Seòmar agus comataidhean

I just ask you to acknowledge that, although many of the instruments would be introduced under the affirmative procedure, that is not the same as introducing primary legislation, primarily because it is less likely that evidence will be taken. More important, the ability for Parliament to amend is obviously not there at all. Do you acknowledge that that is a pretty big difference between primary legislation and the affirmative procedure?

It is in our briefing notes. I am just noting that.

We have identified three particular areas in relation to powers to change the fundamental concepts of the bill, but this theme probably extends to some other areas that colleagues have already mentioned. In particular, sections 1(4), 2(4) and 4(2) essentially give the Government powers to alter quite fundamental concepts, such as who would be in scope to exercise the right to buy and the requirements around consultation, which could impact the timelines and even who could exercise those powers.

Will you explain why it is necessary to leave such fundamental concepts open in the primary legislation and to leave those powers to secondary legislation?

Given that, and given the wide flexibility—in your own words, it is flexible—is there not a risk that it almost lays open the possibility for the reverse to happen? Obviously, this is a democracy, and Administrations change. What if, hypothetically, the monopolist and large landowners party were to come to power in 10 years’ time? What would prevent it from using these provisions to bring about effects that were entirely contrary to the intent of the legislation as you have presented it?

Obviously, though, they cannot amend.

In your previous answers, you said that, in some areas, you are just bringing powers into line with other bits of legislation. Other than for reasons of consistency with older pieces of legislation, can you set out the rationale for bringing those powers into line and tell us whether there has been any impact assessment or analysis of whether they were appropriate to begin with? After all, the previous legislation could have got the balance wrong.

I have one final question. We are seeing a significant number of framework bills that have a broadly stated intention but in which the detail is largely left to secondary legislation. The rationale of co-design is often given.

It is absolutely right that the Government seeks to design legislation with as broad a range of stakeholders as possible—that makes sense. I have one simple question: why is it necessary to do that co-design following or in conjunction with legislation, rather than doing it beforehand and baking it into the legislation? In that way, the Parliament could consider the full suite and the finished article, rather than hope that the Government does the right kind of consultation and introduces the right kind of secondary legislation.

I will leave it there.

Thank you for your welcome to the committee, convener. My entry in the register of interests shows that I am the director and sole shareholder of a limited company with retail interests.

In the light of the minister’s commitments and, indeed, his commentary on the key principles, I will not move amendment 20.

Amendment 20 not moved.

Section 1 agreed to.

After section 1

I wonder whether the minister might reflect on two important principles in relation to process. The first is about the Parliament’s ability to inform the redrafting or revision of regulations, whether in draft form or some other amendable form. The second, given the potentially substantive impact that some of the regulations could have, is the ability of a relevant committee to look in detail at and perhaps take evidence on those same regulations. Will the minister concede those principles and seek to introduce them in amendments at stage 3?