Good morning and welcome to the sixth meeting of the Education, Children and Young People Committee in 2021. The first item on our agenda today is a decision on taking business in private. Can I ask members whether they are content to take agenda item 11 in private? Are we all agreed? We are all agreed. Thank you. The second item on the agenda is to take evidence from the Deputy First Minister and Cabinet Secretary for Covid Recovery, John Swinney MSP, and his officials on the redress for survivors historical child abuse in care Scotland Act 2021, form and content of waiver, etc. Regulations 2021. I would very much like to welcome the Deputy First Minister to the committee this morning, and the Deputy First Minister is accompanied by Paul Beaton, legislation and contributions unit head Scottish Government, and Barry McCaffrey, lawyer Scottish Government legal directorate. Good morning to all of you. Mr Swinney, can I invite you to speak to the draft instrument? Thank you very much, convener. I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss with the committee this morning this affirmative instrument. As some members of the committee will remember, the inclusion of the waiver in the redress scheme was the subject of extensive, detailed and on occasions difficult debate in committee and in the chamber last year. It was right that, before Parliament passed the bill, this critical element of the redress scheme was debated with that rigor. The act has passed requires there to be a waiver which is sent to every applicant to the redress scheme at the point that they are offered a payment. The question that the waiver regulations address is the form that mandatory waiver should take. We know that we need to provide transparency and consistency. Indeed, those are touchstones of the scheme as a whole. The best way to do that, we believe, is to specify the form of the waiver so that it is the same for all survivors rather than risking individual negotiations taking place, which would add time, but with little, if any, benefit for survivors. As debated throughout the passage of the bill, the waiver is an essential part of securing fair and meaningful financial contributions from organisations. Section 46 of the act provides that an applicant who wants to accept an offer of a redress payment must sign and return a waiver. In doing so, they will be agreeing to abandon any civil proceedings as far as relevant to their abuse and care, or to waive any right to bring such proceedings. The importance of survivors being able to make informed choices about their applications was emphasised and accepted on all sides of the chamber. That is why both those regulations and the act itself clearly set out the steps that will be taken to ensure survivors are given information about a redress offer and the effects of signing the waiver. That is further reinforced in section 9 of the act, placing a duty on Scottish ministers to use their best endeavours to ensure redress applicants can make informed choices. That is primarily through the provision of a summary of options, which will ensure transparency about applicants' rights at each stage of the process. Crucially, the instrument reinforces the rights of survivors enshrined in the act, including the right to access independent legal advice to ensure that their decision is fully informed. At every juncture of the application process, support will be made available to survivors, and from the outset, we will strongly encourage legal advice that is taken. The act ensures that advice is funded by the Government so that cost is not a factor. Further detailed guidance will be available to the applicant, reinforcing the message to obtain legal advice. We have all been seeking to act in the best interests of survivors, doing what can be done now and in this generation to acknowledge the wrongs of the past and to write those that we can. Redress will inevitably be a difficult process for many survivors, and throughout the passage of the bill and more recently in making arrangements for the launch of the scheme, all sides of sort arrangements that are as transparent and as consistent as the varied circumstances of survivors allow. This is one of a number of Scottish statutory instruments before the committee today, each of which sets out the necessary detail of how the scheme will work in advance of its launch in December. I seek the committee's support for this instrument to ensure that the waiver that is required by the act is delivered in a way that meets the aims that we all share of achieving transparency and consistency for survivors who apply. The regulations on waiver achieve that and in a way that will avoid additional cost or delays in finalising payments. Thank you, Deputy First Minister. Can I ask if any members have any questions or comments on the draft agenda, Oliver? Thank you, convener. Having been on this committee when the bill was last being considered, there is no doubt that it is extremely challenging and complex. I just wondered whether there was any update, Deputy First Minister, on the criteria to determine what a fair and meaningful contribution to the waiver scheme is? Those are issues that we still discuss, but they will be published when we launch the scheme. There is material to the discussions that are going on with providers, and there is also the subject of discussion with survivors organisations as well. We are making good progress on those principles. If I recall correctly, some of the drafts were shared with the committee during the passage of the bill, and they are the subject to further discussion and refinement to enable us to secure contributions, but also, crucially, to secure the confidence of survivors. One of the points that Mr Mundell will recall, which was a very strong point in the evidence that we all considered in the last session of Parliament, was the desire on the part of survivors for there to be an acknowledgement of abuse by providers. That is crucial at the heart of