Seòmar agus comataidhean

The Government always tries to use plain English and to produce explanatory notes that are understandable. I used to be a member of this committee, so I get that sometimes when you are looking at an SSI and someone points out what it means, you go, “Oh, right. I have read it twice and I never saw that.” I am aware of the issues. As always, the Government will do what it can to ensure that SSIs are correctly drafted and understandable. Karen Auchincloss might want to add something.

There are a number of ways that we ensure that we do that. We already give reasons for using the made affirmative process. That was also introduced at stage 2 of the Coronavirus (Recovery and Reform) (Scotland) Bill that is going through the Parliament, and we will ensure that that consideration is on-going.

It is the usual process, but because of our relationship with the committee we can make it work, which is important. All in all, I think that we are already doing what you mentioned. We just need to ensure that we retain the relationship and keep working in that way.

In very simplistic terms, the made affirmative procedure should be used when it is needed—when we need to get emergency legislation through. As you have rightly said, at times over the past two years, it has been used more than it had been used previously, because of the situation that we found ourselves in.

On the whole, our approach is pretty flexible. I do not expect that I will be coming to the committee all the time, having used the made affirmative procedure. As I said to Mr Simpson when he asked a similar question last year, it would not be my number 1 choice in progressing legislation. However, sometimes, needs must and we must go down that route if we are to deliver what we want to deliver. Overall, I am happy to work within our normal procedures, but when I have to use the made affirmative procedure I have to do so.

It is a rare way of bringing in legislation. It would not be my go-to way of doing that.

I know. I am aware of the food commissioner issue that came up in the stage 3 debate, and I am aware of the situation. On the whole, I would have preferred to have more time at that stage, but sometimes things change at stages 2 and 3. On the whole, I try not to truncate the legislative process, although there have been examples of that happening in the past year.

Mr Simpson, with the greatest respect, I can talk only about process in parliamentary business. Policy and other such things are not in my remit.

I want to be able to tell you exactly how many bills I am planning to work with, but the answer to whether I can do that is no. However, we are happy to have an on-going look at that to see where we can get to. The Moveable Transactions (Scotland) Bill might have made me a bit nervous because it seems to have taken forever, after I told everyone here a year ago that it was a bill that the committee was going to deal with. From the committee’s perspective, the bill is so technical that my hell will now be your hell when you are dealing with it. You should, as a committee, be careful what you wish for. The bill is coming to you and will be challenging for you to deal with. I do not for a moment doubt that you will deal with it, but it will be a challenge.

You never lose it, when you have been a salesperson.

If we do not share that part of the process, we can take note of that and make sure that it is included.

It would be best for me to get back to you in writing about that, so that I have time to take a proper look at the matter. I got the information about the order only this morning. Give me time to write to you about that.