Chamber and committees

Officials from the UK and Scottish Governments will always be in dialogue with each other. There will be official-level dialogue all the time and dialogue at ministerial level. The difficulty is when it comes to publication of a bill, and we get it at the very last minute. We then end up in a process in which this committee, for example, is rightly waiting for us to give it information. This committee will not be scrutinising the bill in question, but if it were, it would want us to get information to it as quickly as possible so that it could scrutinise it.

At the time same, my officials will need to sit back with the bill. Rachael Rayner will need to make sure that it is legal from our perspective and that it works with Scots law. Gordon Johnstone also needs to go through absolutely everything, and Karen Auchincloss, as head of the Parliament and legislation unit, needs to make sure that we have a spot in the parliamentary chamber to do that.

That all works perfectly when there is respect and we get bills early. I do not know whether it is a new thing, but recently, in my time, we have been getting everything at the last minute. I do not know whether Karen or anyone else can tell us whether there was a “before” time when we might have got things sooner.

I cannot give you the timeline off the top of my head but I ask Karen Auchincloss to give you more detail.

That goes without saying. As I said earlier, they already have a good working relationship, which we want to ensure continues. That is important for both sides, because the committee has a heavy and detailed workload.

The bill is going through the Parliament and there may be an SSI in September, but it is about as and when we need legislation—if we need it. At this stage, nothing has been written in tablets of stone.

That would be helpful, Mr Sweeney, and would give us the opportunity to see where there are problems—because if you do not tell us that there is a problem, we will not know, and we will continue to do the same things.

The Government always tries to use plain English and to produce explanatory notes that are understandable. I used to be a member of this committee, so I get that sometimes when you are looking at an SSI and someone points out what it means, you go, “Oh, right. I have read it twice and I never saw that.” I am aware of the issues. As always, the Government will do what it can to ensure that SSIs are correctly drafted and understandable. Karen Auchincloss might want to add something.

There are a number of ways that we ensure that we do that. We already give reasons for using the made affirmative process. That was also introduced at stage 2 of the Coronavirus (Recovery and Reform) (Scotland) Bill that is going through the Parliament, and we will ensure that that consideration is on-going.

It is the usual process, but because of our relationship with the committee we can make it work, which is important. All in all, I think that we are already doing what you mentioned. We just need to ensure that we retain the relationship and keep working in that way.

In very simplistic terms, the made affirmative procedure should be used when it is needed—when we need to get emergency legislation through. As you have rightly said, at times over the past two years, it has been used more than it had been used previously, because of the situation that we found ourselves in.

On the whole, our approach is pretty flexible. I do not expect that I will be coming to the committee all the time, having used the made affirmative procedure. As I said to Mr Simpson when he asked a similar question last year, it would not be my number 1 choice in progressing legislation. However, sometimes, needs must and we must go down that route if we are to deliver what we want to deliver. Overall, I am happy to work within our normal procedures, but when I have to use the made affirmative procedure I have to do so.

It is a rare way of bringing in legislation. It would not be my go-to way of doing that.

I know. I am aware of the food commissioner issue that came up in the stage 3 debate, and I am aware of the situation. On the whole, I would have preferred to have more time at that stage, but sometimes things change at stages 2 and 3. On the whole, I try not to truncate the legislative process, although there have been examples of that happening in the past year.