Chamber and committees

As I have said, I look forward to working with the committee. We have committed to writing back to you over a period of time on various issues, but if there is anything that the committee feels that it wants to advise us further on, we will be happy to look at that. I am thinking, in particular, of the piece of work that Mr Kidd suggested.

I will ask officials to come in on some of the detail that you asked about but, as a general point, although I absolutely understand the frustration of Parliament about this, some of the issues that we have had are the result of an improved relationship with the UK Government. Concerns that have been raised by the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament about proposals have led to amendments and bills, and that has created issues with the LCM process. I am not trying to make excuses or to defend that but, in some ways, it is the consequence of improved working. However, of course we want the process to be better. I would much rather see LCMs going to committees than straight to Parliament. The committee should have the opportunity for scrutiny.

As to the direct conversations that have been taking place, perhaps my officials can expand on that.

And no committees, either.

The premise of your question is that, from early April until, potentially, the end of May, there will be no committees.

I am sure that officials have been thinking about that.

I will bring in officials to respond in detail on engagement, but, as a general point, it always feels like this at this stage in a parliamentary session, but, actually, the volume of bills, particularly Government bills, is no higher than it has been in previous parliamentary sessions. The volume of members’ bills is perhaps slightly higher than in previous sessions, but it is still fairly comparable. One of the complicating factors in this parliamentary session, as experienced colleagues around the room might recognise, is that committees have been taking longer at stage 2. There have been additional evidence sessions, and some stage 3 sittings have also been taking longer, as we can see from this week’s business. That has increased the sense that the pressure is greater than it was in the past. In strict number terms, it is not, but we are alive to the demands that some committees are facing. Steven MacGregor or Claire Trail might be able to talk about the engagement that happens.

That is a difficult question to answer, Mr Kidd, other than by assuring you that we are going to do everything that we can to avoid such situations. As I said earlier, particularly with supplementary LCMs, that is a consequence of more collaborative and constructive working with the UK Government, which I think we would all welcome.

I hope to have meetings with UK Government ministers in short order, and one of the topics will be what we can do collectively to try to improve the situation.

Again, as I said to Roz McCall on another topic, I do not have any magic wand for addressing this, but in our conversations with UK ministers, we will reiterate the views of the DPLR Committee, as they have been expressed to date.

Thank you for inviting me to join you to discuss matters within the committee’s remit. I am grateful to the committee for its work in considering around 100 SSIs since my predecessor appeared here on 1 April. When I took on this role, I was encouraged to note that fewer issues—and, particularly, fewer serious issues—had been experienced with instruments in 2024-25 than had been in the previous year.

However, it would be remiss of me not to acknowledge that there was an increase in the number of issues with SSIs in the first quarter of this year. I am sure that we will cover that issue. Although that is partly explained by a package of SSIs dealing with pensions, I reassure the committee at the outset that the Scottish Government is carefully considering what it can do to ensure that that does not become a trend and that we maintain our otherwise good record. In addition, I highlight that, in addition to secondary legislation, we have introduced seven bills since 1 April.

In conclusion, I thank you for your diligence in considering the legislation that comes before you and am grateful for the close working relationship between our officials. I know from my previous time in this role that the DPLR Committee is hugely important to the operation of this Parliament. Together with Douglas Kerr, Steven MacGregor and Claire Trail, I am happy to answer any questions from the committee and, if necessary, I will follow up in writing. Given that I have been back in post for only a few weeks and am still getting fully up to speed, I will, with the convener’s indulgence, lean on the officials for detail so that we can provide answers that will fully meet the committee’s aspirations.

I am not trying to blame the UK Government for any delay, but that will depend on its response to the cabinet secretary’s letter. The officials may be able to give you some idea of the timescales that we would work to in such circumstances.

Absolutely.