���˿���

Rather than ramble on, I will pass that over to Steven MacGregor.

You will appreciate that the SLC bill that I gave as an example, the Moveable Transactions (Scotland) Bill, was another example of a proposal that had been around for some time. We have to ensure that we get ourselves into a suitable place when I come to the committee. I am wary of SLC bills, because the case of the Moveable Transactions (Scotland) Bill was a perfect example of that need. This is not to say anything about my official, Mr MacGregor, but he told me that the bill was imminent and I took him at his word and said so in front of the committee.

You will understand, Mr Mundell, that I no longer want to commit myself to a particular date, having been through the process in that example. The reasons that you have given are among those why I want to get 100 per cent of the detail before I get back to you with how the proposed legislation on judicial factors looks.

I know that Mr Balfour will be in mourning after the mighty St Mirren beat his team on Saturday, but I am happy to answer the question.

Last week, I sent an outline of our expected legislative programme to the Parliamentary Bureau. That is caveated with the fact that anything can happen between what we are programming at the moment and what ends up being reality. We will use that outline at the bureau, and we have a strategic bureau meeting this week at which we will discuss how to go forward with the business programme.

On committees, as the convener will be aware, I tend to have one-to-ones with conveners to discuss the upcoming programme, what business there will be over the year and how we can deal with that. That includes discussing members’ bills—although that is not so much with your committee—and things such as that.

On whether I could get you further detail a lot sooner, the information is already out there with business managers in the bureau. However, the caveat is that that information is available for them only on a need-to-know basis, because, as we know, things can change in Parliament.

That happens even when I talk to your convener about Scottish Law Commission bills. A perfect example is the Moveable Transactions (Scotland) Bill. At my first appearance before the committee, I said that that would be the first SLC bill, that it would be very good and that it would be coming imminently. The bill became known to me as the unmoveable transactions bill, because it was about six months or so before it came before you. There was difficulty before we could it bring it to the committee for you to deal with it properly.

I do not want to go down the rabbit hole of SLC bills at this stage, but I use that as an example of a time when, in all honesty, I sat here and said, “I can do that within that timescale,” but it did not turn out that way.

When we can get you further information, we will. My officials engage regularly with the committee’s clerks, and we are happy to continue that flexibility and keep that door open. However, I do not like to promise things that I cannot deliver, and in some cases I might find myself in that position if I were to give you a longer-term view.

I welcome you to the committee, Ms Villalba, as I think that this is the first time that I have seen you in it.

Officials from the Scottish Government and the UK Government meet each other regularly, and they have the opportunity to share information and ensure that we try to make things work. However, one of the things to be aware of is the fact that we are dealing with UK legislation a lot of the time or, because it comes from the UK Parliament, it is theirs to deal with.

We need to find a way—I am trying to make this point in a non-political way, because my job is basically about process and making everything work—for the UK Government to remember that we are here and that we have our processes that we need to deal with. We also need to ensure that there is communication between officials and between me and my ministerial counterparts.

We try to make that work, but it does not always work. If I were sitting here speaking from the UK Government’s perspective, I would say that we have a Parliament in Westminster and that we have to go through its processes. At the same time, the Scottish Government would say in response to that, “Well, yes, but, equally, this affects us, so we need to actually have the opportunity to have the time to go through our own processes as well.”

On the whole, we tend to work very well together, but there can be some hiccups along the way. There might be a situation in which the UK Government does not think that there is a Scottish element or something that affects the Scottish Government. It will be our officials who will say that we need to look at that, and there might be a bit of debate on the issue. Steven MacGregor can give some further detail on that.

To be perfectly honest with you, it is a bit of both. We have officials working together all the time, as I have already said, but there is also the fact that, when the UK Government makes an announcement and goes forward with legislation, it is its legislation. We just need to make sure that we make the UK Government aware of the Scottish element.

Could things be better? There is always room for improvement in absolutely everything in life so, yes, we probably could find a way to work that would make things run more smoothly. However, because of the technical aspects of a lot of this, that can be quite difficult. From the number of notes that I have seen flying back and forward between the two Governments, I can see that people end up having to deal daily with things that had not been thought of and which could cause a problem.

Obviously, if someone is drafting something in the UK Government, they think purely from their perspective about how they are going to push things forward, and they may perceive that there is no kick-on to us in Scotland. We see officials in the Scottish Government saying that that is not the case, and there might be a wee bit of debate—a wee bit of to-ing and fro-ing on who is correct in that scenario.

That brings us back to accuracy and how we can provide information to the committee and the Parliament to the best of our ability. I will bring in Steven MacGregor again to add to that.

Part of the reason why I do not want to say something when I do not have the full detail for the committee is because that would set hares running. As you say, it is not a highly political bill, but I want to ensure that the it is right because my job is about process and I have to ensure that I am not the one who gets the process wrong.

Thank you, convener, and good morning to everyone.

As a former member of the committee, I am only too aware of its importance in scrutinising legislation.

When we met in February, we were preparing ourselves, both in the Scottish Government and in the Parliament, to deal with the measures in the United Kingdom Government’s Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill. We anticipated that they would give rise to a high volume of subordinate legislation. The final version of the legislation in the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023 means that the volumes will not reach the scale that we expected. Nonetheless, ministers need to be assured that devolved provisions are appropriate, and officials will continue to apprise the committee of expected future volumes in order to assist you in managing your business.

Although retained European Union law implementation has not been as expected, the Parliament continues to process a significant amount of legislation. I record my thanks to the committee and its officials for the constructive manner in which we continue to work with each other in what is an extremely busy and challenging legislative programme.

The Government continues to deliver on its commitment to deliver more Scottish Law Commission bills. I am pleased to note that the committee has been able to lead scrutiny of two bills so far in the current session, including the Trusts and Succession (Scotland) Bill, the stage 1 debate on which will be held this week. I hope that that will continue. As you know, our programme for government confirms that the next Scottish Law Commission bill for introduction will be the judicial factors bill, and the Government expects that it will be suitable for allocation to this committee.

We remain committed to continuing to reduce the backlog of published reports. By the next parliamentary session, we should have addressed the backlog and be focused on recently published reports.

As the committee knows, I take the quality of the instruments that we lay very seriously. It is important that there are as few errors as possible. I am therefore pleased to note that, in the past quarter, no instruments have been reported on serious grounds.

I continue to value the close working relationship that I have sought to build with the committee, and I hope that it continues in the future. I look forward to hearing from everyone on the committee today, and I am happy to take any questions. Otherwise, I will go now.

Greig Walker might have something to add from his experience of retained EU law.

I have no further detail on that. I can come back to the committee with further detail as soon as we have it.

If that were likely to happen, I would probably say so in my one-to-one conversation with the committee convener. From memory, I do not think that there is anything of significance coming up for the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee, although I always use the line—kidding on—that the committee is going to get all the legislation that is coming through and the full number of SSIs. On the whole, I do not see anything for this committee. I think that I can guarantee that at this stage, but I will confirm with Steven MacGregor that that is indeed the case.