Seòmar agus comataidhean

I am grateful to Ross Greer for having taken the time to discuss the amendments with me in advance of today's proceedings. I very much appreciate the points that he has made, which include that requiring candidate deposits could be viewed as a barrier to engagement in the democratic process; that there is a reasonable case to be made for requiring candidates to have demonstrated some support in the process of being nominated in the local area that they are seeking to be a candidate; and that by-elections can impact the proportionality of council representation. I understand the points that Mr Greer has made, and there is some merit in the case for his suggested changes.

However, in my estimation, removing deposits and doing away with local government by-elections represent fairly significant changes. I should say that I know Councillor Ken Andrew very well, and I will certainly be pressing him to not stand down in the Hillhead ward.

I am also taken with the point that Graham Simpson has made. There is a balance to be struck here, but, equally, although we ordinarily vote along party lines in a council election, we are also electing an individual.

Although there is merit in the suggestions, they require some further thought. They involve pretty big changes and they have not been subject to consultation during the bill process. I take the point that Mr Greer has made, that relevant work was done by the Electoral Commission, but that was some time ago. As far as I am aware, the issues were not raised at stage 1, and I note that the Electoral Management Board’s convener has raised some concerns about the changes in his letter to the committee.

I recognise that there is a case to be made for changing the arrangements and that the proposals ape elements of some systems in other jurisdictions, but I think that the difference in threshold for those parties that have had electoral success and those that have not, in terms of requiring them to collect signatures, would require some consideration.

I also note that there are some drafting issues that might require attention if the amendments were to be successful today, although, of course, we could deal with them at stage 3.

I think that the issues that have been aired are worthy of future consideration. They could and probably should be debated and discussed by the Parliament at some point in the future. However, incorporating them into the bill at stage 2 is probably not the best way to make such major changes to how we carry out our elections. On that basis, I urge the committee not to support the amendments.

I refer members to the letter that I have sent regarding the consultation that the Scottish Government has committed to on other areas, which we will turn to in the debates on other groups of amendments. If the issues that have been raised are of interest to the committee, I am more than willing to consider how we might be able to undertake a similar exercise in the area of election law.

I thank Mr Greer for lodging the amendments. It is worth airing the issues, but I ask him to consider not pressing them today. Should he choose to do so, I ask members to vote against them.

You ask what assurance I can give about there not being more SSIs. In the programme, that is determined by what is required. Your fundamental point, I suppose, is about what we can do to ensure that the number of SSIs in which you identify serious issues is reduced. I can only go back to the point that I have made before—a process is in place. I recognise that it will not always suffice. It will not always work. Things go wrong. To err is to be human, and humans are involved in the process.

I would make the point that that is why we have parliamentary scrutiny. If this committee identifies anything that is defective or needs improvement, it is incumbent on us to take that away and make those improvements. All I can stress is that I understand the necessity of making sure that SSIs are of as high a quality as possible. If I get any sense that there is slippage in that, I will use the power of my office to make sure that, across Government, we emphasise the requirement for SSIs to be of a high quality. I recognise—I think that we all recognise—that a problem will on occasion happen, but I do not want that to be a regular occurrence or a feature of the system. I want to hear from the committee that the numbers are greatly reduced. That is where I want to land.

I go back to the point that I made: I am more than willing to hear about things that the committee thinks could further improve and refine the process.

I welcome the inquiry. We had a private meeting to discuss that a few months ago and I think that it will be helpful for the committee to undertake that inquiry because there is a narrative about framework bills. There is no definition of what a framework bill is, although we have some sense of what one might look like. I welcome the committee dedicating some of its time to look into that in more detail and I will be happy to participate willingly and just as excitedly in that process of deliberation.

In relation to the current programme for government, bills are still being finalised, so it is difficult for me to answer that question in specific detail. As soon as we are able to, we will provide that detail to Parliament, notwithstanding the point that there is no definition of a framework bill. I am therefore unlikely to come forward at this stage and say, “This is a framework bill for you,” but we recognise that there is legislation where a fair bit of the detail has still to be worked out through secondary legislation.

There is, of course, nothing wrong with us determining the law through secondary legislation. It is a well-established part of our process of making law. The question is—and it is a legitimate question—about the circumstances in which it is appropriate to do so. We will always be happy and open to discussing that with Parliament, either on an in-principle basis, as your inquiry might lend itself to, or, when push comes to shove, when a specific bill is debated. It will be for Parliament to decide whether it considers that to be an appropriate approach.

Good morning, convener, and thank you for inviting me to be with you this morning. I am pleased to be able to join you for what is my first public appearance before the committee and to be able to discuss matters in your committee’s remit.

My predecessor joined you in March. Since then, there has been limited parliamentary time due to summer recess, but I am grateful to you, convener, and to colleagues on the committee for your work in considering a number of instruments since I took on the role as Minister for Parliamentary Business.

In addition to secondary legislation, I highlight that we have introduced the long-awaited Judicial Factors (Scotland) Bill, which I know that you, in particular, convener, were keen to see progressed.

I welcome the steady progress that we continue to make with implementing Scottish Law Commission reports.

We continue to strive to introduce the best-quality legislation that we can, and we always seek to maintain high standards in drafting. I know that my officials and your committee clerks continue to work closely together, and I remain committed to listening carefully to the views of the committee and doing my best to resolve any issues that arise.

I look forward to engaging with you today, and I am happy to take any questions and to answer them to the best of my ability, with the assistance of Steven MacGregor, Nicola Wisdahl and Douglas Kerr.

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.

I refer to the answer that I have just given about the general process. That some errors have been identified speaks to the fact that we will not always get it right. Where errors are identified, we seek to try to put in place any remedial action that is necessary to deal with specific instruments. The convener can correct me if I am wrong, but I think that the two instruments that you are referring to are the International Organisations (Immunities and Privileges) (Scotland) Amendment Order 2024 and the Valuation (Proposals Procedure) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2024. I will speak to them specifically.

In relation to the former instrument, we plan to rectify the defective drafting by including an amendment provision in the next Scottish immunities and privileges order. Of course, the timing of that depends on the progress of two United Kingdom orders, which is not entirely in our hands. It would also require equivalent Scottish orders, which are in our hands, but are still reliant on the UK process. We will keep the committee updated on that.

On the latter instrument, although the issues that have been identified have no bearing on the validity of the instrument that we intend to bring forward, we would seek to amend regulations at the next suitable opportunity, taking into consideration any other amendments that might be required. We would seek to do that in advance of the intended cut-off date for making a proposal in reliance on the relevant section of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1975. In effect, that date is at the end of the parliamentary year—I beg your pardon, it would be at the end of the parliamentary session, which will be the end of March 2026.

I hope that that is an indication that we are aware of the concerns about the respective orders that you have identified and that we are cognisant of the need to rectify them. In relation to the general process, I go back to my initial answer. Of course, we are always open to hearing about other things that we could do. If the committee’s experience is such that you feel that there are additional steps or measures that we could take to quality assure our process, we would be more than happy to hear your suggestions on that.

I recognise that there has been a very public debate around the National Care Service (Scotland) Bill in particular. Substantial parts of it have to be determined by secondary legislation. Whether I would consider it to be a framework bill without any standardised, recognised and agreed definition of a framework bill is another thing.