Seòmar agus comataidhean

I would challenge that by taking up Graham Simpson’s point that that could be perceived as an example of the Government getting into bad lawmaking habits and of legislation being published too late and without due scrutiny. The evidence from the Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland makes that point, saying that regulations are too often published too late and that

“it was not always clear that such short notice publication was necessary, or that it was not possible for parliamentary scrutiny to take place in advance.”

Is that not a fair criticism?

One concern is that we must take the Government’s word for it and take you at face value. I am not making a specific point about you; the same criticism has also been levelled at the UK Government for its increased use of the made affirmative procedure.

As an example, the Manchester travel ban came and went before Parliament could reject it, if Parliament had thought that the ban was not sound. It would be interesting to get your reflections on a remark from Lord Lisvane—you might know him from your time at Westminster—who is a former clerk of the House of Commons. In a recent House of Lords debate, he said that

“The real losers”

from the made affirmative process

“are ... citizens”

and business. He said:

“They and ... industry, our national institutions and civil society need to know how the law will be changed, to have the opportunity to comment and make representations, and to know how it will end up applying to them.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 6 January 2022; Vol 817, c 780.]

If we think about the Manchester travel ban, is that a fair comment?

The question is about skeleton legislation and the delegated legislation that stems from it. Do you think that the increased use of such legislation is consistent with the need for parliamentary scrutiny and accountability?

I have one final question. There is still an underlying concern that Government—in general, perhaps—has used Covid and the pandemic to do what Government often quite likes to do, which is to take decisions free from as much parliamentary scrutiny as it can be. Sir Jonathan Jones QC suggested to us that one solution could be for each and every piece of delegated law to be brought by the minister to the floor of Parliament for even brief consideration and debate. The debate could be for 10 or 15 minutes, given that a lot of it is relatively uncontentious. However, it would mean that that delegated legislation is questioned and subject to scrutiny. Would that not overcome the view that you have something to hide and are running from scrutiny in respect of certain regulations?

[Inaudible.] I do not want to rehearse the discussion that we have just had with the Deputy First Minister, but I agree with Graham Simpson and Paul Sweeney that the instruments, and the regulations that they bring into effect, would have benefited from scrutiny so that some of the negative unintended consequences would not have occurred.

The justification for bringing in the regulations through the made affirmative route is that, in some cases, the regulations had to be implemented the very next day. However, again, we did not have the justification from the Government for why it had to be the next day and not the next week or 10 days later. On that basis, and given that Parliament was sitting when the regulations were first laid, I support the suggestion from Graham Simpson, and perhaps Paul Sweeney, that the affirmative route would have been the better one to use in the circumstances.

Just to pick up on that point, our committee finds that a lot of what comes before us is not necessarily contentious, but having that process of scrutiny reassures Parliament and the public that things are not going through that should be subject to a rigorous process of scrutiny.

Good morning, Deputy First Minister. I welcome you and your officials.

If we can step back from the pandemic for a moment and think in slightly more abstract terms, do you think that the increased use of skeleton legislation and the widespread and now relatively common use of delegated powers within that is consistent with the need for parliamentary scrutiny and accountability?

How did the Scottish Government respond to the vote of no confidence? What were your views at the time on the reasons why the board decided to pass that vote of no confidence?

Thank you. Mr Brannen, it would be good to get your view, from a sponsoring and oversight perspective, on the action that has now been taken through the framework agreement, in terms of training and so on. Will that be sufficient to rebuild trust in the commission and to rebuild trust in the relationships between the various parties involved?

Like you, I am new—I am a new member of this committee. One of my early impressions is that, when the full glare of the spotlight from the Auditor General and the committee is on a body, we can get quite a quick turnaround in relation to certain practices—and, potentially, outcomes.

In the longer term, how do you perceive your role and the Scottish Government’s role in monitoring implementation of the audit recommendations, and how will you ensure that concerns are being addressed effectively, not just now but in the future?