Seòmar agus comataidhean

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.

I know that a few colleagues around the table are long in the tooth when it comes to this, but the first thing that I should emphasise is that expedited bills are very unusual, and I do not think that they should become a feature of our legislation-making processes. I just want to give you that reassurance, Mr Eagle.

I guess that this brings me back to my earlier point that I am always willing for us to learn, to improve and to refine the process. If the committee feels that, when it comes to taking forward expedited bills—as much as I do not want us to have to do that very often—there is something that we can do to improve the process to better involve this committee, or indeed the Finance and Public Administration Committee, which you have also mentioned, I am more than willing to hear what that might be.

I take very seriously the purpose of parliamentary scrutiny in this place, and we will always seek to communicate that to the UK Government. Primarily, it comes down to an issue of timing. I want to make sure that this Parliament has as much time as possible to consider and properly scrutinise these matters. We would always seek to achieve that as much as we can, but given that these things, by their very nature, emanate from UK Government legislation, some of the timing is outwith our hands. My answer to your question, then, is yes, we would always seek to press the point that—and I suspect that this applies not just to this committee but to all committees of the Parliament and, indeed, Parliament more generally—there should be adequate time to scrutinise powers within devolved competence.

Yes, there will be consideration. You have talked about the co-design process, and that is quite specific to the approach that was taken with the National Care Service (Scotland) Bill. Under other circumstances, that will not be the rationale. Let us take the example of social security. I think that we would all agree that, if we were to uprate benefits or make slight alterations to qualifying criteria, it would be ludicrous to have to introduce primary legislation in every instance when such matters can be dealt with through secondary legislation that is usually brought forward annually. The circumstances under which we would consider that the utilisation of secondary legislation is the appropriate way forward to make the law will differ, depending on the rationale.

The rationale that you have cited is specific to the circumstances of the National Care Service (Scotland) Bill, which contrasts with other circumstances in which using secondary legislation is a well-established part of our process for uprating benefits, altering registration fees and so on.

As do I.

It could be, and I have not closed down that option. It may be that, for a transition period, we can make it clear that those devices will still be available. The change has been made south of the border, and concerns were raised at the time, but the practical experience has been such that the concerns no longer remain, because the other devices and approaches have been successful. However, I am open to considering that approach if it is felt to be some form of reassurance in the immediate period.