���˿���

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.

Whatever floats your boat, Mr Eagle.

I go back to the point that I made in my opening remarks, which is that that would always be our ambition. We want to try to get it right the first time, but I recognise that, on occasion, that will not be the case. If that is identified, we will put it right in the specific case but also seek to learn from that experience.

The quality of any instrument that we take forward is the responsibility of all those who are involved in doing so, from either a policy perspective or that of those involved in the legal drafting.

The SSI programme provides training to specific teams, which we believe bolsters the central provision of information and guidance. The Parliament and legislation unit is always there to try to ensure that any team that is taking forward an SSI is of as high a quality as it can be, and training should assist that process. Various officials are available to support policy leads in introducing secondary legislation.

Government lawyers are also provided with the support, training and guidance that they would require in considering any proposals for an SSI, any of the legal issues that might arise and, of course, the drafting issues that they should be aware of. That includes a monthly session for lawyers to share knowledge about SSIs.

Once any specific SSI has been drafted, the drafting team must review it to make sure that it is correct. So that there is outside assessment, a further check will be done by another lawyer who has not been directly involved in the instrument’s drafting. That provides a chance for there to be another source of input in order to identify any issues. I hope that that is an indication that we take the issue seriously. We will always seek to get it right in the first place, and we will continue to try to ensure that those who are involved are upskilled and are aware of what they need to do, and that wider support is available for them.

Yes, I think that I have that information. First, I say that we will always make sure to continue the process that you have referred to, Mr Balfour. My expectation is that we provide that regularity of update about the instruments that are to be laid, because I appreciate that there is limited time for committees, so they need to be able to factor that in.

Right now, volumes look fairly steady. From this week until Christmas, there should be around 50 instruments. It may not surprise you that this committee is uppermost among those that will have more to consider than others. However, the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee, the Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee and the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee will have around eight instruments each. The others are split fairly evenly—five each for the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee, the Social Justice and Social Security Committee and the Education, Children and Young People Committee, and maybe fewer than five for the others.

Of course, we will continue to look at that and make sure that we are in the right place, and we will keep this committee and all the other committees updated as to their expected case load, for want of a better term.

On the latter point, you can be assured that that is a given. As I have laid out, I will always request that my officials make sure that we do that.

I talked about the case load. I recognise that pressure is brought to bear on committees by not just the number of instruments but their complexity and length. Some instruments, by nature of what they seek to do, will be longer than others. I can say on that basis that some will not be long and that one will be particularly long. We will seek to make sure that, as far as is humanly possible, committees have advance notice of that.

I go back to the point that I made in my initial answer. All those SSIs are subject to refinement, so what might be particularly long at the outset might not be quite as long by the end of the process. We will go through that internal process and the finalised instrument will come out at the other end. Although I cannot give specific details right now, I can give an early indication that it is likely that some instruments will be fairly substantial.

I am aware that more issues had been identified. We have worked our way through them. Many of the five commitments that you referred to relate to a similar area in the provision of pensions. I hope that we can work through them simultaneously as much as possible. If we are able to deal with those timeously, the overall number will be reduced significantly.

One of the outstanding commitments related to the Budget (Scotland) Act 2023. The 2023 act has now been superseded by the Budget (Scotland) Act 2024, so we do not intend to deal with the issue that was identified in relation to that legislation. Nevertheless, I concede that the issue with the drafting error remains. We are due to publish next week the Budget (Scotland) Act 2024 Amendment Regulations 2024, which will be the equivalent SSI for the current financial year and will resolve the issue of the pluralisation of the word “programme”.