the points that Mr Mundell raises with me. I thank you for that answer, and I wonder whether you would be open to sharing the advance drafts with the committee so that we could see where those discussions had got to. Obviously, as you point out, it is key to confidence in the scheme. It is difficult to find the right word to describe it, but I guess that it is one of the trade-offs in going down that route, is that people would have confidence that those contributions were going to be meaningful. I am certainly very happy to consider that point, and I can write to the committee afterwards. I think that the only caveat that I would have is that we are going through some fairly sensitive negotiations about provider contributions. I just want to be careful not to do anything in that process that might disrupt that, but it may be possible for me to share the advance drafts privately with the committee, which I am certainly happy to consider. Can I add another question? Yes, go ahead. What is that? I am just on a separate area. That was just to get an understanding, again as a point that I raised previously, but it is just what would happen to a survivor who initially signed the waiver and received a payment through the redress scheme, but then additional substantive evidence that would have changed the level of award either through the scheme or where that individual would have had the chance to go through the civil process. What happens to them when they have signed a waiver? Is that the end of it or are there provisions that would allow that to be looked at again? In those circumstances, once an individual signs the waiver, they fundamentally give up their right to take civil proceedings. That is why we have to make sure that survivors are equipped with all the necessary advice to make an informed decision about that point, because that is a critical point of either going down the civil route or going down the redress route. I think that I made clear to Parliament during the passage of the bill that redress is not for everybody. It may provide a satisfactory route for some survivors, but it will not be correct for all survivors. Some survivors may be better advised, hence the necessity of advice, to pursue a civil proceedings route. However, if an individual was to sign the waiver and receive a payment, subsequent evidence came to light that strengthened their position, they could come back to redress Scotland for a further consideration of the new evidence that had come to light, which might result in an enhanced redress payment. It would not open up the ability to go down the civil proceedings route, but it would open up the possibility of revisiting the original redress determination that had been made, and that is provided for and established. That is helpful, and I know that that will not satisfy everyone, but it is a step forward from where discussions were previously at. In terms of seeking an enhanced payment, will those individuals who have found themselves in that situation be entitled to the same advice and support as anyone else in the scheme? Will they be able to seek legal advice? The direct answer to Mr Mundell's question is yes. The one question that I am chewing over in my mind is that the legal advice that is available is not available to support civil proceedings, but having signed a waiver, a survivor is then in the redress area, if I could call it that, so therefore they would have access to that legal advice. There is no need for me to insert a caveat there. Thank you for that clarity of explanation, Mr Swinney. Can I ask you to describe further the assistance that will be available to applicants? You mentioned everyone having a clarity around their options. Can you describe what support will be available to people to allow them to make an informed decision about signing the waiver? There are a number of aspects to that, convener. The first is that the design of the redress scheme is determined to be survivor-focused, so the individual must be at the centre of the process and at the centre of the receipt of advice. From the moment they contact the redress scheme, I would want them to be engaging with a scheme that is treating them with fairness and dignity and compassion, as the statute requires, from every single encounter that happens. Therefore, the survivor can build their confidence that there is a scheme that is working with them to deliver a satisfactory outcome, whatever that outcome happens to be. That is a contextual point, which I think is really important. We have acquired a significant amount of experience through the advance payment scheme, which has enabled that to be built up with now very close to 700 cases that are determined under the advance payment scheme and are determined in that context. The second point is that individuals will be provided with person-centred support and advice from trained and experienced staff to help them in the making of the application. That will be about gathering evidence and helping them to gather that evidence, because, in some cases, we might be going back over many years. Records might not be as pristine as we would like them to be, so there will be a lot of help to try to assist survivors to do that. Basically, it is assistance to get an individual ready to make an application under the scheme. There would then be a separate channel of advice, which would be independent legal advice, which would assist the individual in coming to their own conclusion as to whether they thought on the basis of what evidence had been gathered and the position that they found themselves in as to whether the redress scheme was the right course of action to take or whether, on the basis of that independent legal advice, the judgment was that there is a case for civil proceedings to be considered. Once an application is made, that will then go to redress Scotland for independent determination. Once that determination is made, support to the individual to address any subsequent issues that