Chamber and committees

I am conscious of the time, so I will wrap up with some final questions. Do elections and remuneration for conveners have to go together? Could we have elected conveners without remuneration? Would elected conveners introduce a more political dynamic? How would elected conveners work with the general running of committees?

Does anyone else want to comment on the idea of elected conveners? Ruth Fox, I know that such a system has been in place in Westminster for some time.

To ask the Scottish Government what eligibility criteria and implementation guidance it has issued to local authorities regarding the use of the care-experienced children and young people fund in education settings. (S6O-04574)

Will the minister expand on whether adopted children who were previously looked after are eligible to benefit from education support through the care-experienced children and young people fund and whether local authorities have any discretion to restrict their access? If not, what action is being taken to ensure that the fund is applied equitably and in line with the national definitions of care experience?

I do not see any real problem with that. The subject matter should be considered by everybody who is involved in it.

There is a delegated powers memorandum that must explain the nature of each and every power in a bill, and it must include the reason for taking the power and the choice of scrutiny procedure for that power.

As we know, at stage 1, a bill is subjected to careful scrutiny from stakeholders and civic society. It then passes through stages 2 and 3, with the Parliament holding it to account at each stage. In that way, the Parliament retains the ultimate authority in determining whether secondary legislation-making powers should be in place in any piece of legislation in the first instance.

Similarly, when the Government exercises powers, including Henry VIII powers, to amend primary legislation, the Parliament has a key role in scrutinising both the technical and policy elements of the use of those powers. Ultimately, the Parliament retains the power to determine secondary legislation by either approving it or not under the affirmative procedure, or by deciding whether to annul it under the negative procedure. In a parliamentary democracy, that is, of course, how it should be.

It is clear to see that the committee conducted the inquiry rigorously and that the Government welcomes the overall direction of the report. It is also clear that considerable effort went into ensuring that the committee obtained a wide range of opinion and experience, hearing different perspectives and viewpoints, which were represented in what is a comprehensive report. I am very happy to support the motion.

As a substitute member of the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee, I am pleased to speak in today’s important debate. On the face of it, it seems like a dry, somewhat technical subject, but it is hugely important to the integrity of Scotland’s democracy and the efficiency of the Parliament.

The DPLR Committee’s recent inquiry into framework legislation and Henry VIII powers was an important and necessary piece of work relating to devolved powers and drafting legislation. As we have heard, framework or skeleton legislation sets out the principles for new law but without much detail as to how it will be given practical effect. Instead, broad powers to fill in the detail at a later point are given to ministers and, occasionally, to other bodies.

Henry VIII powers—the term is unfortunate, in my opinion—allow ministers to amend acts of Parliament by secondary legislation, which may concern minor matters but be very necessary.

Delegated powers are an essential part of the legislative toolkit. The Scottish Government and the Parliament would not be able to function if we relied solely on primary legislation. That is the reality.

During my nine years in the Scottish Parliament, and as a member of the Criminal Justice Committee and, previously, the Justice Committee for all that time, powers in delegated legislation have been used to good effect to update and amend legislation to address changing circumstances—and always, in my opinion, to strengthen it. However, some people consider the use of such powers to be too wide, so the DPLR Committee inquiry was keen to explore any safeguards that can be put in place to address those concerns.

The Scottish Government is happy to recommit itself to ensuring that the Scottish Parliament is provided with sufficient information to understand why a proposed delegated power is considered to be appropriate and proportionate and how that power is expected to be used. What is more, the committee saw no evidence to suggest that framework legislation is being used more frequently, as the minister articulated earlier.

The evidence that Andrew Tickell gave to the committee talked about pejorative language in the context of framework or skeleton bills. In reality, we should remind ourselves that the process is used for fairly straightforward matters.

The Scottish Government does not routinely set out to introduce framework bills. Bills are always considered on a case-by-case basis, and that is a sensible way to legislate. To be honest, as a small Parliament whose powers are, thankfully, increasing, I think that we do pretty well.

It is also important not to lose sight of the mechanisms and processes that are already in place in Parliament to scrutinise proposed powers in bills and how they are used.

Many trans people in Scotland and across the UK will be confused and frightened by the Supreme Court judgment. Can the cabinet secretary clarify again how the rights of trans people, including those who already hold gender recognition certificates, can be protected and upheld?

On that general point, do the public—I do not mean stakeholders with an interest in the committee’s work, but the public generally—know about committees and their importance? If I am talking to friends or family who are not political and I say something about a committee, they look at me as if to say, “Oh, a committee—what’s that about?” Are we communicating how important committee work is—that it is the absolutely fundamental work of the Parliament? All that the public see is what goes on in the chamber. Could we do a better job of that?

Good morning, witnesses. All of your comments have been really valuable, and I agree with them all. I will go back to something that Professor Cairney raised and blow our own trumpet in the Parliament.

We have a huge legislative workload for a small number of MSPs. I am the chief whip for my party, which is the party of government, so I have to get people on committees. All members of my group are on two or three committees in a Parliament that meets three days a week. That puts into context the time that we have. We would all love to do more scrutiny. It is essential, but it is a case of time versus people. It is really difficult to do more scrutiny.

With regard to specialists, I always try to match somebody up to a committee that they had an interest in or a background in before being elected. It is not always possible, but you do your best. We also have a huge turnover because people come off the back benches to go into Government, which requires a reshuffle of committee membership. It is pretty much constant.

I am pointing out the challenges in our system. We try to minimise turnover. I believe in trying not to disrupt committees if I can and in keeping people on a committee so that they can get comfortable and get to know the subject better. I have been on the justice committee since I was first elected, in 2016. I am by no means an expert, but I feel confident on that committee, because I have been there so long and can reflect on previous legislation.

I will point out something and see whether you have any ideas on it. At this time of year, we face perhaps not a rush but a number of stages 2 and 3 that have to be done by the end of the session. Could we organise things better so that we do not have to face quite so much? It happens every year—Joe FitzPatrick has been here longer than I have, so he can attest to that. Do you have any suggestions for how things could be managed better, so that we do not suddenly have stages 2 and 3 every week from now until the summer?

I agree with you, Ken. More members are lodging far more amendments than they used to. I am not saying that that is a bad thing, but that has definitely increased a lot. We have just completed week four of stage 2 of a bill in the Criminal Justice Committee. It is a big bill, but there are other committees that are in the same boat, and I do not remember that happening in the previous parliamentary session—Joe FitzPatrick will remember way back. The number of amendments has increased, which prolongs the time that it takes for a bill to get through the legislative process.