���˿���

I do not know when in 2025 the committee will invite me, but depending on when it is, I hope that I will be able to say that we are further down the line.

We have a clear commitment to introduce one SLC bill a year. That is the process that we have agreed just now. It would be disingenuous of me to say that I can give a timescale with regard to that specific piece of legislation. I return to the answer that I gave Mr Johnson about the state of a bill’s readiness to be introduced, as well as ensuring that the Parliament has the capacity to consider it.

What I can say is that, in line with the agreement, there will be another SLC bill in the next parliamentary year. I cannot say in earnest that it will definitely be a bill on the issue that Mr Johnson has identified. However, I recognise that all SLC reports are important, and we should ensure that we work our way through them as quickly as possible. The Government is committed to doing that. If there are other ways of expediting the process further, I am all ears and open to considering what they might be.

I recognise that that is important, so we should seek to accommodate it as much as possible. I want to minimise the circumstances under which we would seek to expedite a bill. I do not want us to have to do that regularly; it should happen only when the circumstances merit it.

We had a robust debate last week on the timetabling of the bill, and I hope that we can conclude the process of determining the full timescale this week. When we are expediting a bill, we should factor in as much as possible the capacity for committees other than the primary committee, including the DPLRC, to be able to undertake and exercise their scrutiny function. I know that there has been engagement with Gillian Martin as the responsible cabinet secretary and I believe that she has responded. If the committee has further questions, I know that she will be happy to respond to them.

We have tried to draft the bill fairly narrowly. It has a narrow purpose. It deals with a very important issue, but it is not a wide-ranging bill. The delegated powers in it are, by our estimation, necessary, because Climate Change Committee advice is needed to ensure that any new targets that are set are achievable, and that advice will not be available until spring next year.

We are trying to grapple with two challenges: we want to ensure that we are not in breach of legal requirements as set out in the existing legislation, but we are cognisant of the fact that we cannot look at what the targets should be until next year. By our estimation, it makes sense to do that by secondary legislation rather than going through the whole primary legislation process. At that point, of course, it will be incumbent on the various committees in Parliament—including this one, if it so determines—to consider any secondary legislation that emanates from the bill, once it is passed.

Yes, this is primarily going to emanate from the King’s speech, but right now four legislative consent memoranda have been lodged, one for the Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Bill, one for the Great British Energy Bill, one for the Renters’ Rights Bill and one for the Product Regulation and Metrology Bill. I should say that the last one was lodged slightly late, but of course these things are driven by how much time and notice we, as a Government, get from the UK Government.

There are other LCMs that we expect to bring forward. At this stage, we do not have any confirmed introduction dates from the UK Government for the Tobacco and Vapes Bill, the digital information and smart data bill, the planning and infrastructure Bill, the railways bill, the employment bill and the artificial intelligence bill, but that will give you an indication of what is likely to come before us. We would go through the usual process and identify the relevant committees and, where this committee was involved, we would seek to engage with it as soon as possible.

It is early days. The relationship seems to be productive thus far, but that will ultimately be determined by practical experience. It is a little early to say. To be fair—and I can, on occasion, be fair—the UK Government was elected near the start of our summer recess. It wants to hit the ground running and to bring legislation forward fairly quickly, but that comes up against our own timescale, which is not ideal. There is certainly some indication of an understanding of our perspective, but the proof will be in the pudding.

The Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee has looked at that in some detail. It published a report on the impact of the post-EU, post-Brexit environment on devolution and we responded to that. To go back to the point that I just made, we will press that with the UK Government, but we have acknowledged that Parliament should have the opportunity for effective scrutiny of all legislative powers within our devolved competence, so we share that committee’s perspective.

Some practical issues arise from the need for the UK Government to agree to co-operate with any arrangement that has a wider scope than the existing protocol which, we must remind ourselves, is between this Government and the Scottish Parliament and to which the UK Government is not a direct party. However, the effectiveness of that protocol relies on how the UK Government works in practice. As the Cabinet Secretary for the Constitution, External Affairs and Culture, Angus Robertson is leading on that and is considering how we can best advance that with the UK Government. I know that he will be happy to update the committee about how that goes, just as he will update the Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee.

I refer you to my last answer.

You ask what assurance I can give about there not being more SSIs. In the programme, that is determined by what is required. Your fundamental point, I suppose, is about what we can do to ensure that the number of SSIs in which you identify serious issues is reduced. I can only go back to the point that I have made before—a process is in place. I recognise that it will not always suffice. It will not always work. Things go wrong. To err is to be human, and humans are involved in the process.

I would make the point that that is why we have parliamentary scrutiny. If this committee identifies anything that is defective or needs improvement, it is incumbent on us to take that away and make those improvements. All I can stress is that I understand the necessity of making sure that SSIs are of as high a quality as possible. If I get any sense that there is slippage in that, I will use the power of my office to make sure that, across Government, we emphasise the requirement for SSIs to be of a high quality. I recognise—I think that we all recognise—that a problem will on occasion happen, but I do not want that to be a regular occurrence or a feature of the system. I want to hear from the committee that the numbers are greatly reduced. That is where I want to land.

I go back to the point that I made: I am more than willing to hear about things that the committee thinks could further improve and refine the process.

I welcome the inquiry. We had a private meeting to discuss that a few months ago and I think that it will be helpful for the committee to undertake that inquiry because there is a narrative about framework bills. There is no definition of what a framework bill is, although we have some sense of what one might look like. I welcome the committee dedicating some of its time to look into that in more detail and I will be happy to participate willingly and just as excitedly in that process of deliberation.

In relation to the current programme for government, bills are still being finalised, so it is difficult for me to answer that question in specific detail. As soon as we are able to, we will provide that detail to Parliament, notwithstanding the point that there is no definition of a framework bill. I am therefore unlikely to come forward at this stage and say, “This is a framework bill for you,” but we recognise that there is legislation where a fair bit of the detail has still to be worked out through secondary legislation.

There is, of course, nothing wrong with us determining the law through secondary legislation. It is a well-established part of our process of making law. The question is—and it is a legitimate question—about the circumstances in which it is appropriate to do so. We will always be happy and open to discussing that with Parliament, either on an in-principle basis, as your inquiry might lend itself to, or, when push comes to shove, when a specific bill is debated. It will be for Parliament to decide whether it considers that to be an appropriate approach.

Good morning, convener, and thank you for inviting me to be with you this morning. I am pleased to be able to join you for what is my first public appearance before the committee and to be able to discuss matters in your committee’s remit.

My predecessor joined you in March. Since then, there has been limited parliamentary time due to summer recess, but I am grateful to you, convener, and to colleagues on the committee for your work in considering a number of instruments since I took on the role as Minister for Parliamentary Business.

In addition to secondary legislation, I highlight that we have introduced the long-awaited Judicial Factors (Scotland) Bill, which I know that you, in particular, convener, were keen to see progressed.

I welcome the steady progress that we continue to make with implementing Scottish Law Commission reports.

We continue to strive to introduce the best-quality legislation that we can, and we always seek to maintain high standards in drafting. I know that my officials and your committee clerks continue to work closely together, and I remain committed to listening carefully to the views of the committee and doing my best to resolve any issues that arise.

I look forward to engaging with you today, and I am happy to take any questions and to answer them to the best of my ability, with the assistance of Steven MacGregor, Nicola Wisdahl and Douglas Kerr.