arise. A person-centred approach complements some of the other services that are available, for example, through future pathways, which is a much more generic support that is available to individuals who have been the victims of historic abuse to assist them in trying to overcome some of the damage that has been done to their life. The legal advice for those individuals. We have read the evidence that has been given to us just for this hearing, and it is clear that people have been really damaged by all of this. Will that independent legal advice be handled in such a way as to meet the needs of the individual that is getting the advice? It has to be absolutely focused on the needs of that individual, but, like all the rest of the advice, it has to be delivered within a context of ensuring that people who have suffered enormously are dealt with in an atmosphere of fairness, dignity and compassion, as the law requires. I will pick up on all from Bell's line of questioning on circumstances that might change the status of the waiver. During the Bell process, we amended the provisions that are given to the Scottish ministers. Given the power to remove organisations from the contributors list, most obviously, the organisation does not make the contribution that was due. What would happen in the event that an applicant has already signed a waiver in respect of an organisation that is subsequently removed from the contributor list because it has not made a fair and meaningful contribution? Would there be a provision to annul waivers in those circumstances or would those waivers still stand because they were signed previous to the decision to remove that organisation? Once the waiver is signed, the waiver cannot be unsigned, which is why it is so crucial that an individual only embarks on the waiver route if they are confident that it is the right route for them to take. The waiver would stand in those circumstances. However, clearly, if an individual has, in good faith, taken advice and assigned the waiver, but a provider has not contributed, the survivor should in no way suffer any further loss as a consequence, so any payment that was to be made would still be made to the survivor in those circumstances. Presumably, in circumstances such as that, if the contributor has been removed from the list because they have not contributed, the payment made to the survivor would, in that circumstance, presumable be coming from Scottish Government funds? Essentially, the Government acts as a guarantor of payments in the scheme and the Government is obviously going to be making a substantial financial contribution to the scheme that was always envisaged. However, clearly, it would be a matter of public record and public communication if a contributor was removed from the list because of failure to comply with the obligations that they had made. That would be a point of public communication. I cannot recall the obligations in relation to parliamentary notification, but it would strike me that if a contributor was to be removed from the list, Parliament would have to be advised of that step. Thank you. I am talking about a slightly separate but related note. The cabinet secretary will recall that I amended the bill at stage 3 to require the Government to report on the operation of the waiver after the first 18 months of the scheme functioning. Can the cabinet secretary confirm if arrangements are in place at this point or what arrangements will be in place from December to ensure that that review is taken place from day 1 and that no important information is missed? If that review finds that there are deficiencies in relation to the waiver, would there be the possibility to address those retrospectively, i.e. if 18 months to two years from now, Parliament agrees that there is a need to amend the scheme in some way in relation to the waiver? Could that be retrospectively applied to those waivers that had been signed during that initial period of operation? On the first point of Mr Greer's question, the answer is emphatically yes that from day 1 there will be arrangements in place to ensure that the whole detail and experience of the scheme can be considered as part of that 18-month review. I give that absolute assurance that that will be the case. Indeed, all the preparatory work that we are undertaking just now would, in my view, be essential to be the subject of scrutiny. Of course, I stand ready to engage on any aspects of those questions with the committee or with Parliament as a whole. On the second part of Mr Greer's question, we are going into a bit of speculation and what ifs the committee will forgive me? I possibly won't go there or perhaps concentrate my efforts on trying to make sure that we don't find ourselves in that situation. Obviously, Parliament would have to consider the terms of the 18-month review and determine whether it considered that any further action was required. Thank you. That's entirely reasonable. That's all from me. I don't think that it's a secret that I was a skeptic of the waiver provision in the bill at the first time round, but I'm content with the orders that are in front of us today. Thank you, Ross. I want to return to the issue of the fairing meaningful contribution, but in particular the role of insurers.  