Seòmar agus comataidhean

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.

I go back to the point that I made in my opening remarks, which is that that would always be our ambition. We want to try to get it right the first time, but I recognise that, on occasion, that will not be the case. If that is identified, we will put it right in the specific case but also seek to learn from that experience.

The quality of any instrument that we take forward is the responsibility of all those who are involved in doing so, from either a policy perspective or that of those involved in the legal drafting.

The SSI programme provides training to specific teams, which we believe bolsters the central provision of information and guidance. The Parliament and legislation unit is always there to try to ensure that any team that is taking forward an SSI is of as high a quality as it can be, and training should assist that process. Various officials are available to support policy leads in introducing secondary legislation.

Government lawyers are also provided with the support, training and guidance that they would require in considering any proposals for an SSI, any of the legal issues that might arise and, of course, the drafting issues that they should be aware of. That includes a monthly session for lawyers to share knowledge about SSIs.

Once any specific SSI has been drafted, the drafting team must review it to make sure that it is correct. So that there is outside assessment, a further check will be done by another lawyer who has not been directly involved in the instrument’s drafting. That provides a chance for there to be another source of input in order to identify any issues. I hope that that is an indication that we take the issue seriously. We will always seek to get it right in the first place, and we will continue to try to ensure that those who are involved are upskilled and are aware of what they need to do, and that wider support is available for them.

Yes, I think that I have that information. First, I say that we will always make sure to continue the process that you have referred to, Mr Balfour. My expectation is that we provide that regularity of update about the instruments that are to be laid, because I appreciate that there is limited time for committees, so they need to be able to factor that in.

Right now, volumes look fairly steady. From this week until Christmas, there should be around 50 instruments. It may not surprise you that this committee is uppermost among those that will have more to consider than others. However, the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee, the Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee and the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee will have around eight instruments each. The others are split fairly evenly—five each for the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee, the Social Justice and Social Security Committee and the Education, Children and Young People Committee, and maybe fewer than five for the others.

Of course, we will continue to look at that and make sure that we are in the right place, and we will keep this committee and all the other committees updated as to their expected case load, for want of a better term.

On the latter point, you can be assured that that is a given. As I have laid out, I will always request that my officials make sure that we do that.

I talked about the case load. I recognise that pressure is brought to bear on committees by not just the number of instruments but their complexity and length. Some instruments, by nature of what they seek to do, will be longer than others. I can say on that basis that some will not be long and that one will be particularly long. We will seek to make sure that, as far as is humanly possible, committees have advance notice of that.

I go back to the point that I made in my initial answer. All those SSIs are subject to refinement, so what might be particularly long at the outset might not be quite as long by the end of the process. We will go through that internal process and the finalised instrument will come out at the other end. Although I cannot give specific details right now, I can give an early indication that it is likely that some instruments will be fairly substantial.

I am aware that more issues had been identified. We have worked our way through them. Many of the five commitments that you referred to relate to a similar area in the provision of pensions. I hope that we can work through them simultaneously as much as possible. If we are able to deal with those timeously, the overall number will be reduced significantly.

One of the outstanding commitments related to the Budget (Scotland) Act 2023. The 2023 act has now been superseded by the Budget (Scotland) Act 2024, so we do not intend to deal with the issue that was identified in relation to that legislation. Nevertheless, I concede that the issue with the drafting error remains. We are due to publish next week the Budget (Scotland) Act 2024 Amendment Regulations 2024, which will be the equivalent SSI for the current financial year and will resolve the issue of the pluralisation of the word “programme”.

I should say, of course, that there are many festivals across the year, and I did not pledge by which one the bill would be introduced, so that gives me—I hope—some leeway and discretion.

With regard to the bill meeting the criteria that have been identified, I go back to the answer that I gave just a few moments ago: the bill takes forward the Scottish Law Commission’s recommendations to improve, simplify and update aspects of the law on commercial leases. We think that that makes the necessary contribution to ensure that we have a modern and effective statute book, and it fulfils the broad criteria that we have for introducing Scottish Law Commission bills for this committee to consider.

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.