³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

That is positive—thank you. I noted what was in the letter that you sent to the committee yesterday, especially in respect of the expedited affirmative procedure that we discussed. I welcome the Government’s indication that it will explore the idea of developing that protocol. Can we tie that to the Coronavirus (Recovery and Reform) (Scotland) Bill in a way that would help to inject some pace into the protocol’s development? It is fine to say in a hypothetical sense that we could develop it in due course, but perhaps it would be worth while to establish the protocol during the bill process, so that it can be tested.

There are examples of the made affirmative procedure being used in the past couple of years, and we could ask what we would have done if we had used an expedited procedure. How would we model it? Between the committee and the Government—along with the Parliamentary Bureau, if necessary—we could establish what that could look like, so that a more balanced approach would be taken in such a future scenario. We could then reach an equilibrium and codify it to some extent in the bill process. That could be a way of anchoring the idea in some way so that it is firmer.

We are keen for the bill to be as shovel ready as possible, given any eventuality. The committee really wanted to make it clear that it should be a statutory requirement for a Scottish minister to provide a written statement prior to any instrument coming into force. However, the five powers as drafted in the bill do not clearly provide for such a statement. Might the Deputy First Minister consider including a clear, incontrovertible and explicit requirement to provide such a statement? We would really appreciate that adjustment.

It is important to establish that the desire is to develop the capability in the Parliament, because a gap has—rightly—been identified and I think that the Government agrees with that. Necessity is the mother of invention, so let us try to use this as a lessons-learned exercise. There is a bit less urgency for driving the bill forward, so in that sense we can take the time to get it right. If there is a degree of flexibility—it seems that a firm timetable has not been established—perhaps we can work collaboratively with the interest groups in the Parliament and the Government to come to an agreement. If that could be agreed in principle today, that would be a good thing.

We have established some options in principle. It might be worth taking that away as an action to look at liaising with the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee, and we could maintain correspondence about what might be an appropriate measure. In effect, we have agreed on the desirability of the outcome, so it is a question of what is the most practical mechanism for delivering it—whether that is a protocol or something that is more formalised. I guess that this committee will need to reflect on that and take a view, but it might be worth continuing the discussion later.

I thank the Deputy First Minister for his comments so far. I would rather zoom out from the specifics of the SSI in question, as I have no contention with its contents.

If we bear in mind the committee’s recent report and the debate that we had in the chamber last week—I think that it was last week; keeping track of time is giving me a bit of trouble, what with fast-moving events—it is clear that the Government had to address the architecture, particularly given the pandemic and the fact that, on reflection, the system of made affirmative or affirmative instruments might not be perfect or even best suited to current legislative measures. Indeed, the Government could reflect on how the Parliament might best be involved in the process.

In the spirit of continuous improvement, could there be a way of piloting—of reflecting on this particular SSI and looking for a way of using one of the procedures to pilot an expedited affirmative procedure as a way of fleshing out what that might look like in practical terms? We have already heard in the debate that people would be happy to adapt to meeting irregularly in order to meet the timescales demanded of the situation and that the fact that the Parliament is able to meet virtually or in a hybrid format helps to move forward that practicality.

I invite the Deputy First Minister to reflect on the dispute that has emerged about whether the made affirmative procedure or the affirmative procedure is the most appropriate mechanism in principle and whether a new structure could be designed. I also invite him to consider how we can start that process in a practical way.

I note the concerns that have been raised by colleagues and I have some sympathies with the point about superfluous provisions that are highly unlikely to be used, which means that there are questions about whether it is essential include them in the SSI. That opens up a wider discussion about quality assurance in such legislation, which we have to consider, bearing in mind the committee’s recent report. However, on the balance of probabilities, I do not think that it is a major risk if we permit the provisions to continue for another six months.

I concur. I recognise that some of the issues are being raised in casework, and the petitioner has identified a valid public need to investigate the issue further, so I am content with the suggestion that we continue the petition.

That is helpful. What do you hope that the Government formally giving an apology would achieve?

I am impressed by the body of evidence that the committee has gathered already. We hear a consistent refrain from stakeholders that the change would not necessarily impinge on reserved benefits and that there is a mechanism that can achieve the reform that the petitioner is advocating for.

Having corresponded with some of the stakeholders, I think that although they welcome that the review will take place, there is still concern about its pace. There is also a question about what role this committee should take in the review. Should the committee continue to seek evidence? Should the review refer to that evidence? Should the committee itself make a submission to the review, based on the evidence that we have gathered?

I suppose that the question is not whether the review will take place—it will, and that is a welcome development—but whether the committee has a role or locus in it, whether we should make a submission and whether we are required to keep the petition open in order to do so. That is what we need to consider.

Thank you very much for that. The esplanade of Edinburgh castle has been mentioned. What are your reflections on that? That might be an obvious location, I suppose.

It might be worth considering engaging with Historic Environment Scotland, which manages a lot of historic properties across the country, many of which might, historically, have had some involvement in the practice of witch hunts, and it might be able to find an appropriate location. Therefore, it might be worth engaging in that discussion now to develop the idea.

I have been involved in a couple of memorial campaigns, including the Remember Mary Barbour campaign in Glasgow to raise a statue to Mary Barbour and the rent strikers in Govan. That was community led—there was a lot of persistent fundraising and a design competition, but they had to be very much driven by the campaign. Similarly, there is the recent an gorta mór memorial in the east end of Glasgow to the Irish famine victims. Again, that involved a persistent, community-led campaign. Often, such initiatives can help to drive projects, so it might be worth looking at those examples in order to help to drive things forward.