Have you got any clearer understanding about what the attitude of the insurance industry is going to be to that? Mr Rennie is absolutely correct that there is an interplay between the financial sustainability of, let's call them providers, and the application of fair and meaningful contributions. When we amended the bill during its passage, we acknowledged the fundamental vulnerability that Mr Rennie raised that organisations could potentially be rendered financially unsustainable by the consequences of the scheme on the basis of payments required in the 2020s for events that could have taken place in the 1970s. That issue has been reconciled by the terms of the bill and by the application of the fair and meaningful principles. What lies behind that in some circumstances will be the role of insurers. There isn't a generic position on the instance of insurance companies. It will depend very much on the arrangements and dialogue between providers and insurance companies. The Government's dialogue is with providers and it's then for providers to be making their judgments based on their dialogue with their insurers about what is the nature of that financial relationship. Fundamentally, we will be making a judgment based on an assessment of the dialogue with providers as to their financial sustainability as part of arriving at what we consider to be fair and meaningful contributions. You probably won't want to answer that, because I suspect that that is subject to the negotiations, but for confidence for some of the providers or the chargeable organisations, if their insurance company wasn't contributing and it threatened the viability of an otherwise good organisation, would your system be able to flex to reflect the fact that the insurer wasn't paying, or is that something that is subject? Is that clear? I think that the best way to explain that is probably to reinforce what I said in Parliament during the passage of the bill, that I don't want to see organisations who are making substantial contributions to the delivery of good purposes in our society today to be rendered unsustainable because of failures of the past. That is material to the discussions that we undertake, but, equally, we believe that providers and insurance companies and also by their actions, their insurance companies, need to engage substantively in the discussions that have been taken forward by my officials to secure fair and meaningful contributions. Thank you, convener, and good morning to the Deputy First Minister and his officials. Obviously, all of us in Parliament and throughout the country wish to see that survivors of this appalling abuse receive redress payments, even though we know that that will, in no way compensate for the gasiness of what they have been through. I wanted to ask the Deputy First Minister about the standard of proof that is required in the process, because that is an inherently difficult task. Part of the reason that I understand it for the legislation is that the requirements for taking a case through the civil courts, where it is necessary to prove the case on the balance of probabilities and with corroborated evidence, was a threshold too high. That underlies Parliament's decision, which we all support, to provide another route, namely the redress payment scheme. Section 18 of the act says that the abuse must have occurred before 1 December 2004. That means, convener, that any applicant is making an application in respect of events horrific, though they are, that occurred more than 17 years ago. Can I ask the Deputy First Minister how he will balance the imperative of ensuring that the purpose of the act is achieved by those who have suffered from abuse receiving appropriate levels of payment under the law that Parliament has agreed? On the other hand, the real risk that there could be applications of a fraudulent nature made. How can the Deputy First Minister give some information to the committee, either now or subsequently, as to what measures will be put in place by the Scottish Government and by those under part 4 of the act who have the responsibility of determination of applications or preventing fraud and, therefore, ensuring that public money and money from others goes to the intended purpose and not to any who may themselves seek to abuse the scheme? A number of substantial issues in Mr Ewing's question and from Mr Ewing's involvement in many of those questions in his ministerial capacity, he will recognise the complexity and the challenge of many of the points that are involved here. The first point that I would make is that, in relation to any case, the standard of proof is a material consideration in the judgment for a survivor as to whether or not they pursue the redress route or the civil route. Should there be, based on legal advice, a suficiency of evidence to sustain a civil case, an individual should, of course, be able to pursue that approach. There are examples in which individuals have successfully taken that route. As Mr Ewing will know from his long experience, for pre-1964 survivors, there is no civil route available to those individuals, so the redress route is the only route that is available to them. The standard of proof is a material consideration in the judgment of individuals as to whether they should take the redress route or the civil approach. The standard of proof that will be required in the redress scheme will be at a lower level than the standard of proof in a civil case. The best efforts of the redress scheme will be deployed to supporting individuals in the gathering of evidence to enable them to take forward their applications. Obviously, there will be material that could be available in records, there could be corroboration, there could be other evidence that can be brought to bear in this respect. Our understanding as a society about those questions and the likelihood of circumstances having taken place is substantively enhanced by the case study findings that are being published periodically by the child abuse inquiry led by Lady Smith. Lady Smith is undertaking the task that ministers asked her to do, which was to look at the experiences of survivors to consider evidence and to provide authoritative findings in given circumstances. I think that there is an incredible power in the findings that Lady Smith has already published, and she has now published six case studies in her inquiry. However, there is incredible power in a very senior member of the Scottish judiciary coming to the conclusion, as she does in a number of reports, that she believes that a certain sequence of events happened. That gives an authority and a context that I think helps to provide the evidential base for individuals to pursue the applications