Seòmar agus comataidhean

There will be a mixture of reasons. The overall approach that we take is that there will be co-design through the process of engagement with relevant parties in advance of introducing legislation. That will happen, but sometimes it will be appropriate to set out in the bill the high-level principles under which the law should function. Thereafter, as part of the various functions that are determined through secondary legislation, that should also be done by co-design. I do not see anything illegitimate about that. It will depend on the specific proposition that is before the Parliament.

Let us take one of your areas of interest, Mr Balfour. I have observed you in the Parliament for many years, and I know that you are interested in how our social security system should operate. I do not think that anyone would suggest that it would be appropriate to set out in great detail how specific benefits might function in primary legislation each and every time. Social and economic circumstances change, and we might need to change the manner in which a form of benefit operates, and it would be entirely appropriate to do that through secondary legislation. I expect that you would, rightly, be the first person to say that we should co-design that with the people who would stand to benefit from any form of benefits payment, or those who would have to administer such payments.

In certain circumstances, therefore, it is entirely appropriate for laws to be passed or for issues that are to be determined by secondary legislation to be subject to co-design, as much as primary legislation should be.

It will be different from bill to bill. I respectfully suggest that there might always be a sense that more people might like to be at the table. Sometimes, the reality is that you can have only so many seats around the table. That goes back to the point about having good, meaningful consultation that enables as many people and organisations to take part as want to. From there, if you are engaging in a co-design process, you can identify those who have the most direct relation to the legislation that you are seeking to take forward. Then you can involve in an active co-design process the people who are most likely to be directly impacted or most likely to be administering any element of legislation that you are seeking to take forward, which, with respect, cannot be everybody.

It depends on what “enhanced” means. I go back to the point that I made in answer to an earlier question. Today, two statutory instruments were before this committee for consideration. It was pretty clear that the two instruments that happened to be considered on the day that I am here did not require substantial scrutiny, based on the committee’s assessment, but the committee could have taken a different view—it could have determined that more scrutiny was required, written a report and made recommendations.

The committee is able to do that now. If there is a sense that something beyond that is needed, we need to consider what that might be. If there is a recommendation, we will consider it.

I am always open to every proposition.

They are helpful in so far as the NFUS has set out how it conceptualises what framework legislation is. On whether it would be helpful to have an agreed definition, I cannot help but go back to the point that I have made already: it does not strike me that setting a definition would, in and of itself, take us much further forward. What would be the point, the purpose and the efficacy of coming up with a strict definition of a framework bill? Why would we do it? How would that definition be used?

I concur with the first point, on the need to adapt and be flexible. That is the purpose of secondary legislation-making powers, although I do not know whether having those powers constitutes the creation of a framework bill.

On the third point, about indicating the purpose of secondary legislation-making powers—I am definitely paraphrasing; I tried to take a note but I could not keep up with your rate of speech, convener—as I said earlier, we already do that. There are delegated powers memorandums. I respectfully suggest that a lot of the things that people are looking for are already built into our system. That might speak to my point about whether we need a definition of a framework bill. Frankly, a lot of the things that people have identified are already part of our system.

I am certainly aware of that having happened in advance of stage 2, when it has been indicated that changes are going to be proposed. That happened with the Scottish Elections (Representation and Reform) Bill, for example. I would need to cast back and see whether it has ever happened between stages 2 and 3, depending on the time agreed. I make the point that, in contrast with the United Kingdom Parliament, where the Government has much more power over the timing of the process for consideration of legislation, timings here are agreed by the cross-party Parliamentary Bureau. If a committee raised a particular issue, the bureau would have to consider that and set the stage 3 deadline accordingly.

I am not convinced that there is not scope within the current process for that to happen. To go back to the point that I have just made, if we were to make that a routine part of our process, we would need to go into it with eyes wide open. That would do nothing other than elongate the process for considering legislation that is before Parliament.

On a practical basis, that happens, albeit occasionally. I do not know whether it is just good fortune that I have come to committee today, convener, but one of the instruments that you considered earlier was relaid because concerns were raised about the initial draft. The Government reflected on that and took it away. We heard what Parliament had to say and the instrument was redrafted accordingly. I am less convinced that we need to make that a formal part of our process. We have a system that, by and large, works effectively in that way.

If we started to get to the stage whereby secondary legislation could be amended, that would take us down the line of some form of primary legislation making that is probably not as substantial as passing primary legislation is just now.

The point at which Parliament has to consider whether it is appropriate that, generally, a certain area should be determined through secondary legislation or subordinate legislation-making powers is when it considers the bill and entrusts that power to the Government to draft the regulations accordingly, knowing that it will still have the opportunity either to approve or to annul them.

By its very nature, the scrutiny of proposed primary legislation is a longer process, and I accept that that leads to a certain form of scrutiny in the sense of gathering evidence, which you might not see with secondary legislation, although it is perfectly possible. I have been a member of Parliament for more years than I care to remember—for as long as Mr Kidd and Mr McMillan have been—and I remember sitting on committees where we were able to take evidence on secondary legislation. Committees can do that right now. It is a process of Government working with Parliament to accommodate concerns, and I would expect Government to do so.

Largely, yes. I refer back to the points that I have just made about the diversity in what bills seek to achieve and the process that we must go through in laying out, in a delegated powers memorandum, the basis on which we seek to proceed.

In the letter that my predecessor, George Adam, sent to the committee in April last year, he conceded that there could be some merit in developing a shared understanding of what is meant by the term “framework bill”. However, we need to understand the practical effects, the efficacy and the purpose of determining what could be viewed as a framework bill. Why would we say that something is a framework bill? What utility would that have? What purpose would coming up with a definition have?

I say respectfully that, having looked at the evidence to the committee thus far, I have not seen anything that strongly suggests that there would be an actual purpose in determining what a framework bill might look like and having some form of set definition.