Seòmar agus comataidhean

I think that it should be the latter. Once again, the ultimate reassurance is that people have recourse to the courts. It is true of any function that has been delegated to the Government—it is certainly true in relation to so-called Henry VIII powers—that the courts would take a dim view of the Government trying to use its powers in a way that had not been intended or agreed by the Parliament.

It has been interesting to see the evidence that the committee has gathered, and I know that the committee rightly went to London to look at the experience there. The manner in which those functions are exercised in the Scottish Parliament is different from how they are exercised in the UK Parliament. The UK Government has far more discretion than the Scottish Government about the powers that it can exercise. I have seen nothing to suggest that there is any substantial concern here.

I go back to a point that I have made already. If there was any concern, it would be perfectly possible for the Parliament to prescribe that there should not be that function or that the function should be exercised differently, probably—I hazard a guess—by using another form of secondary legislation-making power.

It is, because it is not just a matter of the legislation coming before the chamber. A considerable amount of work has to go into the creation of legislation in advance.

I would throw it back at you, Mr Balfour. You are taking forward a member’s bill. How would you fancy taking forward five in a year? I think that you should be well cognisant and well apprised of the substantial amount of work that has to go into the crafting of a bill, its consideration by a committee and the Parliament’s capacity to support members.

That takes us back to my point. Candidly, yes, there are pressures on Government. There is the idea that the Government is gargantuan and has a million people working for it, but there are only so many people there to support ministers to take forward amendments to legislation. Also, there are only so many people in Parliament to support Opposition members and back-bench members of the party in Administration to take forward amendments. That is just a reality. If Parliament wants to enhance its capacity, that is for Parliament to consider, not the Government.

You are quite right to say that we are not doing a stage 3 every week. I hazard a guess that Parliament would not want us to do a stage 3 every week.

That would very much depend on the context. I can give a hypothetical example of something that I do not think we would do but which could lead to concern about the appropriate use of those powers. An executive or a Government might decide that it had better use a power that it will soon no longer be able to use, just to circumvent a sunset clause. That might be a cynical view, and I suggest that we would not do that. It comes down to the purpose of the sunset clause and why we would use such a clause just because a power existed in a particular form. I am not clear what the purpose would be.

Surely, the counterpoint to that would be to ask, “What’s deficient about the scrutiny process thus far?” I am unclear as to whether there are substantial deficiencies in the strict basis on which we scrutinise legislation right now. I was sitting here listening to the committee consider two statutory instruments before this discussion, and I heard that one was withdrawn and relaid because Parliament raised concerns about the initial drafting. That very much sounds to me like process and scrutiny being effective.

Are you asking about the actual use of secondary legislation, rather than the definition of framework legislation?

That is a good question, convener, and it is, earnestly, not one that I have considered in great detail. There is clearly a correlation between the two, and I suppose that it depends on what stage the bill is at. Good consultation should happen in advance of the introduction of any bill. In essence, that can lead to greater interaction with stakeholders and to the co-design of certain legislation.

Consultation and co-design are closely related. There could be differences between them, but I suggest that both should be a substantial exercise.

It could be. If the Government thought that that could be achieved and a committee of the Parliament thought that it would be helpful, we could look at that, but it would not be possible in every case. I go back to the point that I made earlier about some things being determined on an on-going basis, which is the purpose of having that defined in secondary legislation. That will not be true in every instance, but the purpose of secondary legislation is to be able to make changes to the law, when circumstances change and with the consent of the Parliament, more quickly than we could through primary legislation. However, if we had a substantial amount of detail, it probably would be put in primary legislation.

I have already made the point that that could be possible in some situations, but whether we need such a requirement is another matter. When that can be done and when it would be sensible to do it, let us look at that but, in other circumstances, that will not be possible.

We constantly look at the statute book. The very purpose of making primary legislation is to look at the effectiveness of the existing law of the land and consider whether it requires to be changed. I will not sit here and earnestly suggest that we will undertake that exercise across the board, because we probably will not, given the point that I made about capacity in the organisation and the need to focus on what we need to focus on. However, if a particular issue emerged at a particular time, we would, of course, look at it. If the Parliament makes recommendations about any aspect of the law, it is incumbent on the Government to consider them.