Chamber and committees

I know that a few colleagues around the table are long in the tooth when it comes to this, but the first thing that I should emphasise is that expedited bills are very unusual, and I do not think that they should become a feature of our legislation-making processes. I just want to give you that reassurance, Mr Eagle.

I guess that this brings me back to my earlier point that I am always willing for us to learn, to improve and to refine the process. If the committee feels that, when it comes to taking forward expedited bills—as much as I do not want us to have to do that very often—there is something that we can do to improve the process to better involve this committee, or indeed the Finance and Public Administration Committee, which you have also mentioned, I am more than willing to hear what that might be.

I take very seriously the purpose of parliamentary scrutiny in this place, and we will always seek to communicate that to the UK Government. Primarily, it comes down to an issue of timing. I want to make sure that this Parliament has as much time as possible to consider and properly scrutinise these matters. We would always seek to achieve that as much as we can, but given that these things, by their very nature, emanate from UK Government legislation, some of the timing is outwith our hands. My answer to your question, then, is yes, we would always seek to press the point that—and I suspect that this applies not just to this committee but to all committees of the Parliament and, indeed, Parliament more generally—there should be adequate time to scrutinise powers within devolved competence.

Yes, there will be consideration. You have talked about the co-design process, and that is quite specific to the approach that was taken with the National Care Service (Scotland) Bill. Under other circumstances, that will not be the rationale. Let us take the example of social security. I think that we would all agree that, if we were to uprate benefits or make slight alterations to qualifying criteria, it would be ludicrous to have to introduce primary legislation in every instance when such matters can be dealt with through secondary legislation that is usually brought forward annually. The circumstances under which we would consider that the utilisation of secondary legislation is the appropriate way forward to make the law will differ, depending on the rationale.

The rationale that you have cited is specific to the circumstances of the National Care Service (Scotland) Bill, which contrasts with other circumstances in which using secondary legislation is a well-established part of our process for uprating benefits, altering registration fees and so on.

As do I.

You ask what assurance I can give about there not being more SSIs. In the programme, that is determined by what is required. Your fundamental point, I suppose, is about what we can do to ensure that the number of SSIs in which you identify serious issues is reduced. I can only go back to the point that I have made before—a process is in place. I recognise that it will not always suffice. It will not always work. Things go wrong. To err is to be human, and humans are involved in the process.

I would make the point that that is why we have parliamentary scrutiny. If this committee identifies anything that is defective or needs improvement, it is incumbent on us to take that away and make those improvements. All I can stress is that I understand the necessity of making sure that SSIs are of as high a quality as possible. If I get any sense that there is slippage in that, I will use the power of my office to make sure that, across Government, we emphasise the requirement for SSIs to be of a high quality. I recognise—I think that we all recognise—that a problem will on occasion happen, but I do not want that to be a regular occurrence or a feature of the system. I want to hear from the committee that the numbers are greatly reduced. That is where I want to land.

I go back to the point that I made: I am more than willing to hear about things that the committee thinks could further improve and refine the process.

I welcome the inquiry. We had a private meeting to discuss that a few months ago and I think that it will be helpful for the committee to undertake that inquiry because there is a narrative about framework bills. There is no definition of what a framework bill is, although we have some sense of what one might look like. I welcome the committee dedicating some of its time to look into that in more detail and I will be happy to participate willingly and just as excitedly in that process of deliberation.

In relation to the current programme for government, bills are still being finalised, so it is difficult for me to answer that question in specific detail. As soon as we are able to, we will provide that detail to Parliament, notwithstanding the point that there is no definition of a framework bill. I am therefore unlikely to come forward at this stage and say, “This is a framework bill for you,” but we recognise that there is legislation where a fair bit of the detail has still to be worked out through secondary legislation.

There is, of course, nothing wrong with us determining the law through secondary legislation. It is a well-established part of our process of making law. The question is—and it is a legitimate question—about the circumstances in which it is appropriate to do so. We will always be happy and open to discussing that with Parliament, either on an in-principle basis, as your inquiry might lend itself to, or, when push comes to shove, when a specific bill is debated. It will be for Parliament to decide whether it considers that to be an appropriate approach.

Good morning, convener, and thank you for inviting me to be with you this morning. I am pleased to be able to join you for what is my first public appearance before the committee and to be able to discuss matters in your committee’s remit.

My predecessor joined you in March. Since then, there has been limited parliamentary time due to summer recess, but I am grateful to you, convener, and to colleagues on the committee for your work in considering a number of instruments since I took on the role as Minister for Parliamentary Business.

In addition to secondary legislation, I highlight that we have introduced the long-awaited Judicial Factors (Scotland) Bill, which I know that you, in particular, convener, were keen to see progressed.

I welcome the steady progress that we continue to make with implementing Scottish Law Commission reports.

We continue to strive to introduce the best-quality legislation that we can, and we always seek to maintain high standards in drafting. I know that my officials and your committee clerks continue to work closely together, and I remain committed to listening carefully to the views of the committee and doing my best to resolve any issues that arise.

I look forward to engaging with you today, and I am happy to take any questions and to answer them to the best of my ability, with the assistance of Steven MacGregor, Nicola Wisdahl and Douglas Kerr.

I think that it will be across the range; some may come to this committee.

Without doing what was suggested before, I re-emphasise the point that my predecessor made. The issue is complicated, and there are complexities involved, but I am conscious that it needs to be resolved.

Official level engagement continues to take place to progress an amendment to correct the drafting errors that were identified in the Scotland Act 1998 (Specification of Functions and Transfer of Property etc) Order 2019. We are continuing work to address those issues and we think that it should be complete by next year. I reckon that that is still a very long time, but I again make the point that I expect us to complete that work as soon as possible.

It should be resolved by the order. The key thing is that when we come to the next budget, we do not revert to making the same error.