Seòmar agus comataidhean

That is okay. As no one else has a view on that, I will move on.

My final question is on regulations that reinstate REUL or assimilated law and that are subject to the negative procedure except when they amend primary legislation, in which case the draft affirmative procedure is to be used. What is your view on the appropriateness of that procedure? Obviously, that is slightly different to other parts of the bill.

Do neither of the other witnesses have a view on that?

If there is disagreement on whether a change is substantive, what does that mean for the parliamentary process?

So, if such changes were subject to the negative procedure, that would be too low a bar, as was outlined earlier?

Do the other two witnesses have any further comments to make on that point?

We have touched on this point already in relation to the appropriateness of the negative procedure, to which I will come back in a second. When it comes to restating REUL or assimilating law, the power to use different “words or concepts” does not go as far as making

“substantive change to the policy effect of legislation.”

Morag Ross mentioned substantive change in one of her answers. What is the threshold for substantive change? Where does that sit?

Thank you for that. The power to restate can be used to consolidate REUL or assimilated law into a single instrument. What are the implications of that? What are your views on that? That question is open to all three witnesses.

I wish to put on record that, in this instance, the primary legislation to which the instrument relates was rushed through Parliament, which is clearly a contributing factor in the breach. Although I respect Parliament’s decision, and understand the need now for the instrument to come into force, I am not content with the reason for the breach, as I believe that it could have been avoided if the primary legislation had followed the normal parliamentary procedure.

I have a final question on the £1,000 figure. You said that you will be interested to hear what the committee thinks. We would be interested to hear what you are thinking and what consultation you have done with stakeholders to form a Government view on what would be an appropriate figure. We have heard a variety of figures and we would be interested to know whether you have come to a view on what would be an appropriate amount for the register and other things.

That is helpful. Ultimately, we will have to arrive at a number if we proceed with the bill as it is currently drafted.