Chamber and committees

Rather than repeat myself, I will get Steven MacGregor to add to that.

I cannot really talk about the situation 20 or 30 years ago, because I was in primary school—at least I was 30 years ago, anyway. No—I am lying, actually. I forget that I am getting older.

I cannot speak to the past, but the situation now is exactly as Rachel Rayner has said. Decisions are made case by case, so that we can justify the reasons why we take an approach and why we see it as being important. In many cases, that might be because stakeholders need to play an important part in the bill; in other cases, it might give us the added flexibility that we need in order to deliver what we want to deliver.

On the whole, however, using a framework bill is not our go-to place; our idea in creating a bill is not automatically to make it a framework bill.

Having worked with you since 2016, I know that you are not exactly quiet when it comes to stating your opinion. The whole point of Parliament is that members can express opinions such as the one that you just expressed. I go back to the fact that there is always the same debate with framework bills: some people see them as a power grab by the Government and some people see them as a way to create, with stakeholders, flexibility in the design of a service—social security being an example—to ensure that we deliver what we set out to do in the policy.

I assume that we would work with stakeholders on the proposed agriculture bill. There is no point in an agriculture bill without there having been full stakeholder engagement or an element of co-design. We will need to create flexibility to ensure that the bill works, because—you will know this better than I do, Mr Mundell—it will affect people’s livelihoods and how they go about their business. It will still give us the framework, and I understand—

At the end of the day, Mr Mundell, you have given your point of view. I do not necessarily agree with it and I have already stated how I believe the bill should go forward.

This is an on-going debate. The good news is that, as I said when I answered Mr Balfour’s question, we are not doing the same thing all the time. It is not our go-to to say, “There’s a framework bill; let’s just hang everything on that.” We do not do that; we work bill by bill. If I can assure you on any point, it would be that that is how we look at it.

I take on board your opinion and I might discuss it with my officials but, on the whole, we try to make sure that Parliament has as much scope as possible to scrutinise legislation.

We have been having the same debate since the first time I sat in front of the committee, and the same was probably happening before I became Minister for Parliamentary Business.

Again, we come back to situations in which the UK Government believes that a piece of legislation that it has made has no Scottish element, but my officials say that there is, so there will be a bit of to-ing and fro-ing. The other problem is that we receive the information an hour—if we are lucky—before the press release on the bill is sent out. That is quite challenging for us, because we have to get officials to say whether there is going to be an LCM and, if there is, whether we are going to be for it or against it. We have to make a case for the decision and we have to justify it.

It takes time for us to do that. If we got information a wee bit more quickly, things would be a lot easier for the Government, and we could give Parliament more time to scrutinise legislation. I remind everyone that the King’s speech is just around the corner; we do not know what will be in it, so there could be more such situations.

UK Government and Scottish Government officials talk to each other all the time and try to make things work. I have asked officials about this; I have heard members’ arguments and what you all say about LCMs, so I have been asking whether things have been like this since devolution began. I have been told that it has always been an issue, but that it happened less in the past. It seems to have become more prevalent now.

Why are we not being told the information sooner? Why are things being left until the last minute? Why, with some of the legislation that is being scrutinised, is there a belief that there is no Scottish element to it? Sometimes our officials have discussions with UK officials who tell us that legislation will not affect us in any way, shape or form; that argument can go on for quite a while.

I am not sure whether there might be a political element creeping in from Westminster, but we are trying to do all that we can at official level and at ministerial level. I assure members that, when I talk to my counterparts, I am trying to make sure that we make the process work a lot more easily. However, for some reason we seem still to be getting things an hour before the press release goes out.

You bring up an important point. In my time on the committee, we never had any legislation to do, which was always strange coming from other committees that had legislative programmes to deal with.

Because of its remit, it is good for the committee to get its teeth into such bills, which are technical. Who better to do it than the members of the DPLR Committee? Everything that you deal with, day in and day, out is highly technical.

Convener, I had a fair idea that you would ask that question, because of everything that you have described. The problem is that you have to be careful what you wish for. That approach might complicate matters even more and make things more difficult for us. I might be proved wrong, but my opinion is that a protocol might make things a lot more difficult than they currently are—although that would depend on the protocol.

I go back to the fact that we are dealing with the UK Government’s perspective; this Government and Parliament are, equally, quite defensive about our stuff—our legislation and the work that we are doing. I try to consider how things work for people in that other place, because no matter how much I might think it does, the world does not revolve around me and I am not that important, in the scheme of things.

It is important to give the UK Government space to do what it has to do. At times, that can be challenging for us all, but we have to be careful about the idea of having a protocol.

First and foremost—just so that the committee is aware—I am not power mad, and I am not making every bill that comes to Parliament a framework bill. You heard it here, exclusively—first, from myself.

The situation that we have is that there are certain times when flexibility helps the bill and gives us the option to deal with things further down the line—for example, to co-design bills with stakeholders. On the whole, however, we are not routinely going down the route of deciding that we are going to have a framework bill; the option is there mainly to offer us flexibility.

I do not know whether Steven MacGregor wants to add anything to that.

I will bring in Rachel Rayner or Steven MacGregor.

I recognise and understand the debate that is happening in Parliament. What I am trying to say is that we need to be able to deliver what we want to deliver, through the bill. It is not a case of taking anything away from the Parliament.