Chamber and committees

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.

The rule, Mr Kerr, would be legislative competence in Scotland.

That is now on the Official Report.

Doreen Grove and I were having that very conversation as we came in. She will articulate that a lot better than I could.

Nothing jumps out from the recommendations as being the go-to, other than the fact that I want to get this right. I want the work to be of value to those involved in the process and I want to ensure that I, as a minister, can say that I was part of that process and that we managed to deliver something that changed our democracy for the better.