Chamber and committees

I will come back in later, as I have questions on recruitment, convener, but I will wait until the next theme and rest there.

Good morning. Amendments 137 and 138 simply seek to clarify a particular situation. Last week, the cabinet secretary and a number of members told us that the changes proposed in the bill do not affect what happens with regard to the European convention on human rights. As I have said, the amendments seek to clarify that and provide a way forward if the bill becomes an act.

As we will all be aware, article 9 of the ECHR covers all protected characteristics, and amendment 137 simply states what has previously been stated, which is that nothing will change in that regard. I hope that the cabinet secretary can give some clarification on that.

Amendment 138 seeks to look forward to any regulations that will flow from the bill becoming an act by making it clear that there is no contradiction between article 9 of the ECHR and any regulations that are laid before Parliament. It seeks to provide that if regulations are laid that affect article 9, the affirmative procedure will be used to ensure that the committee and the Parliament can scrutinise them.

I hope that the cabinet secretary will be able to clarify whether these amendments are necessary—they are simply to bring clarification, rather than changing anything specific.

Some of this has been explored, but I want to cover two areas that were brought up in the earlier evidence session today. If the bill is passed by Parliament, you then intend to carry out a co-design process on the regulations and guidance that come out of the bill. Do you and your officials have a timeline in mind for the consultation, drawing up the regulations and introducing them in Parliament for scrutiny?

With respect, minister, the timeline is your decision, because it will start when the Scottish Government lays the regulations in Parliament. It is not for this committee to scrutinise anything until you have brought it forward, so you are the person who ultimately starts the process. You might not decide how long it will take, but you will fire the starting gun, if I can put it that way. Have you considered that?

The other issue is that the final decision on the content of the regulations that Parliament will scrutinise will be yours. Co-design can take us so far but, ultimately, the decision on what will be put before Parliament will be yours.

For all members, irrespective of their parties, one frustration about scrutinising so many sets of regulations is that we cannot amend them: we have to say either yes or no to them all. As well as engaging with stakeholders, how much engagement on the regulations do you see happening with members of the Scottish Parliament? Will the regulations come to the committee as drafts before you lay them, or will they simply come to us and that will be it?

Thank you, minister.

I want to go back to how co-design works in practice, which Chris Gehrke and others have talked about. Do you expect that there will be a consultation document that everyone will respond to, after which the Scottish Government will go away and do whatever it wants, or do you think that there could be a much more interactive way of doing it? How would that work in practice?

I will start with Chris Gehrke, because he is not from the central belt. Chris, could you tell us how you envisage things working in your geographical area, so that there is a process of input and testing? Do you know what the timescale will be for how long it will take to get to the point at which the Government is ready to introduce regulations?

Frank McKillop, how do you see your members engaging, rather than just coming to spend a couple of hours and then walking away? How do we make the process more fluid?

I am conscious of time, so I will ask a question and see whether I can get a yes, no or do not know answer.

I do not think that the charter would give any new rights. It would clarify the rights that people have, but would not have any legal authority and could not be challenged by an individual or organisation. Should the charter have legal standing so that judicial review can take place, if that is appropriate?

In committee last week, and to some extent this week, there was a view among the witnesses that we have come through the pandemic and there is a lot going on, and it will therefore be difficult for people to get a break to give them an opportunity to engage in the process. I am thinking, in particular, of those who have lived experience. Have you given any thought to that?

I think that everyone recognises that short-term and long-term reform is required. However, with regard to the long-term reform, it would be helpful to give people a bit of breathing space to allow them to get through the next year or next couple of years without having to engage in the consultation, because they simply do not have the time or the energy to do so. You would end up missing people out, not because they do not want to take part, but simply because of what has happened over the past few years.

Thank you. I will return to the subject of co-design, but I will leave it there for the moment.