Seòmar agus comataidhean

Rather than having me waffle on for a couple of minutes, I will go straight to Steven MacGregor, who will probably go straight to Rachel Rayner.

It is becoming increasingly challenging for us to manage the LCM situation in particular. Partly, that is because of the political situation—let us not kid ourselves on—but it is also partly the result of amendments and everything else that we get from the Westminster Government.

Last time, when we went we were going through the process of LCMs, I mentioned the fact that I try to look at it from the UK Government’s perspective, as opposed to ours. When it drafts legislation, it does not go out of its way to take into account how provisions will affect Scotland. The problem for us is that we have to make sure that we take that into account.

I do not know whether this will answer your question, but, recently, we have been working with the Parliament on a way to deal with that issue. For example, there was all kinds of fall-out from the Automated Vehicles Bill in relation to the Road Traffic Act 1988 and legislative consent. To try to balance that out at the time, we came up with an LCM although we did not yet have a Government position—we did it so that we could get it out within our timescales and still have time as a Government to see what the impact was. On the one hand, this committee, rightly, asks me about the quality of the drafting, the answers and everything else that we do; on the other hand, there is a timescale for everything. That was an example of a way in which we have tried to make it easier for us to manage.

I do not know whether that answer is helpful to Mr Choudhury. I bring in Steven MacGregor again, to sum up some other bits and pieces.

The parliamentary liaison unit that Steven MacGregor runs is party to all the legislation that goes through the Parliament; it has oversight of just about everything. Steven, do you want to add anything to that?

No, the position can be pretty flexible, as you will be aware. There could be negotiations between officials and between ministers over that period, and the position could change. Although I cannot think of any examples off the top of my head, I think that our position has changed with regard to a couple of LCMs because we have negotiated, the UK Government has accepted our position and we have moved on. There have been other times when the UK Government has not accepted our position and we have had to say that we are not happy with the LCM.

I think that you are being a wee bit unfair. I do not think that that is the case. That might be the political narrative, if we started to go down the route of a political argument but, within the process itself, there have been plenty of times when the Government has made its position clear to say that we are supportive of the LCM and want to make the changes.

Not too late.

There is not a trend—to use today’s buzzword again—towards our having more delegated powers in legislation. What tends to happen with various bills that involve co-design, for example, is that we need to ensure that the bill actually does what we want it to do.

In the previous session of Parliament, both you and I were on the Social Security Committee, which considered the bill that became the Social Security (Scotland) Act 2018—I do not know whether you were on the committee at that point. That bill process was a perfect example of how to make it work in such a way that we could deliver what we said that we would.

We can sit here and talk about legislation all day, for hours, but the public believe in delivery. How we went about the bill process for the 2018 act is a good example. In fact, our former colleague on that committee, Professor Tomkins, has said that the work that we did on that bill was a perfect example of how the committee was involved. He used that as an example recently, although he was on the Social Security Committee at that time, so I do not know whether he had to declare an interest, given that he had done some of that work.

There are certain times when we do that, when the bill delivers what we want it to do and the process is flexible for us all.

In answer to your final question, we will work with the committee to do whatever we have to do to do the work of Parliament, as we always do. I do not agree with your point, but I take on board what you are saying. I argue that, in the example of the Social Security (Scotland) Bill, the secondary legislation and the work with stakeholder groups is what made the difference.

When a broad church of stakeholder groups is put in one room, there will always be those who feel that they are not getting their point across. On the whole, that process happens in order to give us flexibility. I argue that it gives flexibility for those who are involved in, or on the receiving end of, the delivery of the process, because they are the ones who are consulted with.

I take on board the workload issue. We will consider it for a future chat with the committee and see how that might look further down the line. It is a difficult issue to deal with, but we will try to ensure that the committee feels that we are taking on board what you are saying. I am happy to have a look at the issue.

I get it.

I still believe that it is more of a political tension, but that is my personal view. Mr Balfour, you and Mr Mundell have expressed your view on that point. I think that we are going to have difficulty agreeing on it.