Seòmar agus comataidhean

Really? That is fantastic. It sounds as though there is a lot of support for your petition and that a lot of important voices have backed you up, which is really promising. Now that you have had the experience of going to COP26, it looks as though you have a good basis for doing the project to roll out reusable water bottles. What would you like to happen next?

We will certainly look into that. We will see how much money we have left in our wallet. Thank you very much, Callum.

What was the landowner’s motivation for felling the trees?

So how we treat our built heritage is a valid comparator.

Is there any provision in law to deal with conifer contamination? Is it not treated in the same way as other contaminations?

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.

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.

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.