Seòmar agus comataidhean

There is on-going engagement between officials in the Scottish Government and those in the UK Government to try to resolve the issue.

We continue to work our way through the various historical commitments that we have made. For example, we are due to lay instruments relating to police, teacher and firefighter pensions on 24 April.

The regulations that relate to the national health service pension schemes will become part of a wider amending instrument that is required to bring NHS remediable service regulations up to date. That instrument is anticipated to be laid before the summer recess.

We also intend to lay regulations relating to the Valuation (Proposals Procedure) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2024 (SSI 2024/186) before the summer recess, which will seek to remedy the point that the committee raised.

An amendment will be made to the Burial (Applications and Register) (Scotland) Regulations 2024 (22I 2024/334) at the same time as the next set of burial regulations are made under the terms of the primary legislation, the Burial and Cremation (Scotland) Act 2016. We will keep the Parliament updated on the timings.

I welcome the report. I have looked over it, but I had better keep my powder dry as to what I might say about it until we have sent the full response, which we will do in due course. Some of the findings will probably tally with what I laid out in the evidence that I gave when I came to speak to the inquiry. Obviously, the bureau is still to determine when a business motion will go before the Parliament and I should not get ahead of that too much, but I hope that it has been communicated to the committee that we have identified a date on which we hope to be able to debate the committee’s report. That will be later this month, just after recess. I hope that the Parliament will agree to that so that we can debate the report in fuller detail.

I am aware of that, convener, and, clearly, I understand that this is an area of interest to you and to the committee. I appreciate and understand that four such instruments in one quarter seems high. Our estimation is that that is a blip rather than a trend. However, that is not any form of excuse. We do not want to be in a position where we have to lay any form of regulation and subsequently withdraw it because something is identified after the fact. We would much rather identify these things in advance. I would observe that identifying such issues is part of the scrutiny process—for example, some of the instruments were withdrawn on the back of this committee’s work in that regard. There is a degree to which it is part of the scrutiny process.

As I said in my previous appearance before the committee, my aspiration is that we get it right first time in every instance, but I recognise that, realistically, that will not be the case, and that there will be times when we do not get it right.

By way of demonstration of the fact that I think that the issue that you raise represents a blip, I point out that the level that you mention is quite far above what it has been during a fairly sustained period. In the first quarter of last year, one instrument was withdrawn and relaid; in the second quarter, there were two. That is in line with what the level has been in the past few years—in fact, the number has never gone above three in any quarter.

I can understand why the issue has been flagged—it is quite a bit above the normal level—but I assure the committee that I am not getting any sense that there will be an upward trajectory. Certainly, I will do everything that I can to make it clear to colleagues and officials across the civil service that there had better not be an upward trajectory. I want to get it right first time in every instance. I recognise that we will not always get it right, but there should be minimal instances in which that happens. I do not want to see the issue repeated.

I am sorry, I should add that I am happy to write in due course with more details about when more lengthy SSIs will be laid.

I do not have any significant opening remarks, convener, other than to thank you for the opportunity to be with you once again. Douglas Kerr, Steven MacGregor and I are very happy do our best to answer any questions that the committee has, and, if required, we are also happy to follow things up in writing.

I go back to the point about parliamentary scrutiny that I emphasised earlier. The finance committee has raised a concern and has written to me about it. I have heard that concern and I have acted on it. I have communicated to all ministerial colleagues, and to all senior civil servants who are involved in the consideration of any financial memoranda, that they should ensure that they go through the rigorous process that the Parliament rightly expects. We could also update the Government’s handbook on the bill to that effect.

If the Parliament considers that we can do more, it need only ask. If it asks for something that we can do, I will be happy to implement it. If it asks for something that we cannot do, I will be happy to set out why that is the case.

There will be a mixture of reasons. The overall approach that we take is that there will be co-design through the process of engagement with relevant parties in advance of introducing legislation. That will happen, but sometimes it will be appropriate to set out in the bill the high-level principles under which the law should function. Thereafter, as part of the various functions that are determined through secondary legislation, that should also be done by co-design. I do not see anything illegitimate about that. It will depend on the specific proposition that is before the Parliament.

Let us take one of your areas of interest, Mr Balfour. I have observed you in the Parliament for many years, and I know that you are interested in how our social security system should operate. I do not think that anyone would suggest that it would be appropriate to set out in great detail how specific benefits might function in primary legislation each and every time. Social and economic circumstances change, and we might need to change the manner in which a form of benefit operates, and it would be entirely appropriate to do that through secondary legislation. I expect that you would, rightly, be the first person to say that we should co-design that with the people who would stand to benefit from any form of benefits payment, or those who would have to administer such payments.

In certain circumstances, therefore, it is entirely appropriate for laws to be passed or for issues that are to be determined by secondary legislation to be subject to co-design, as much as primary legislation should be.

It will be different from bill to bill. I respectfully suggest that there might always be a sense that more people might like to be at the table. Sometimes, the reality is that you can have only so many seats around the table. That goes back to the point about having good, meaningful consultation that enables as many people and organisations to take part as want to. From there, if you are engaging in a co-design process, you can identify those who have the most direct relation to the legislation that you are seeking to take forward. Then you can involve in an active co-design process the people who are most likely to be directly impacted or most likely to be administering any element of legislation that you are seeking to take forward, which, with respect, cannot be everybody.