Seòmar agus comataidhean

Why does it surprise you that organisations would be concerned, not about the substance of the bill but about the process? Why does it surprise you that organisations would be concerned about the appropriateness of the bill that you are presenting to Parliament?

Why do the Faculty of Advocates and the Equality and Human Rights Commission have concerns about a framework bill?

I accept that. However, it is a concern that organisations that most people would accept as having no direct vested interest in the bill, which are experienced in how legislation works and have interacted regularly with the Parliament’s legislative process over the past two decades, are questioning the appropriateness of the Government’s chosen method in a major piece of legislation. This committee has a role to play in reporting on secondary legislation and it is worrying that major organisations are questioning not the substance of the bill but the Government’s approach. There is a big risk attached to asking the Parliament to go forward with what you described as a novel approach, which seems to be based entirely on trusting ministers to listen—something that I do not think is the experience of people across the country.

I have a specific point for the minister. Is it possible for Parliament to amend Government regulations?

You have deliberately limited the scope of the bill by using this method. Members will have limited opportunities to amend the legislation when it comes to the detail, because you have put it all to one side for later. That is not proper parliamentary process and it does not allow the Parliament to do its job of holding you to account properly, which creates a real risk and danger for people who will rely on the legislation.

I do not think that we can say that the Parliament or the Government has a very good record when it comes to delivering for many of the people who will be impacted by the legislation. It seems wrong that you are asking us to put so much confidence and trust in a process that means that there will be no scrutiny. Even if people disagree with what you are doing, you will be able to go ahead anyway. The Parliament will not be allowed to do its job. I do not see how you, as a member of the Parliament and a minister in the Government, can think that that will lead to effective co-design or robust legislation. It is just wrong.

On your previous comments, what vested interests do you think that the Faculty of Advocates and the Equality and Human Rights Commission have in raising concerns about the appropriateness of a framework bill?

I suggested to you in my previous question that the faculty has concerns about the appropriateness of the bill as the mechanism for bringing matters forward and you replied that some of the organisations that have been critical of the bill have vested interests. Are you saying that you were not referring to the evidence of the faculty or the Equality and Human Rights Commission?

Have you read those organisations’ submissions?

That is helpful. It has always been my understanding that, although parliamentarians can speak to ministers, raise points and do other things to impact the wording of regulations, they have no power to change what regulations say. That is a fundamental concern. That differs from primary legislation, where any member of the Parliament can propose changes to the wording of a bill.

That leads me to a final question. MSPs can only amend what is in the bill. If we have less information in the bill, there is less opportunity to amend the wording, which dictates the meaning of the legislation. Is that correct, minister?

I have heard the point that the minister has made regarding an open-door policy. During my time in Parliament I have always found the minister easy to work with on issues. However, with the best will in the world, part of the problem here is that you cannot guarantee that you will be the minister making the decisions. We face that issue time and again when we are considering other powers and legislation. The promises that you make as a minister today are only as good as the time that you spend in this particular office. My worry is that we are handing over to ministers quite wide-ranging powers on a very significant piece of legislation. Ordinarily, we would expect this kind of bill to have much more detail. Do you not think that that is a problem?