Seòmar agus comataidhean

Yes, that is part of the process.

As Steven says, we will take that on board. We try to use these evidence sessions as a way for us to see how we can do things better.

With every LCM, the Government’s position is not available until it has made its position clear. Most of the time, if you are hearing nothing, that is why. I will use the example of the Automated Vehicles Bill, which was complex and detailed. It took quite a while for us to go through that in order to get the detail. If you made the assumption that we were happy with it, that was not the case; it was just a case of getting our ducks in a row so that we could make the arguments. There were certain knock-ons that the UK Government had assumed would not be a problem for the Scottish Government.

There have been a number of examples of LCMs recently where we were not happy with some parts—and we have made everybody aware of those parts—but were quite happy with other parts. I read everything that comes in with regard to LCMs but I cannot think of an example off the top of my head. Steven MacGregor, perhaps you could give some examples to back me up.

Mr Balfour, there is a hard way and an easy way to do business, and if I could find an easy way to do that and get it to you beforehand, I would. However, unfortunately, we do not live in that perfect world and it is not simple for us to achieve that. Wherever possible, we will try to get the information to you as quickly as we can, but—as we have heard today—it can be quite complex. Steven MacGregor might want to add something to that.

I do not think that there is a process tension; I think it is a political tension.

There is a balance and a tension; I believe that it is a political tension. However, we have to be careful, because once something is included in a bill it becomes law. If we find at a later date that something does not work as well as we thought it would work, perhaps not because of drafting issues or something similar but because it is a clumsy piece of law, we do not have the flexibility to change that.

That is your opinion. My opinion is that it gives us the flexibility to be able to deliver to the public and engage with the public through the process.

Good morning, convener and committee members. It is good to see you all again. I note that Foysol Choudhury has joined the committee since my last visit. As a former member of the committee, I am only too well aware of the important work on legislation that all committee members do. I am pleased to be back with you to discuss matters within the committee’s remit.

From the Scottish Government’s perspective, the past six months have been broadly positive. We continue to strive to introduce the best-quality legislation that we can, and we have maintained high standards in the past quarter.

We continue to require to carefully consider the impact of the United Kingdom Government’s Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023 on the devolved statute book, but the volume of legislation arising continues to be manageable. We have introduced the long-awaited Judicial Factors (Scotland) Bill—which I know the convener is particularly keen to see progressed—and I welcome the steady progress that we continue to make in implementing recommendations from Scottish Law Commission reports.

I know that our respective officials 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 hearing from committee members today, and I am happy to answer any of your questions.

How many did you say it was, convener?