Chamber and committees

I am sure that I must have answered with more panache and élan than the previous incumbent of my office.

I certainly hope it will be complete by then.

I do not know when in 2025 the committee will invite me, but depending on when it is, I hope that I will be able to say that we are further down the line.

We have a clear commitment to introduce one SLC bill a year. That is the process that we have agreed just now. It would be disingenuous of me to say that I can give a timescale with regard to that specific piece of legislation. I return to the answer that I gave Mr Johnson about the state of a bill’s readiness to be introduced, as well as ensuring that the Parliament has the capacity to consider it.

What I can say is that, in line with the agreement, there will be another SLC bill in the next parliamentary year. I cannot say in earnest that it will definitely be a bill on the issue that Mr Johnson has identified. However, I recognise that all SLC reports are important, and we should ensure that we work our way through them as quickly as possible. The Government is committed to doing that. If there are other ways of expediting the process further, I am all ears and open to considering what they might be.

I recognise that that is important, so we should seek to accommodate it as much as possible. I want to minimise the circumstances under which we would seek to expedite a bill. I do not want us to have to do that regularly; it should happen only when the circumstances merit it.

We had a robust debate last week on the timetabling of the bill, and I hope that we can conclude the process of determining the full timescale this week. When we are expediting a bill, we should factor in as much as possible the capacity for committees other than the primary committee, including the DPLRC, to be able to undertake and exercise their scrutiny function. I know that there has been engagement with Gillian Martin as the responsible cabinet secretary and I believe that she has responded. If the committee has further questions, I know that she will be happy to respond to them.

We have tried to draft the bill fairly narrowly. It has a narrow purpose. It deals with a very important issue, but it is not a wide-ranging bill. The delegated powers in it are, by our estimation, necessary, because Climate Change Committee advice is needed to ensure that any new targets that are set are achievable, and that advice will not be available until spring next year.

We are trying to grapple with two challenges: we want to ensure that we are not in breach of legal requirements as set out in the existing legislation, but we are cognisant of the fact that we cannot look at what the targets should be until next year. By our estimation, it makes sense to do that by secondary legislation rather than going through the whole primary legislation process. At that point, of course, it will be incumbent on the various committees in Parliament—including this one, if it so determines—to consider any secondary legislation that emanates from the bill, once it is passed.

Yes, this is primarily going to emanate from the King’s speech, but right now four legislative consent memoranda have been lodged, one for the Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Bill, one for the Great British Energy Bill, one for the Renters’ Rights Bill and one for the Product Regulation and Metrology Bill. I should say that the last one was lodged slightly late, but of course these things are driven by how much time and notice we, as a Government, get from the UK Government.

There are other LCMs that we expect to bring forward. At this stage, we do not have any confirmed introduction dates from the UK Government for the Tobacco and Vapes Bill, the digital information and smart data bill, the planning and infrastructure Bill, the railways bill, the employment bill and the artificial intelligence bill, but that will give you an indication of what is likely to come before us. We would go through the usual process and identify the relevant committees and, where this committee was involved, we would seek to engage with it as soon as possible.

It is early days. The relationship seems to be productive thus far, but that will ultimately be determined by practical experience. It is a little early to say. To be fair—and I can, on occasion, be fair—the UK Government was elected near the start of our summer recess. It wants to hit the ground running and to bring legislation forward fairly quickly, but that comes up against our own timescale, which is not ideal. There is certainly some indication of an understanding of our perspective, but the proof will be in the pudding.

The Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee has looked at that in some detail. It published a report on the impact of the post-EU, post-Brexit environment on devolution and we responded to that. To go back to the point that I just made, we will press that with the UK Government, but we have acknowledged that Parliament should have the opportunity for effective scrutiny of all legislative powers within our devolved competence, so we share that committee’s perspective.

Some practical issues arise from the need for the UK Government to agree to co-operate with any arrangement that has a wider scope than the existing protocol which, we must remind ourselves, is between this Government and the Scottish Parliament and to which the UK Government is not a direct party. However, the effectiveness of that protocol relies on how the UK Government works in practice. As the Cabinet Secretary for the Constitution, External Affairs and Culture, Angus Robertson is leading on that and is considering how we can best advance that with the UK Government. I know that he will be happy to update the committee about how that goes, just as he will update the Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee.

I refer you to my last answer.

Whatever floats your boat, Mr Eagle.