Chamber and committees

The committee has heard substantial evidence from witnesses that framework legislation is being used more frequently. What is your view on that? If we are using it more frequently, why is that?

Another point that has come up is the idea of sunsetting Henry VIII powers, so that there would be a way of closing off a power that was not being utilised. What do you think of that suggestion?

You say that there is no evidence of framework legislation happening more frequently, but we are getting a lot of information that says that it is. On what basis are you making that judgment? To turn that around, what evidence is there to say that it is not happening more frequently?

That is very interesting.

Mr Jones, what is your opinion on what Mr Hedges has just said about Henry VIII powers and on the concern that Westminster could encroach on devolved legislation?

That is excellent—thank you.

In the Finance and Public Administration Committee’s fantastic piece of work on the Circular Economy (Scotland) Bill, the committee stated that

“The increasing use of ‘framework’ bills that ... provide future Governments with enabling powers”

does not provide “the best estimates” of all likely costs and

“undermines Parliamentary scrutiny. It also risks the Parliament passing legislation which may in the end, once outcomes are fully understood,”

lead to significant cost increases. I accept that. The bottom line, which I want to highlight, is

“whether ... the outcomes the bill seeks to deliver ... outweigh any financial or affordability considerations.”

It is the outcomes that I really want to question.

Given the ambiguity around what a framework bill is or is not, and given the fact that we sometimes do not know that even at the inception of the bill, how important are the outcomes? Should they outweigh any financial situation? Should that be sacrosanct? Are we not putting enough emphasis on outcomes in the first place? Is it about saying that we just do not know what a framework bill is at the outset and that we should do more, especially from a financial position?

We are trying to drill down into what would be an effective form of scrutinising those powers. Are we saying, “We just don’t like them, so let’s not do it”? In your opinion, can we find a sensible, suitable way of scrutinising those powers and halting their use when need be?

Good morning, everybody. I would like to come back to you, Mr Gibson.

Hello again, everyone. I will come first to Mr Hedges with my first question about Henry VIII powers. Your committee’s submission made reference—which I am sure that you remember—to a suggestion to strengthen scrutiny on that,

“to require the Minister making them to consult with relevant stakeholders before making, or laying a draft of, a statutory instrument.”

That highlights to me the possibility that there could be other forms of scrutiny and that there should be a better way of scrutinising that Henry VIII power. What might be a required or appropriate scrutiny method for that form of legislation?

Mr Carson, in your submission, you refer to some bills in relation to Henry VIII powers, but not many. Do you have anything to add?