that they are putting forward. There will be strenuous efforts made to support individuals to gather the evidence. There is contextual reinforcement of that by the findings from Lady Smith's inquiry, but it will not be required to be a standard of proof that will be required in several proceedings. Mr Ewing then asked me about the legitimate question of ensuring that the scheme is being properly applied and that cases justify the payments that are being made. We will have in place protections to ensure that, where we can validate the identities of individuals and the likelihood of circumstances, we will be doing that to assist in strengthening the case and, as a flipside of that particular issue, to protect the public purse to ensure that payments are being made on a wholly valid basis to the individual's concern. However, if there is any concern that a payment has been made inappropriately, there will be steps available to the redress scheme to be able to seek the normal remedies for that should those concerns arise. I thank the Deputy First Minister for that detailed answer in relation to the standard of proof, which, if necessary, has to be lower than in the civil courts. Secondly, in relation to steps to be taken to protect the public purse, I am grateful for the assurances that have been provided. It is an inherently sensitive, delicate but difficult task. Are there any other members who wish to raise any questions with the Deputy First Minister? No. So, thank you, Deputy First Minister. Is there anything further that you wish to say on this instrument that has not previously been raised? No, I am happy with the points that have been heard, convener. I am grateful to members. In that case, we will move to agenda item 3. Our next item of business is to invite the Deputy First Minister to move motion S6M-01080 that the Education, Children and Young People Committee recommends that the redress for survivors, historical child abuse and care Scotland Act 2021, form and content of waiver, etc. regulations 2021 be approved. I invite the Deputy First Minister to speak to and move the motion. I move the motion that stands in my name and I have no further comments to add to the points that I have discussed with the committee. Thank you. Do members have any comments? Would the Deputy First Minister like to wind up? The question is that motion S6M-01080 in the name of John Swinney be approved. Are we all agreed? We are all agreed. The motion is therefore agreed. The committee must now produce its report on the draft instrument. Is the committee content to delegate responsibility to the deputy convener and I to agree this report on behalf of the committee? We are agreed. Our fourth agenda item today is to take evidence from the Deputy First Minister and his officials on the redress for survivors historical child abuse and care exceptions to eligibility Scotland regulations 2021. The Deputy First Minister is again supported by Paul Beaton, legislation and contributions unit head Scottish Government and Barry McCaffrey lawyer Scottish Government legal directorate. Can I invite you to speak to the draft instrument? Thank you once again convener. Section 23 of the act enables regulations to be made regarding certain circumstances in which a potential applicant would not be eligible to apply to the redress scheme. It was envisaged that this power would be exercised where exclusions were considered necessary and consistent with the underlying purpose of the scheme. In keeping with that, we indicated throughout the passage of the primary legislation, including within the policy memorandum and our response to the stage 1 report, that regulations may be made in relation to short-term respite placements. The regulations before the committee today do exactly that. Specifically, the regulations provide that an application for redress may not be made by or in respect of a person to the extent that it relates to abuse that occurred when that person was resident in a relevant care setting to provide short-term respite or holiday care, where that care was arranged by a parent or guardian and another person. I want to be clear that the abuse of children in all circumstances and settings is wrong and harmful. However, the purpose of the scheme that the Parliament legislated for has been to respond to survivors who, when they were placed in care, lost the oversight and protection of their parents and families. As a result, they were often isolated with limited or no contact with their families, whereas the purpose of respite or holiday care was always short-term and was intended as such, and the parental rights and responsibilities were not affected. That has been reflected on by some survivors whose parents had their rights removed, referring to themselves as being children of the state, the state being charged with their care and protection when they were stripped of access to their families. Children resident on a short-term respite or holiday basis were not in that position. I seek the committee's support for this instrument to ensure that the scheme can launch as soon as possible. Having those regulations in place will also allow us to set out clearly the exceptions to eligibility in advance of the scheme opening, allowing for transparency and to ensure that survivors are well informed. Mr Swinney, can I ask if any members have any questions or comments on the draft instrument? Oliver Mundell. Thank you, convener. I listened carefully to what you said to the Deputy First Minister. I wondered whether, in relation to some short-term placements, through the passage of time, it would be immediately obvious how those came about, and it was just to understand. I am certainly currently in my constituency of work aware of situations in which families are really struggling. Often it is social work or other healthcare. Government-funded professionals who are stepping in and saying to families, really, that they should think about doing this to avoid going down a