Seòmar agus comataidhean

I think that it will be across the range; some may come to this committee.

Without doing what was suggested before, I re-emphasise the point that my predecessor made. The issue is complicated, and there are complexities involved, but I am conscious that it needs to be resolved.

Official level engagement continues to take place to progress an amendment to correct the drafting errors that were identified in the Scotland Act 1998 (Specification of Functions and Transfer of Property etc) Order 2019. We are continuing work to address those issues and we think that it should be complete by next year. I reckon that that is still a very long time, but I again make the point that I expect us to complete that work as soon as possible.

It should be resolved by the order. The key thing is that when we come to the next budget, we do not revert to making the same error.

First, I am sure that we would all be delighted to know Mr Johnson’s undisclosed location, but it is up to him whether he discloses that information to us.

With regard to the new leases (automatic continuation etc) (Scotland) bill that we have committed to introduce, I do not have a specific date for the committee just now—as ever, that is contingent on the progression of the rest of our legislative programme. I can say that I hope that it will be a nice festive gift for the committee, but I make no promises as to whether that will come to pass. I expect that the bill should come to the committee under the agreement that was made when standing orders were changed to enable the committee to consider Scottish Law Commission bills.

On the question of why that particular bill is being brought forward, it is partly—to be candid—on the basis that the bill is more ready than others are. That being the case, why wait? Let us introduce it and get it done. In addition, we have identified that the aims of the bill are in line with the Government’s wider ambitions, hopes and aspirations for the economy, so it neatly ties in with that. As with all such matters, there is a backlog that we need to work through, and if some bills are more ready to go than others, we will bring those forward.

Whatever floats your boat, Mr Eagle.

I go back to the point that I made in my opening remarks, which is that that would always be our ambition. We want to try to get it right the first time, but I recognise that, on occasion, that will not be the case. If that is identified, we will put it right in the specific case but also seek to learn from that experience.

The quality of any instrument that we take forward is the responsibility of all those who are involved in doing so, from either a policy perspective or that of those involved in the legal drafting.

The SSI programme provides training to specific teams, which we believe bolsters the central provision of information and guidance. The Parliament and legislation unit is always there to try to ensure that any team that is taking forward an SSI is of as high a quality as it can be, and training should assist that process. Various officials are available to support policy leads in introducing secondary legislation.

Government lawyers are also provided with the support, training and guidance that they would require in considering any proposals for an SSI, any of the legal issues that might arise and, of course, the drafting issues that they should be aware of. That includes a monthly session for lawyers to share knowledge about SSIs.

Once any specific SSI has been drafted, the drafting team must review it to make sure that it is correct. So that there is outside assessment, a further check will be done by another lawyer who has not been directly involved in the instrument’s drafting. That provides a chance for there to be another source of input in order to identify any issues. I hope that that is an indication that we take the issue seriously. We will always seek to get it right in the first place, and we will continue to try to ensure that those who are involved are upskilled and are aware of what they need to do, and that wider support is available for them.

Yes, I think that I have that information. First, I say that we will always make sure to continue the process that you have referred to, Mr Balfour. My expectation is that we provide that regularity of update about the instruments that are to be laid, because I appreciate that there is limited time for committees, so they need to be able to factor that in.

Right now, volumes look fairly steady. From this week until Christmas, there should be around 50 instruments. It may not surprise you that this committee is uppermost among those that will have more to consider than others. However, the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee, the Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee and the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee will have around eight instruments each. The others are split fairly evenly—five each for the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee, the Social Justice and Social Security Committee and the Education, Children and Young People Committee, and maybe fewer than five for the others.

Of course, we will continue to look at that and make sure that we are in the right place, and we will keep this committee and all the other committees updated as to their expected case load, for want of a better term.

On the latter point, you can be assured that that is a given. As I have laid out, I will always request that my officials make sure that we do that.

I talked about the case load. I recognise that pressure is brought to bear on committees by not just the number of instruments but their complexity and length. Some instruments, by nature of what they seek to do, will be longer than others. I can say on that basis that some will not be long and that one will be particularly long. We will seek to make sure that, as far as is humanly possible, committees have advance notice of that.

I go back to the point that I made in my initial answer. All those SSIs are subject to refinement, so what might be particularly long at the outset might not be quite as long by the end of the process. We will go through that internal process and the finalised instrument will come out at the other end. Although I cannot give specific details right now, I can give an early indication that it is likely that some instruments will be fairly substantial.

I am aware that more issues had been identified. We have worked our way through them. Many of the five commitments that you referred to relate to a similar area in the provision of pensions. I hope that we can work through them simultaneously as much as possible. If we are able to deal with those timeously, the overall number will be reduced significantly.

One of the outstanding commitments related to the Budget (Scotland) Act 2023. The 2023 act has now been superseded by the Budget (Scotland) Act 2024, so we do not intend to deal with the issue that was identified in relation to that legislation. Nevertheless, I concede that the issue with the drafting error remains. We are due to publish next week the Budget (Scotland) Act 2024 Amendment Regulations 2024, which will be the equivalent SSI for the current financial year and will resolve the issue of the pluralisation of the word “programme”.

I should say, of course, that there are many festivals across the year, and I did not pledge by which one the bill would be introduced, so that gives me—I hope—some leeway and discretion.

With regard to the bill meeting the criteria that have been identified, I go back to the answer that I gave just a few moments ago: the bill takes forward the Scottish Law Commission’s recommendations to improve, simplify and update aspects of the law on commercial leases. We think that that makes the necessary contribution to ensure that we have a modern and effective statute book, and it fulfils the broad criteria that we have for introducing Scottish Law Commission bills for this committee to consider.