���˿���

Before the next witness comes in, I will check something. I do not have in-depth experience on the subject. Your response was quite process driven and was about mapping what should be in the plan. My question was about what is identifiable in the plan and what might be beneficial and achievable. I get that witnesses think that some things should be removed from the plan and others put in and that things need to be pulled together. I am talking in general terms when I ask the question. Is there anything identifiable in the plan that is of value and would be beneficial?

No, convener. That was genuinely helpful. I am conscious that this is a draft delivery plan and that witnesses will want to shape what the final delivery plan looks like. We are therefore hearing about things that are not in the plan and about mapping exercises and other matters. However, it is important for the committee to hear about what in the draft plan is welcome and could make meaningful change. We have got some of that, so I will not come back in.

After I have asked my questions, I might ask you, convener, to work out who will answer, because that is challenging when I am not in the room.

I have been listening carefully to the evidence that we have received. A lot of this is process driven, but the delivery plan needs to identify meaningful and appropriate actions across key sectors, groups and regulatory areas. I am keen to know where the witnesses believe that that is contained in the draft delivery plan or what more could be done to make sure that it exists in the plan.

The key areas that I am thinking of are fishing, aquaculture, plastics and chemicals, and regional and community coastal partnerships. I acknowledge that, according to the Scottish Parliament information centre, there appear to be no actions in the delivery plan on marine renewables.

What is in the plan that can deliver identifiable, meaningful and appropriate action across key sectors? I want to be clear about what could work well and where the gaps are.

Thank you for putting that on the record. If I ask you that question again, Mr Griffin, I will avoid the acronym and just say “non-departmental public bodies”. It is much easier to say than putting those letters together.

The bill includes minimum timescales for scrutiny and requirements to consult, regardless of whether regulations are substantial or minor and technical. Why do you think that that is proportionate? SCOSS does not have such requirements. The minimum timescale in the bill is four months—a one-month lead-in and three months after that. I am also conscious that we are not quite sure what the new benefit will look like, what the eligibility criteria will be or what types of regulations might be seen from time to time.

We are all a little bit in the dark. Why are those minimum timescales in the bill? Might they be burdensome when a new body has to be fleet of foot and move quickly? You mentioned that you tried to mirror SCOSS as much as possible, but SCOSS does things in a different way. Why is there a difference?

What if the sub-group was put in statute, though? I want to give the bill a good hearing, but I need to make sure that I look at all the potential options for the best way to do this, and the suggestion of a sub-group of SCOSS is one of them. If that sub-group was specified and entrenched in statute and could operate independently, that might not be your desired outcome, but would it still be progressive?

That is helpful. I am not sure about the issue; I am just trying to make sure that the committee looks at all the potential options. Clearly, the bill presents us with one specific option.

I appreciate the evidence that you have given this morning.

Good morning, cabinet secretary. I suspect that the regulations have been designed with a view to bringing about quality changes in practice that will make a difference to vulnerable individuals. What changes in practice do you envisage may come about? How will that be monitored?

That is really helpful. If I appeared distracted during your reply, that is because I wanted to check the name of a project. [Interruption.] That was not very professional. I will tell you why I was looking at my phone. Last week, I invited to Parliament members of a project called “Financially Included”, but its name had escaped me. It deals with economic abuse of women; it supports women to escape such abuse and put their finances back on track having suffered it.

I was very interested to hear what you said about that kind of abuse and exploitation. Can you say any more about how that could help women in particular? You could do that now, or perhaps you could contact the committee after the meeting. I am conscious that economic abuse is a key issue in the 16 days of activism against gender-based violence. If you want to address that now, it would be quite nice to get it on the record this morning. I apologise for that distraction, but I wanted to check that I had my details right about the question that I was about to ask.

There are two aspects. Whether there is any value in an advisory group advising Government ahead of a new benefit being finalised, launched and rolled out is a separate matter from an advisory group making expert recommendations to Government about who qualifies for any new benefit. I will therefore separate those for a wee second.

Given all the caveats that Mr Griffin has made about wanting reassurance about what any Government advisory group would look like, would he accept that it would be possible for the Scottish Government to draw on expertise from across the country and all the areas required to inform what any new employment injury assistance would look like? I know that his preference would be to set that up by statute, but that would not be required for that function to be fulfilled.

I have some technical questions, to complete our scrutiny.

It is proposed that SEIAC be established as a body corporate with a duty to audit its own accounts. I could not previously have told you this, but in researching for your bill, I found that that is unusual for advisory NDPBs. Other bodies do not do it that way, but SEIAC would. Why the difference?