Holyrood’s Finance Committee has said there is a “lack of confidence” in Scottish Government reports setting out how much new legislation will cost.
Committee convener Kenneth Gibson also complained that there are “significant challenges” for MSPs in carrying out “effective scrutiny” of Bills put forward by ministers.
He raised the concerns in a letter to Holyrood’s presiding officer, Alison Johnstone, after Scottish Government officials said they would have to provide updated costs on legislation aimed at improving the police complaints process and the handling of misconduct allegations against officers.
With the committee told these new figures would not be available until after the first Holyrood vote on the Police (Ethics, Conduct and Scrutiny) (Scotland) Bill, Mr Gibson said MSPs were “unclear” why the information could not be made available earlier.
We've written to @POScotParl regarding our growing concern over @Scotgov's use of framework bills.
The government's approach to legislation poses significant cumulative risks to affordability and serious challenges for parliamentary scrutiny.
Read here👇https://t.co/vEouzPpEKS pic.twitter.com/OtFCMsAPhP
— Finance and Public Admn Committee (@SP_FinancePAC) April 18, 2024
Noting there had been a “difference” between the Scottish Government’s original estimate of the cost of introducing the legislation, and information provided by Police Scotland, Mr Gibson said the delay in providing figures was “particularly troubling given the Scottish Government was aware that the figures were incorrect for some six months”.
Describing this as “disappointing”, he added that this had “clearly undermined the ability of the committee to scrutinise the full costs of the Bill”.
He told the presiding officer that this was “not the first time” MSPs on the Finance and Public Administration Committee had raised concerns about the “quality and consistency” of financial memorandums – reports produced by the Scottish Government setting out the costs of enacting legislation.
Mr Gibson highlighted the committee’s “lack of confidence that figures presented are an accurate reflection of the final costs” of legislation.
The SNP MSP went on to highlight the committee’s “ongoing concerns” about the Government’s use of so-called framework bills.
This type of Bill relies on regulations to set out the detail, rather than including this in the main legislation, with the Finance Committee convener stating: “The introduction of four framework bills currently under consideration by Parliament presents significant cumulative risks including in relation to overall affordability and inefficiency, as well as serious challenges for parliamentary scrutiny.”
Adding that a number of other committees at the Scottish Parliament had “raised similar concerns” about the use of this type of legislation, Mr Gibson appealed to the presiding officer to raise the issue with ministers.
He told Ms Johnstone that his committee would “welcome any support you can provide to encourage the Scottish Government to improve the quality, accuracy and consistency of FMs (financial memorandums), and to reduce its use of framework bills to only where absolutely necessary”.
A Scottish Government spokesperson said: “Ministers are required by the Parliament’s Standing Orders to set out estimates of the costs, savings and changes to revenues that would be brought about by any Bill they introduce.
“This requirement has been met for every Bill introduced by the Government this session, including for the Police (Ethics, Conduct and Scrutiny) Bill.
“While there is no definition of a framework Bill, the Government does not routinely bring forward such Bills.
“However, the inclusion of delegated powers in Bills is a necessary and routine component of any modern statute book which governments need to be able to make appropriate use of.”