different route as a way of trying to give the family a chance to reset. In the detail of some of those cases, I cannot imagine that, for all parents, accessing short-term placements has necessarily been presented as a choice. I wonder what would happen in those circumstances and how you would weigh that up. Mr Mundell raises a completely legitimate point. It comes down to what is a very narrow definition in the regulations of the cases in question. We are trying to make the distinction between circumstances in which the contact with a family and the involvement of a family has been fundamentally altered by the actions of the state. If that was for a respite provision, there is a very significant difference between a respite provision, for example, and some form of order that removes a child from a family setting in which circumstances would be relevant in those circumstances in which a secret order had required the removal of a child. I would say at this stage that, in the current context, the state—this is absolutely consistent with what we have signed up to in terms of the independent care review and the contents of the promise—wants to avoid, as far as possible, the separation of children from their families. Perhaps if we had learnt some of the lessons that we are learning from the care review now in previous eras, we would have avoided many of the issues. We are now having to confront in the redress scheme how we have taken that approach. The order that is in front of the committee today is very much focused on the concept of short-term respite or holiday care and where the relationship with the family is not fundamentally altered by the actions of the state. I hope that that provides the distinction that reassures Mr Mundell. I recognise the policy reasons why the Government might go down this route. I still think that there will be a number of cases where orders have not been progressed on the condition that families look at taking advantage of short-term placements. Sometimes those placements can be repeat, so individuals can be subject to multiple repeat placements. It is a bit complicated in places, but I am happy to accept the explanation given. My question would be why you went down the exclusionary route and did not opt for a model that would allow each individual case to be considered and set out. It is legitimate to be clear on the limits of the scheme and what the expectations are, but it is back to creating a space where people may have exceptional circumstances where they have had multiple short-term placements with the same abuser over a number of years. That has probably been encouraged by the state by why there would not be provision for those people to have their individual circumstances looked at. I wonder why you went down the exclusionary route. In a sense, Mr Mundell provides the answer to the question in his own question, which is that we feel that it is necessary to establish clearly the principles and purpose of the scheme. The principles and purpose of the scheme is essentially to address abuse that is taking place in care settings where the state has essentially had oversight of the care of a child. The care of the child is not in the family context. The issue of short-term respite and holiday care is one of those areas that are in the marginal territory between the two. The example that Mr Mundell sites of an individual that may have been placed repeatedly in a short-term respite environment is a further development of the marginal territory. In those circumstances, there would be the ability for Regis Scotland to consider whether or not there was a characteristic of that exceptional nature that merited consideration. However, I feel that it is necessary for us to establish clear expectations at the outset of the scheme as to what are the parameters of the scheme to enable clarity to be available to people from the start of the scheme. I will leave it there, convener, but I appreciate the further detail. Does any other member—Fergus Ewing, I believe? No, I thank convener, but I did not indicate that I wish to ask a question on this matter. That is fine, thank you. If no one else does, thank you, Deputy First Minister. Is there anything further that you wish to say on this instrument that has not previously been raised? That is all from me, convener. In that case, we will move to our next agenda item. The next item on our agenda is to invite the Deputy First Minister to move motion S6M-01400, but the Education, Children and Young People Committee recommends that the redress for survivors historical child abuse and care exceptions to eligibility Scotland regulations 2021 be approved. I invite the minister to speak to and move the motion. Move the motion to my name, convener. Do members have any comments? Would the Deputy First Minister like to wind up? I am satisfied with all that has been said, thank you, convener. The question is that motion S6M-01400, in the name of John Swinney, be approved. Are we all agreed? As with the previous draft instrument, the committee must now produce a report in respect of our consideration of this instrument. Is the committee content to delegate responsibility to the deputy convener and I to agree the report on behalf of the committee? Are you happy with that? Can I thank the Deputy First Minister and his officials for their attendance today? We will now have a two-minute suspension to allow the Deputy First Minister and officials to leave. We are going to recommend in about 30 seconds from now at 10, 18, 22 seconds from now. Our sixth item of business is the consideration of subordinate legislation, the redress for survivors, historical child abuse and care, reimbursement of costs and expenses Scotland regulations 2021. Those regulations are being considered under the negative procedure. Do members have any comments on the instrument? Is the committee agreed that it does not wish to make any recommendations in relation to the instrument? Are we agreed? The next item on our agenda