Seòmar agus comataidhean

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 totally agree with what Kenneth Gibson suggests about having a legislative requirement for proper co-design to be set out prior to stage 1. There should also be a requirement for the Government to respond to the stage 1 report, because that is key to answering some of the questions about the direction of travel that the Government wishes to follow in terms of policy and what the outcomes of the bill will be. The Government’s response at stage 1 is critical to our understanding of the scope of a framework bill.

As I said earlier, probably less time should be spent on scrutinising primary legislation, but it would be useful to get a clearer indication of when secondary legislation will be introduced and how it will be delivered.

Plans are made under legislation, but they are not necessarily subject to the approval of the Parliament and there is not much consistency on the requirement for that approval. For example, for the good food nation plan, the draft will be laid for 60 days, with no requirement for parliamentary approval; for the climate change plan, the draft will be laid for 120 days, with no requirement for approval; for the islands plan, it will be laid for 40 days, with no requirement for approval.

For the rural support plan, which is critical and which puts the meat on the bones of the Agriculture and Rural Communities (Scotland) Bill, there is no requirement for the draft to be laid in the Parliament—despite the fact that it sets out how the ministers will deliver agricultural support. The budget for that plan is £660 million and there is no requirement for the Parliament to approve that. There needs to be further investigation of how the Parliament can scrutinise at that level. The plan puts the meat on the bones of the bill, so it needs to have parliamentary oversight.

Given the pressures on parliamentary time, it may be an idea—it is certainly something that my committee has considered—for there to be a statutory requirement for Scottish ministers to publish a report that evaluates the impact of delegated powers and, ultimately, the impact of laid documents, focusing on areas in which the committee thinks that there was a lack of scrutiny.

Recently, we considered an SSI that included provision on the period of time that legislation would stay in place before being reviewed. The only thing that was called into question was the date at which the policy would end, but, to address our concerns, the Government would have had to withdraw the SSI or the committee or the Parliament would have had to vote it down, which would not have been a good use of parliamentary time. If there was a way that the issue could have been addressed, the SSI could still have been passed, without the need for annulling it and for another SSI to be introduced. Therefore, there is a case for having an effective way to amend secondary legislation, particularly given the volume that we are likely to see.

I echo much of what Kenny Gibson has suggested. We have dealt with four framework bills: the Agriculture and Rural Communities (Scotland) Bill; the Good Food Nation (Scotland) Bill; the Hunting with Dogs (Scotland) Bill; and the Wildlife and Muirburn (Scotland) Bill. Although they could all be described as framework bills, they are all slightly different. For example, much of the detail that was not in the Hunting with Dogs (Scotland) Bill or the Wildlife and Muirburn (Scotland) Bill surrounds licensing schemes and guidance, which have either been difficult for the committee to scrutinise, or it does not have a place to do so.

Kenny Gibson mentioned bill design. It is difficult if all the important policies are not in the bill when it is first introduced to the committee. For example, important policies, such as the barring of snares and additional powers to the Scottish Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals did not appear in the Hunting with Dogs (Scotland) Bill when it was first introduced. With regard to the Good Food Nation (Scotland) Bill, there was no proposal for a food commissioner, which was ultimately part of the bill at the end of the process. That is an important policy consideration.

In addition, it might be appropriate to say that there is no requirement for the Government to respond to a stage 1 report. For a framework bill, that response is often where the committee is able to tease out some of the policy objectives of a bill, which can assist with agreeing to its general principles, too. We have found ourselves not quite sure what all the desired outcomes for some bills would be. In one case, we did not have a Government response to our stage 1 report prior to the stage 1 debate and the Parliament voting on the general principles. Those are the areas of concern in relation to the points that you asked us to comment on, convener.

Certainly, when it came to scrutiny of the Good Food Nation (Scotland) Bill, I vividly remember the conversation that I had with the committee clerk about whether we should be scrutinising the bill at all at stage 1, because there was nothing to scrutinise. It was so framework that it just set out delegating powers to Scottish ministers, and more time absolutely needed to be spent on it at stage 2 or, indeed, a year on when looking at the secondary legislation. Maybe the Parliament needs to spend less time on initial bill scrutiny, with a shorter and lighter process, and spend more time on a more in-depth exercise when it comes to the secondary legislation. That is how the good food nation legislation will ultimately pan out. Also, with the Agriculture and Rural Communities (Scotland) Bill, the bulk of the policy delivery and the bulk of the funding allocation will happen a year on from when the Parliament passed the bill in the first place.

Maybe we need to rejig how Parliament keeps pace with the ever-increasing number of these so-called framework bills.

This is the moment at which we need to find more time, but we are now running out of time. I have Andy Rockall, Ian Wall and Graeme Prest still to come in, and then we need to move on to the last questions.

Who would like to kick off on that one?

Item 3 is consideration of a negative instrument. Members will be aware that Jackie Baillie lodged a motion to annul the instrument yesterday afternoon. That being the case, and to give us time to allow for that, I propose that we defer the item and consider it at our next meeting. Are members agreed?

Members indicated agreement.