Chamber and committees

The Government does not have a majority in Parliament.

Although that brings pressure to bear on back-bench members of the Government party—which we should recognise, although it is inescapable—the important thing is that, after there is a parliamentary election, committee membership should broadly reflect the composition of Parliament. That is my perspective on the matter.

It could be argued that having smaller committees would be more challenging, because not every party could be represented, but, by its nature, that is down to the size of the parties. We try to reflect parties’ allocation in Parliament across all the committees, and it would be for Parliament to determine whether that should change.

That could be an option—it has happened before—although I observe that we have only so many members to comprise committees. Therefore, although one might think that that would reduce the pressure on a committee, it might not reduce the pressure on the individuals who comprise the committees.

Yes, I absolutely recognise that some committees will be more legislation intensive, but that is not new in the current parliamentary session—it has always been the case.

Of course.

I recognise that that is taking too long; I will not suggest otherwise. Work is on-going on a proposed section 93 order under the Scotland Act 1998 that will correct the error in the 2019 order. One of the challenges that we face, which has raised some complications, is that there is another proposed instrument in play that is interlinked, so that needs to be worked through. That involves us having to interact with the UK Government, which inevitably adds a layer of complexity. I am not trying to suggest that there is fault at either end, but that is an inevitable part of the complexity of the process.

I am looking to meet with my counterpart in the UK Government’s Scotland Office, Kirsty McNeill, in due course. This issue is one of the specific things that I want to discuss to try to make sure that we make some substantial progress so that, the next time that I am before the committee, I hope that I will be able to report that we have achieved such.

I will come back to the committee on that as soon as possible. I need to engage with the UK Government to be able to give a more definitive answer.

There is on-going engagement between officials in the Scottish Government and those in the UK Government to try to resolve the issue.

We continue to work our way through the various historical commitments that we have made. For example, we are due to lay instruments relating to police, teacher and firefighter pensions on 24 April.

The regulations that relate to the national health service pension schemes will become part of a wider amending instrument that is required to bring NHS remediable service regulations up to date. That instrument is anticipated to be laid before the summer recess.

We also intend to lay regulations relating to the Valuation (Proposals Procedure) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2024 (SSI 2024/186) before the summer recess, which will seek to remedy the point that the committee raised.

An amendment will be made to the Burial (Applications and Register) (Scotland) Regulations 2024 (22I 2024/334) at the same time as the next set of burial regulations are made under the terms of the primary legislation, the Burial and Cremation (Scotland) Act 2016. We will keep the Parliament updated on the timings.

I welcome the report. I have looked over it, but I had better keep my powder dry as to what I might say about it until we have sent the full response, which we will do in due course. Some of the findings will probably tally with what I laid out in the evidence that I gave when I came to speak to the inquiry. Obviously, the bureau is still to determine when a business motion will go before the Parliament and I should not get ahead of that too much, but I hope that it has been communicated to the committee that we have identified a date on which we hope to be able to debate the committee’s report. That will be later this month, just after recess. I hope that the Parliament will agree to that so that we can debate the report in fuller detail.

I am aware of that, convener, and, clearly, I understand that this is an area of interest to you and to the committee. I appreciate and understand that four such instruments in one quarter seems high. Our estimation is that that is a blip rather than a trend. However, that is not any form of excuse. We do not want to be in a position where we have to lay any form of regulation and subsequently withdraw it because something is identified after the fact. We would much rather identify these things in advance. I would observe that identifying such issues is part of the scrutiny process—for example, some of the instruments were withdrawn on the back of this committee’s work in that regard. There is a degree to which it is part of the scrutiny process.

As I said in my previous appearance before the committee, my aspiration is that we get it right first time in every instance, but I recognise that, realistically, that will not be the case, and that there will be times when we do not get it right.

By way of demonstration of the fact that I think that the issue that you raise represents a blip, I point out that the level that you mention is quite far above what it has been during a fairly sustained period. In the first quarter of last year, one instrument was withdrawn and relaid; in the second quarter, there were two. That is in line with what the level has been in the past few years—in fact, the number has never gone above three in any quarter.

I can understand why the issue has been flagged—it is quite a bit above the normal level—but I assure the committee that I am not getting any sense that there will be an upward trajectory. Certainly, I will do everything that I can to make it clear to colleagues and officials across the civil service that there had better not be an upward trajectory. I want to get it right first time in every instance. I recognise that we will not always get it right, but there should be minimal instances in which that happens. I do not want to see the issue repeated.

It is regrettable that it has happened today, when I am here. [Laughter.] However, maybe it is for the better that I am here, because I am seeing the scrutiny in action.

I go back to the point that I made before: we have a process in place that, broadly speaking, works, which is demonstrated by the fact that the numbers are not high overall. As I said, earlier, we will not get it right all the time, but the aspiration is to do so.

It is a shared responsibility: everyone involved in the process of laying an instrument, from drafting through to laying it before the Parliament—all the officials involved, those involved in legal checks, and ministers—have a share of the responsibility, and no part of that system should abrogate its responsibility. We ensure that Government lawyers have on-going support, training and guidance to consider proposals, legal issues and drafting. There is a monthly session for lawyers to share knowledge about SSIs. That happens over the process and provides opportunities for peer support and learning. Further, once a specific SSI is drafted, it is checked within the team that drafted the instrument. However, the team is not just marking its own homework—another lawyer who was not involved in the drafting has to check it, too.

That speaks to me of a system that, broadly speaking, works, but I am always up for considering what else can be done. It is incumbent on us to consider that but, if there are specific things that this committee or any other committee of Parliament, as a result of its experience of considering any instrument, thinks could improve the process further, we are completely open to hearing what that might be.