Seòmar agus comataidhean

You are making an argument when you say that the costs are as indicative as you can make them for a framework bill. Following that logic, the estimated costs cannot be very accurate at all, because it is a framework bill, as you have emphasised. That concerns me greatly. I absolutely appreciate the complexity, but our job, as a committee, is to scrutinise the FM. In some respects, we almost need to set aside the policy and the excitement that is generated by the policy and the change. Our job is to look at the FM, as it stands.

You have heard from the convener that concerns were expressed by the representatives two weeks ago. Indeed, in answer to my question, Kirsty McGuire from South Lanarkshire Council gave a four for her confidence level, and someone else gave a five, because they were reflecting that they do not know the final costs.

As it stands, from looking at the FM, we can have simply no idea as to the final costs of implementing the policy. In fact, it is fair to say that, in any project, you never know the final cost until it is done—that is just a statement of fact. I am trying to establish the confidence level, given that, in all your previous evidence to the convener, you have set out exactly why we cannot know and the mitigations that will come through co-design. How confident are you, having explained that, that the FM represents the final cost to the Scottish Government and the taxpayer?

The convener made the point that, if those regulations go through as secondary legislation via, for example, an affirmative procedure, that could in no way be considered scrutiny. They might go through automatically, even if they went to a lead committee. For example, I was at a recent evidence session on the Children (Care and Justice) (Scotland) Bill that was all about costs, and there was exactly the same issue. That bill is a framework bill, and the details on costs were starting to come through but were being considered by the Education, Children and Young People Committee.

I am trying to say that I cannot have any confidence in the FM when the fully disclosed estimates are quite vague because of where the Government is in the process. I understand why that is the case. Witnesses from councils have said, “Actually, frankly, we don’t know.” There are mitigations, but, with some of the ranges, the costs could be seven times higher.

I will frame it in this way. Imagine that you were going to build your own house and you went to the bank and said, “I think that I want to borrow £250,000, but I might actually need £1.75 million. I will let you know once I’ve been through all the various stages.” The bank would say, “Eh—I don’t think so.” It would be looking for considerably more detail.

Given that, critically, our fiscal constraints are so tight, why do you think that it is acceptable for us, as a finance committee, to sign off on an FM when, to be frank, we have no clue? I am setting aside the policy; I am just talking about financial scrutiny. We have no clue. I find it extremely difficult to have the right level of confidence, because there are so many variances. To have some ranges in which the costs vary so much—they could be seven times higher—is unbelievable.

But this committee will not have the chance to scrutinise that legislation. We are gathered as MSPs because—I think that this is fair to say—all of us have some background or experience in finance. I do not think that any of us would claim to be experts, but we have some experience, and we have been selected to represent that. Once legislation goes to general committees, we lose that opportunity.

If we are now agreed that, given that this is a framework bill, we cannot have the confidence that we need in the FM but that there will be further scrutiny, do you share my concerns that that further scrutiny will be much wider? The focus of secondary legislation, by its very definition, will not be exclusively on the costs, although they might be involved. Do you have any worries that that will lead to less control over costs as we go through the parliamentary processes?

From the FM.

Thank you.

I understand that. It is basically a phased approach. I saw such an approach a multitude of times in my previous life, and I understand how it works, but I return to the point that we are the finance committee. After you go away today, that is it—unless we ask you to come back with an updated financial memorandum, the matter is away from the committee that has responsibility for ensuring that the costs are understood.

Given that we agree that you are taking a phased approach, how many meetings have you had with the Deputy First Minister to outline the fact that, as we go from year to year, we cannot have any proper sense of what the costs are until we reach a particular point? Does she, in her capacity as finance secretary as well as Deputy First Minister, know that, for the next few years, she will have no idea of the costs of this bill, which we can add to those of the National Care Service (Scotland) Bill and the Children (Care and Justice) (Scotland) Bill? If I were her, I would be quite nervous about that, because, if I were in charge of controlling the costs, I would want to know, or have a good sense of, what was coming down the track. How many meetings have you had with her?

I absolutely understand that. You are describing an enabling bill—you used the term “framework bill”—and strategic-level costs. I get all of that.

I have a last wee question. How do you know that we will get value for money?

I am sorry to interrupt, but, in other words, we can anticipate further costings in addition to the 50 per cent update. Minister, given that you correctly highlighted the very challenging fiscal environment that we have, how do you know that the money will be available? What meetings have you had thus far with the finance secretary and the Deputy First Minister?

I have a tiny supplementary question on that point. It triggered something in me when you said that the rights would be the same for people going through this process—in other words, children, and we are focusing on victims at the moment—as they would be for people going through the criminal process. Have you tested that legally, and have you taken legal advice on that? I can sense a test case emerging whereby, theoretically, they have the same rights. Have you cross-matched the rights of people going through the criminal justice process with the rights of—specifically—victims going through this process?

If you have not, I would ask you to look at that from a victim-centred perspective, comparing and contrasting, if you are going to say that the rights will absolutely be upheld and be exactly the same as they are in the criminal process. I do not know the answer either, but I am asking that question and there may be a slightly different angle. I will leave it there.