Chamber and committees

That is helpful. I am not suggesting that the approach has not been taken in the past, but the DPLR Committee looks at such matters weekly across all Government legislation and has said that what is being done stands out as an outlier when compared with the approach that the Government normally takes. We echo some of the concerns.

Has work taken place to flesh out what should be in the bill if the Parliament decides that it wants such provisions to be included? I am open minded either way.

I will follow up on that very briefly, convener. Again, we will have to reflect on whether that is the right level of parliamentary scrutiny. I put on the record that I was not suggesting that that would be the right level of scrutiny; I just wanted to know what the level of scrutiny would be.

I would not expect anything less. The reason for asking that question was to draw attention to the fact that the sector does not speak with one voice about what the best system should look like. The Government can perhaps reflect on that to see whether improvements can be made. Parts of the sector say that redeterminations get in the way, while other parts say that they are really important. We want to ensure that all people are serviced appropriately by whatever system we have in place.

Thank you for the opportunity, convener.

It was good to hear from those seeking to be commissioners and the new chair informally before this meeting. I have just a brief observation to make. I was struck by the diverse mix of candidates, who range from people in academia and policy research to people involved at the coalface of planning, service delivery, working daily on the ground with young people and families to tackle poverty and people with direct lived experience. We want our commissioners to have that diverse range of skills and experiences, to be a critical friend of Government and to be fiercely independent. From what I heard this morning, I am enthused by the candidates who will, I hope, take up those roles.

My goodness, cabinet secretary. Do you mean that I have got the Government to move within seconds, if it is not affirmative? That is a first.

To double check, does that mean that the system might mirror the DWP route but that there will not necessarily be an agency agreement?

That was the clarity that witnesses wanted, so they will welcome that. Convener, my other questions are not related to this theme, and I do not know whether there is any time for them.

We will have to reflect on that. Given what you have just said, secondary legislation might be the most appropriate vehicle. Can you confirm the level of parliamentary scrutiny for secondary legislation? Will negative, affirmative or superaffirmative procedure be used, given that the provisions might not be in the bill?

Okay, you can let—

I am not really that bothered, cabinet secretary, but if you can write to us just to confirm, that would be helpful.

We heard that there could be a little uncertainty in relation to the appeal routes for recovery of Social Security Scotland and DWP benefits. There was an understanding that there could be a separate Scottish system, as opposed to a partnership agreement or an agency agreement with DWP. It would be helpful if you could clarify what that process will look like and whether you intend to have a partnership or agency agreement or do otherwise.