Seòmar agus comataidhean

You have brought up another classic example of why these committee sessions are good, as that is something that we have not really discussed. If you give me the opportunity, I will have a look at that and get back to you at a later date.

I had a fair idea that that question would come up, because the political narrative has been going down that route. We checked, however, and we have not had any more such bills than normal; we have discussed that in relation to UK Government bills as well. I know that everybody gets a bit upset when we start doing like-for-like comparisons with another Parliament and its processes, but, on the whole, we are not doing what you describe. If people listened to the discussion in Parliament, they would think that the position was entirely different, but that is not the case.

In those processes, the Scottish Government tends to ensure that it listens. We say that we will ensure that everybody’s voice is listened to and that we will co-design, and everybody is then listened to. The argument is about whether the conclusions are always what every individual wants. The important thing is to ensure that we deliver on what we have promised in that legislation.

I know, but it is never a great idea to write everything on the face of the bill. If we take that argument to the next level—

I think that you and I are playing out the political pressure on—

As you know, convener, it is important that we have a relationship with the committee’s clerks so that we can work together and talk over any issues in order to move things forward.

Personally, I would not call that a trend. There have been perhaps a couple of issues that we have had to deal with and, as always, we will work with the committee to fix them, but I would not say that it is a trend.

There is a significant SSI coming up for your committee, which you are already aware of, but we have no major packages on the immediate horizon. For the past two years, the volumes of SSIs laid have remained lower than they have been historically, even pre-pandemic. There is no particular reason for that—it is just the way that things have been.

I am not going to kid you on, Mr Mundell—I knew that you were probably going to ask that question, not because I am hyper-efficient at what I do, but because it was the only instrument that has taken that length of time.

There are actually 10, five of which are all part of one programme of stuff that we are doing. The 2019 one that you have referred to is older than my two youngest grandkids. The work is really complicated and quite difficult for the officials to get sorted. We are in the process of fixing it and getting it sorted and we will update the committee as we progress down that route.

I usually come here and do not give you the exact number of instruments that are outstanding. You said eight, there are actually 10, and five of those are all part of one package. The number sounds more than it actually is, because five of them are for one process.