³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

It is important to put on the record that the committee appreciates that things have changed. With technology and the speed of change, we are in a different world now, so it is important that legislation is flexible and adaptable. However, the overriding concern is about the challenges for scrutiny, particularly as framework bills, in effect, legislate to delegate powers to the Scottish ministers and others, without Parliament being able to understand what those powers are.

That gives cause for concern, for example, over the costs that might arise due to a lack of detail in a bill. Take the Agriculture and Rural Communities (Scotland) Bill. There is a budget of £660 million for support. However, there is an information void in the bill on the purpose of the funding and on how it will be allocated, and there is a lack of clear policy outcomes.

We also had issues with the licensing scheme in the Hunting with Dogs (Scotland) Bill. Some people believe that the licensing scheme has gone beyond the spirit of the legislation. However, as the previous witness said, secondary legislation is still the law. Ultimately, we are allowing laws to be made at a level where the Parliament has little or no involvement.

I agree with the latter. With the Agriculture and Rural Communities (Scotland) Bill, we had a vacuum of information on policy. The Government had done some stakeholder engagement—or, if you like, co-design—but the outcomes of those discussions were not clear and were not in the public domain, so there was a void in the information. Also, only selected organisations played a role in that co-design. There needs to be wider consideration involving all stakeholders and potentially some sort of legislative process, to ensure that consultation and co-design are far reaching and do not focus only on certain groups. That was certainly an issue with the Agriculture and Rural Communities (Scotland) Bill.

I am not sure that we should get too concerned about the definition of a framework bill, because it ignores the real issue, which is the need for effective scrutiny of the Government and the powers that are delegated to Scottish ministers. We are discussing whether a bill is defined as a framework bill, but the issue is that, if there are going to be more framework bills, however they are defined, the way in which the Parliament scrutinises legislation must keep pace. I am not sure that it is doing that at the moment.

When policies are introduced after stage 1 of a bill, the committees have not had clear oversight of the objectives or policy outcomes, and the Finance and Public Administration Committee is concerned that it is almost impossible to create a financial memorandum because we do not know the policy outcomes. For example, the Agriculture and Rural Communities (Scotland) Bill had four overriding but wide objectives that were so wide-ranging that they were less than helpful, and it was difficult to cost those objectives and the policies that might deliver them.

We should not, therefore, get too tied up in defining what a framework bill is or is not. We need to spend more time on improving the way in which the Parliament scrutinises legislation, no matter how it is defined.

I can answer the question very simply. We have had only one Henry VIII power to consider in session 6, so we have not taken a view on the issue generally. However, I absolutely agree with Jonathan Jones. One thing that we discussed was about the Government explaining its approach to identifying how instruments are to be treated by the Parliament—whether the affirmative or the negative procedure should be used and how it came to that conclusion. Ideally, that would be done early, to give the committee an opportunity to comment on the appropriateness of that approach.

We certainly discussed that, particularly in relation to the Good Food Nation (Scotland) Bill and the Agriculture and Rural Communities (Scotland) Bill, which will have significant numbers of instruments under them. The committee felt that it was important for us to understand why the Government was taking the approach that it was taking. Some instruments will need a very light touch—they will be technical in nature and will not need much scrutiny—but others will be different. The Government’s and the Parliament’s views on that approach might differ, and we would like to be able to explore why that is the case.

We need to be aware that parliamentary procedures need to keep pace with the changing way that primary legislation is introduced. Right now, I do not think that the situation is ideal, so I welcome the committee’s oversight and I hope that we can get to a better approach.

I know that one or two people want to come in on the back of that response, but we will probably touch on the issue again a bit later on.

We will move on to theme 2, on economic outcomes, with a question from Ariane Burgess.

Stuart, do you want to reflect on that as well as touch on the use of local timber and the balance between exporting and importing?

There is a request for another supplementary question from Ariane Burgess. It will have to be a very precise question and preferably directed to a witness.

Is there a role for Government in influencing the uptake of those innovative timber products in Scotland?

I am the convener and Scottish Conservative MSP for Galloway and West Dumfries. Welcome, everyone.

Ariane would like to declare an interest.