Seòmar agus comataidhean

Surely, inflation would mean that you would max out budgets, not underspend them, as you did with the employability budget.

Thank you. We risk going down the rabbit hole of non-domestic rates reform, but it is one of my trigger issues. I remind the committee of my entry in the register of members’ interests and my background in retail.

I have a couple of points on the methodology. I question the hard distinction that you are making between retail and hospitality premises. The way in which commercial premises are marketed on the open market is always about the best opportunity, and we are seeing quite a lot of interchange between premises, certainly with retail going into hospitality. I acknowledge that the classifications are different, but, if I were in your position, cabinet secretary—dare I say it—I would push back on the assessors a little bit and say that I just wonder where there is that hard distinction.

My second point is not so much about the methodology for different classifications. That would assume that the methodology for retail is clear and transparent, but I contend that it is not. There is a great deal of frustration in the sector about how rateable value is calculated for retail and how the different assessors come up with it.

I am not necessarily asking for a detailed response but, if we are looking at reform, those are some of the things that I would certainly appreciate being looked at, and I think that those in the sector would certainly appreciate it, too.

I was going to come to that.

As an aside, I will say that that is an incredibly helpful insight for the member’s bill that I am in the process of drafting, so thank you very much.

Do you have a view on the frequency of the use of Henry VIII powers and secondary powers? Is it going up, or is it about the same? Are there differences in the approach that you see, especially given your 25 years of experience?

In essence, you are saying that it is more important to look at the scope and effect of what is being legislated for, rather than the number of particular instances or clauses, because then you are just counting—

That is really helpful. On a side note, it is always interesting to look at how the machinery of the UK Government interacts with that of devolved Governments, so having people at that interface is useful.

You have both stated a number of times that the goal is to provide clear and understandable legislation. I have two specific questions on that. I note that the OPC has drafting guidance. First, how is that set out? Secondly, we heard from the previous witnesses that, when legislation sets out powers in secondary legislation, it is sometimes not at all clear what ministers will do with those powers. Are such scenarios caught in the guidance or your broader practice? Is there a point at which you say, “We cannot tell what this legislation is going to do. Is this the right thing to do in terms of setting it and framing it in secondary legislation?”

Have you noticed anything different in the approach to and practice in drafting, specifically with regard to secondary legislation and legislative powers?

This has been an excellent discussion. The observation was made that making a hard distinction between things that are framework bills and things that are not is not as helpful as thinking about how powers are framed. Also, this is as much about practice and culture as it is about drafting. Those are my takeaways. I am really grateful to the witnesses for their contributions.

That brings me neatly on to my substantive questions. I want to look at the practical changes that we could bring into parliamentary procedure around framework legislation as a whole. As the panel has observed, it is better to think about the provisions in legislation and the powers that could be conferred on the executive, rather than trying to decide whether the legislation as a whole is over the line or not.

I was very interested in one proposal in the written submissions that we got, which was about having some sort of written agreement or guidance between the legislature and the executive. I think that both Dr Grez Hidalgo and Dr Fox had similar proposals in their submissions. Dr Fox described it as being a “Concordat on Legislative Delegation”. Will you explain what features that should have? Would that contain the principles that I alluded to in my earlier supplementary question? What did the Hansard Society have in mind when it made that proposal?

I was planning to address that issue separately because I know that there are witnesses at this meeting who disagree with the power to amend because of the consequential effects that it might have. I am interested in hearing witnesses’ views on whether sifting, more evidence taking and the possibility of amending would be sensible procedural changes to the way that secondary legislation is examined.