Seòmar agus comataidhean

You will be the first to see it, Mr Simpson.

That is on-going work for the Parliament—it never stops. We will always have to consider better ways of ensuring that we can work with the committee to make things happen. I would say that there is never an end to such work. However, the short answer is yes—we will write to the committee over the summer period to provide an update on where we are with everything.

I will bring in Karen Auchincloss.

Good morning. I thank you, convener, and the committee members for asking me along.

My speaking note says to welcome Jeremy Balfour back to the committee but Mr Kerr is here as a suitable substitute. He and I seem to follow each other around the building regularly. Some more Stephen Kerr-George Adam time is never a bad thing.

On more serious matters, as we all know, the committee plays a hugely important role in scrutinising all legislation. I welcome the close working relationship that we have built since I became Minister for Parliamentary Business and hope that it continues.

I do not have to remind committee members that the first year of this session of the Parliament has been very challenging. It began with the pandemic still being a major focus and ended with the situation in Ukraine. I record my thanks to the committee, its officials and, indeed, the Parliament for the constructive way that they have worked with Government over that extremely busy and challenging time. Despite the challenges, a significant amount of legislation has been introduced: 16 bills, 328 Scottish statutory instruments, 21 legislative consent motions and 32 United Kingdom statutory instruments.

The Government recognises the concern arising from the use of the made affirmative procedure during the pandemic and acknowledges the committee’s inquiry into its use. We have a good record of ministers working with the Parliament to establish administrative processes to enhance scrutiny even when urgent action is required. I am pleased that, further to the committee’s recommendations on the made affirmative procedure and enabling powers in the Coronavirus (Recovery and Reform) (Scotland) Bill, the Covid-19 Recovery Committee has endorsed significant amendments to the bill that strengthen parliamentary safeguards. I know that this committee is considering a supplementary delegated powers memorandum on the bill at this meeting.

Since becoming Minister for Parliamentary Business, I have come to appreciate the volume and breadth of information that we share with not only the committee but the Parliament as a whole. For example, every week, we provide a forward look of SSIs that are to be laid in the following two weeks. We also provide weekly updates on UK SIs, monthly updates on LCMs and monthly updates on bills.

It may be that there is still further information that we could helpfully share. Therefore, I have asked my officials to undertake a strategic review of the data and information that we already provide to the Parliament. I want the exchange of information to be as useful and efficient as possible and, of course, my officials will engage with parliamentary officials to progress that.

As always, convener, I look forward to the committee’s questions.

Those are on-going discussions between ministers and the parliamentary authorities to try to find the best way to work together. Karen Auchincloss can give us an update.

The review is intended to ensure that the information that we give you is of value, as I said in my opening statement. There is no point in us giving you data for data’s sake; we need to ensure that it will aid your work.

On the whole, Mr Simpson, if there is a hard way and an easy way, my preferred option is to take the easier way, which is to make sure that everything goes as per normal. Sometimes, because of circumstances—as in the Good Food Nation (Scotland) Bill example, where something came out during the stage 2 debate—changes are made. However, I take on board your point of view on wanting more time and scrutiny.

I do not want you to say that I am not giving enough time for scrutiny, because, as I said to the committee last year, my job is in effect about process, including making sure that that process goes through smoothly. I would prefer such a situation but, as I have said in my other answers, there is always circumstance.

For example, it becomes difficult with LCMs. We end up in that process whereby the UK Government gives them to me at the last minute; my officials try to find out whether they are good and proper and can fit into Scots law and whether everything is right with them; and then we have to make sure that the Parliament can scrutinise. It is about trying to get all that at one time. There is a domino effect: once it starts, all the dominoes fall. However, sometimes we need a few packs of dominoes—to kill my metaphor even further—so that we can do the job properly. That would mean the UK Government giving us a lot more time.

I hate to say it in front of them, but I have a very good team. I do not want their heads to get too big, but I have been supported and they are focused on making sure that they do their job and that we do all the work that we need to get done.

As the committee will understand, the Parliament and legislation unit has a remit much like that of this committee, in that its work is quite detailed and there is a lot going on. It is almost like a Saturday night variety show plate spinning, where you have to get all the plates going. The historical cases are in the list of priorities that we have to try and get done. Will it be done tomorrow or the next day? It will probably take a wee bit longer than that. There are reasons why the issue that Mr Sweeney mentioned has been taking so long.

I thought that we shared that information.

On the whole, that is mostly done on an LCM by LCM basis. We have to look at how Scotland and devolution would be affected.

I go back to the fact that part of the difficulty that we have had has been to do with the fact that, on some occasions—regardless of how good our officials’ relationships have been with UK officials—the first time that we have seen an LCM has been on publication, or perhaps a day beforehand. That does not give us the time and scope to do the scrutiny work that we need to do.

The process is done on an LCM by LCM basis. The decision will be made on the basis of how Scotland would be affected from a legal or a policy perspective over the period in question.