bill in a minute. First, I will follow up the convener’s questioning about data. With regard to the current UK levy, why is HMRC unable to tell us how much of that money is apportioned to Scotland? What is the problem there?

That is helpful. There have been growing calls in the Parliament for a finance bill, and, as Mr Mason has rightly highlighted, the public sometimes does not understand to a particularly high degree of transparency what is going on with the public finances. Anything that we can do to improve that process would be welcome, and I have certainly heard colleagues on all sides of the chamber suggest that it would enhance the Parliament.

Perhaps that is a debate for another time, minister. Thank you for your comments.