Chamber and committees

It does.

That is helpful.

We have already picked up on this, but I want to dig a wee bit deeper into the scrutiny of secondary legislation. One frustration of non-Government politicians is that they cannot amend secondary legislation—it is either a yes or a no. Last week, there was some talk, particularly from the academics, about devising a scheme of not necessarily amendments, but some kind of procedure whereby a committee or the Parliament could at least raise concerns and suggest how changes might be made. From a practical perspective, could that work in practice? Do you have experience of other jurisdictions that have that model?

Good morning. Thank you for coming. Before I move us on a wee bit, I am interested in returning to something that Lloyd Austin said in his previous answer, which is about spending more time scrutinising secondary legislation than primary legislation. We discussed that a wee bit last week. From a stakeholder perspective, how do you see that happening, and how would you like it to happen?

I could change that.

Does anybody else want to come in on that point?

That is helpful. I will briefly touch on one other point. When we have a framework bill, there are questions about how well we can scrutinise the financial implications of secondary legislation. Obviously, we would have a financial memorandum, which my colleague Roz McCall has pointed out. Does anyone have experience, either positive or negative, of making sure that what the Government has said that legislation will cost is delivered, at the expected price?

Thank you for that—it was helpful.

Good morning. I want to follow up that point—and briefly, because I do not want to go too far down a rabbit hole.

In the witnesses’ opinion, given their expertise and knowledge, are we having more of these types of bills now than we had in, say, the 1980s and 1990s? If so, can they give us a reason why?

Sorry—I could not see you.

Jonnie Hall, I know that you are concerned about having the flexibility and speed of secondary legislation, particularly in an emergent situation. Would you have any concern around the greater scrutiny of secondary legislation, or is your concern more about its not holding anything up too much?