³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

My final question is about the money that is given to local authorities to pass on to third sector organisations in their areas. I appreciate that, ultimately, it is up to local authorities to do that, but do you recognise that their budget has gone down in real terms? From what we see across Scotland, a number of charities will struggle to get any funding from local authorities this year, and they might have to close because of that cut to the budget.

Good morning, minister, and happy new year to you and your team.

I will pick up on a point that has been made by my colleagues. As you know, this is the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee, so we consider delegated powers. As you know, regulations cannot be altered—we can only vote for or against them. Therefore, if Parliament likes three quarters of what you have done but does not like the rest of it, we are left with the option of saying no completely or voting for something that we do not have confidence in. If ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ cannot amend regulations, how does that give them democratic accountability?

I do not want to labour the point, but I think that you hit the nail on the head in your previous answer. No one here is at all critical of stakeholder engagement, consultation and co-design. I think that we all welcome it, and everyone thinks that that is a great way forward. However, as you said, the issue is that, ultimately, decisions will have to be made. You cannot let everybody have exactly what they want, because those things will conflict. The issue for the committee is why you think that, once you have done all that consultation, once you have had that open door and once you have all discussed the subject, it is appropriate for the Scottish Government to decide which view to take on board, rather than the Scottish Parliament doing the same listening exercise and then coming to a view.

I will move on to a couple of specifics in the bill. Section 15 is about the complaints process. Why is it considered appropriate for the Scottish ministers to rely on, as described in your response, a veto for the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body and not the Parliament? Why are we again taking away the power of the Parliament?

I said that we deal with regulations only by voting for or against them; they cannot be amended. You said that there were other processes that committees can use to deal with them, and I was looking for clarification of the other methods that this committee and other committees can use, apart from voting for or against regulations.

I absolutely accept that you have an open-door policy, but you have not fundamentally answered the question. When it comes to that final decision, Parliament has no option to amend those regulations. We either have to accept or reject them. Why could that work not be done with primary legislation? Along with ministers, ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ could listen to stakeholders and come to a view. Do you not accept that you are keeping ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ away from the process of being able to amend things that will affect all of our constituents across Scotland?

I absolutely accept that, but the trouble is that we do not know what the complaints system will look like—we have no idea, because you have not had your co-design meetings. I do not understand why you could not have had them already or even have them now, come up with a scheme that has consensus among the stakeholders and put that in the bill.

As you pointed out, even with all your consultation, there will be people who are not happy with your final recommendation. I am still struggling to work out why that recommendation should not be in the bill so that ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ can decide whether it will work. You seem to be asking us to accept that you will get it absolutely right.

I have a second question on that. In one of your previous answers to me, you mentioned that there are other ways in which the Parliament can deal with secondary legislation rather than just saying yes or no to it. I am not aware of them. Will you explain them further to me, please?

I appreciate that you might not want to give the answer today, but will you write to the committee? I appreciate that I have been on the committee a fairly short time in comparison with other members, but I am genuinely confused about what other processes you are talking about. If you cannot outline them today, will you write to the committee so that we have the information?

One of the changes that was meant to happen under this scheme was that you would look for the information the first time around. Clearly, that is not happening. What training is now being given so that it is not the claimant providing that information but you finding the information to get it right? The application form and the way that people make an application is different, but the criteria for CDP have not changed at all. It is a new system but they are not new criteria—people are still getting an award on the same criteria. Again, has the training not been there? Why have they not gone for that information the first time around?