Seòmar agus comataidhean

Having worked with you since 2016, I know that you are not exactly quiet when it comes to stating your opinion. The whole point of Parliament is that members can express opinions such as the one that you just expressed. I go back to the fact that there is always the same debate with framework bills: some people see them as a power grab by the Government and some people see them as a way to create, with stakeholders, flexibility in the design of a service—social security being an example—to ensure that we deliver what we set out to do in the policy.

I assume that we would work with stakeholders on the proposed agriculture bill. There is no point in an agriculture bill without there having been full stakeholder engagement or an element of co-design. We will need to create flexibility to ensure that the bill works, because—you will know this better than I do, Mr Mundell—it will affect people’s livelihoods and how they go about their business. It will still give us the framework, and I understand—

At the end of the day, Mr Mundell, you have given your point of view. I do not necessarily agree with it and I have already stated how I believe the bill should go forward.

This is an on-going debate. The good news is that, as I said when I answered Mr Balfour’s question, we are not doing the same thing all the time. It is not our go-to to say, “There’s a framework bill; let’s just hang everything on that.” We do not do that; we work bill by bill. If I can assure you on any point, it would be that that is how we look at it.

I take on board your opinion and I might discuss it with my officials but, on the whole, we try to make sure that Parliament has as much scope as possible to scrutinise legislation.

We have been having the same debate since the first time I sat in front of the committee, and the same was probably happening before I became Minister for Parliamentary Business.

Again, we come back to situations in which the UK Government believes that a piece of legislation that it has made has no Scottish element, but my officials say that there is, so there will be a bit of to-ing and fro-ing. The other problem is that we receive the information an hour—if we are lucky—before the press release on the bill is sent out. That is quite challenging for us, because we have to get officials to say whether there is going to be an LCM and, if there is, whether we are going to be for it or against it. We have to make a case for the decision and we have to justify it.

It takes time for us to do that. If we got information a wee bit more quickly, things would be a lot easier for the Government, and we could give Parliament more time to scrutinise legislation. I remind everyone that the King’s speech is just around the corner; we do not know what will be in it, so there could be more such situations.

UK Government and Scottish Government officials talk to each other all the time and try to make things work. I have asked officials about this; I have heard members’ arguments and what you all say about LCMs, so I have been asking whether things have been like this since devolution began. I have been told that it has always been an issue, but that it happened less in the past. It seems to have become more prevalent now.

Why are we not being told the information sooner? Why are things being left until the last minute? Why, with some of the legislation that is being scrutinised, is there a belief that there is no Scottish element to it? Sometimes our officials have discussions with UK officials who tell us that legislation will not affect us in any way, shape or form; that argument can go on for quite a while.

I am not sure whether there might be a political element creeping in from Westminster, but we are trying to do all that we can at official level and at ministerial level. I assure members that, when I talk to my counterparts, I am trying to make sure that we make the process work a lot more easily. However, for some reason we seem still to be getting things an hour before the press release goes out.

I cannot really talk about the situation 20 or 30 years ago, because I was in primary school—at least I was 30 years ago, anyway. No—I am lying, actually. I forget that I am getting older.

I cannot speak to the past, but the situation now is exactly as Rachel Rayner has said. Decisions are made case by case, so that we can justify the reasons why we take an approach and why we see it as being important. In many cases, that might be because stakeholders need to play an important part in the bill; in other cases, it might give us the added flexibility that we need in order to deliver what we want to deliver.

On the whole, however, using a framework bill is not our go-to place; our idea in creating a bill is not automatically to make it a framework bill.

I welcome you to the committee, Ms Villalba, as I think that this is the first time that I have seen you in it.

Officials from the Scottish Government and the UK Government meet each other regularly, and they have the opportunity to share information and ensure that we try to make things work. However, one of the things to be aware of is the fact that we are dealing with UK legislation a lot of the time or, because it comes from the UK Parliament, it is theirs to deal with.

We need to find a way—I am trying to make this point in a non-political way, because my job is basically about process and making everything work—for the UK Government to remember that we are here and that we have our processes that we need to deal with. We also need to ensure that there is communication between officials and between me and my ministerial counterparts.

We try to make that work, but it does not always work. If I were sitting here speaking from the UK Government’s perspective, I would say that we have a Parliament in Westminster and that we have to go through its processes. At the same time, the Scottish Government would say in response to that, “Well, yes, but, equally, this affects us, so we need to actually have the opportunity to have the time to go through our own processes as well.”

On the whole, we tend to work very well together, but there can be some hiccups along the way. There might be a situation in which the UK Government does not think that there is a Scottish element or something that affects the Scottish Government. It will be our officials who will say that we need to look at that, and there might be a bit of debate on the issue. Steven MacGregor can give some further detail on that.

To be perfectly honest with you, it is a bit of both. We have officials working together all the time, as I have already said, but there is also the fact that, when the UK Government makes an announcement and goes forward with legislation, it is its legislation. We just need to make sure that we make the UK Government aware of the Scottish element.

Could things be better? There is always room for improvement in absolutely everything in life so, yes, we probably could find a way to work that would make things run more smoothly. However, because of the technical aspects of a lot of this, that can be quite difficult. From the number of notes that I have seen flying back and forward between the two Governments, I can see that people end up having to deal daily with things that had not been thought of and which could cause a problem.

Obviously, if someone is drafting something in the UK Government, they think purely from their perspective about how they are going to push things forward, and they may perceive that there is no kick-on to us in Scotland. We see officials in the Scottish Government saying that that is not the case, and there might be a wee bit of debate—a wee bit of to-ing and fro-ing on who is correct in that scenario.

That brings us back to accuracy and how we can provide information to the committee and the Parliament to the best of our ability. I will bring in Steven MacGregor again to add to that.

Part of the reason why I do not want to say something when I do not have the full detail for the committee is because that would set hares running. As you say, it is not a highly political bill, but I want to ensure that the it is right because my job is about process and I have to ensure that I am not the one who gets the process wrong.

Convener, I had a fair idea that you would ask that question, because of everything that you have described. The problem is that you have to be careful what you wish for. That approach might complicate matters even more and make things more difficult for us. I might be proved wrong, but my opinion is that a protocol might make things a lot more difficult than they currently are—although that would depend on the protocol.

I go back to the fact that we are dealing with the UK Government’s perspective; this Government and Parliament are, equally, quite defensive about our stuff—our legislation and the work that we are doing. I try to consider how things work for people in that other place, because no matter how much I might think it does, the world does not revolve around me and I am not that important, in the scheme of things.

It is important to give the UK Government space to do what it has to do. At times, that can be challenging for us all, but we have to be careful about the idea of having a protocol.

First and foremost—just so that the committee is aware—I am not power mad, and I am not making every bill that comes to Parliament a framework bill. You heard it here, exclusively—first, from myself.

The situation that we have is that there are certain times when flexibility helps the bill and gives us the option to deal with things further down the line—for example, to co-design bills with stakeholders. On the whole, however, we are not routinely going down the route of deciding that we are going to have a framework bill; the option is there mainly to offer us flexibility.

I do not know whether Steven MacGregor wants to add anything to that.

I will bring in Rachel Rayner or Steven MacGregor.