Chamber and committees

In relation to some of the concerns that have been put before the committee, will the Scottish Government have on-going discussions with the relevant groups individually about their concerns or is today the end of the matter for that discussion process, should we agree to the motion on the order?

My point is that, if that work is controlled largely here in Scotland through the on-going co-design process—this is an issue that we have had in relation to other bills—how are we to interpret the on-going costs of the on-going co-design? How can we do that when we are not sure what the co-design will result in?

Thank you for that. In its submission, the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland says:

“Historically we have found that generally speaking, awareness of Scottish taxes is not high in Scotland”—

I think that we know that—

“and there is a need for improvement of communications by the Scottish Government to ensure this improves, in line with the Scottish Government’s own Framework for Tax principles.”

We have heard quite a lot from Audit Scotland about the need for greater clarity and transparency on tax in general—what decisions have underpinned certain tax decisions, where the money is coming from and so on—so I think that the point that the convener and Michelle Thomson raised is a valid one. The idea of having a finance bill to improve that and to provide some extra clarity and transparency is quite appealing to this committee. I completely take your point that scrutiny of that would have to be done by Parliament, not just by specific committees, but we would be grateful if that discussion could go a wee bit further.

Can you explain why you think that it is acceptable when, as you have admitted, there are so many uncertainties in it?

Mr Kerr, when Mr Greer was questioning you, he quoted the section of the financial memorandum that says that the precise split of funding across the tiers is yet to be determined. The financial memorandum goes on to say that that work is

“a key component of the codesign work currently underway”.

Can you tell us about that on-going co-design work?

Therefore, that work is not determined by external factors so much as by what is going on in terms of Scottish Government policy. Is that correct?

If there are on-going decisions to be made through co-design, as the financial memorandum says, how are we able to scrutinise the costs of that on-going co-design if it has not happened?

I associate myself with Michelle Thomson’s remarks, and indeed with the comments of Mr Greer, Mr Halcro Johnston and Mr Mason, because they have all, in their different ways, exposed a lot of the uncertainty that you, Mr Kerr, have admitted exists.

This is an important bill, especially for the support of rural Scotland, which has been at the difficult end of a lot of considerations in recent times. If you were in our shoes as members of the committee, would you accept the financial memorandum?

I was grateful to hear your comment that you are open to having further discussions about a finance bill. Have such discussions taken place within your portfolio, or have they gone further up the scale to Cabinet?

Was the feedback about relationships between you and co-design partners or did it relate to how the bill would work with regard to the different stakeholders?