is consideration of subordinate legislation, the redress for survivors, historical child abuse and care, payment of legal fees Scotland regulations 2021. The regulations are being considered under the negative procedure. Do members have any comments on the instrument? Oliver Mundell, I think that it is important to note the point of fact that there are survivors out there who continue to have concerns in this area. I do not propose that the committee make any further comment but I think that it is important to put that on the record. There have been specific representations to the committee in relation to the cost of appearance work when a solicitor appears before the panel in person. There is a concern that the cap that is currently in place on legal costs would not cover that additional expense and therefore would not cover the quality of legal work that is defined by the Law Society of Scotland. That is subject to further and on-going discussions. Having said all that, is the committee agreed that it does not wish to make any recommendations in relation to the instrument? Are we agreed? We are agreed. Our next agenda item is the final piece of subordinate legislation being considered today, legal aid and advice and assistance, miscellaneous amendment Scotland number two, regulations 2021. The regulations are being considered under the negative procedure. Do members have any comments on the instrument? Is the committee agreed that it does not wish to make any recommendations in relation to the instrument? Are we agreed? We are agreed. There will now be a brief suspension to allow our next set of witnesses to take their seats before the next agenda item. Moving on to our next agenda item, the committee will take evidence from the minister for higher education, further education, youth employment and training, Jamie Hepburn MSP and his officials on the legislative consent memorandum LCM-S6 advanced research and invention agency bill. I would like to welcome the minister to the committee this morning and the minister is accompanied by Roddie MacDonald, head of higher education and science division, and Magdalene Boyd, solicitor advanced learning and science Scottish Government. Mr MacDonald and Ms Boyd are joining us virtually. Good morning to you all. Minister, would you like to make a brief opening statement? First of all, it may have been a while since you took up the role, but it is my first time at the committee since you did, so congratulations on assuming the convenership of the committee. I very much look forward to working with the committee with you in that role. I can also thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today about the Scottish Government's perspective on the advanced research and invention agency bill. As stated in my previous letter to the committee, the Scottish Government is supportive of the overall policy intent of the area bill, namely to create a new agency with independence from government influence and minimal bureaucracy in order to give it maximum freedom to achieve its aim of supporting visionary, high-risk, high-pay-off research and development. However, the Scottish Government has had some fundamental issues with the current bill that creates area on which the UK Government failed to consult fully before its introduction in the House of Commons. Since being given site of the bill and related policy statement ask of the Scottish Government has been consistent involvement in the agency through the chief scientific adviser for Scotland and removal of the reservation currently on the face of the bill. As you know, convener, reservation is a very significant step which the Scottish Government would only recommend to the Scottish Parliament in the most compelling circumstances. I believe that Parliament would expect nothing less. The key reason given by the UK Government for including a reservation in the area bill has been to create distance between area and government. The Scottish Government has always recognised the need and, as I have set out, supports that. Reservation has always seemed a heavy-handed and unequal approach to creating distance from the Government. The committee will have seen the LCM in the name of the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills that laid out that as our position. I had intended to be here to reiterate our position, however I am very glad to announce to you that the UK Government has finally recognised that reserving area is an unnecessary step. Two days ago, I agreed in principle with my UK counterpart George Freeman on a memorandum of understanding and an amendment to remove the reservation from the area bill. It will lay out very clearly that that is the memorandum of understanding. It will lay out very clearly the principle that area will operate independently of ministerial direction from any Government. The memorandum of understanding will contain arrangements for consultation of the chief scientific adviser for Scotland on area as an alternative to board membership, something that the Scottish Government has been willing to compromise on to come to a resolution. George Freeman wrote to me yesterday afternoon following our conversation to give such an approach and I have responded to him this morning. In light of that, I anticipate that subject to cabinet agreement, the Scottish Government will seek to lodge a supplementary LCM recommending consent to the area bill as soon as the UK Government has tabled an amendment in the House of Lords to remove the reservation from that legislation. It will seek to sign the memorandum of understanding as soon as possible once it is confirmed that the other devolved administrations are also content. I trust that the committee will agree that this is a very positive development. Indeed, thank you for your statement. I think that both you and minister Freeman are to be congratulated and thanked for the way that you have resolved the Scottish Government's concerns. Having said that, I wonder whether colleagues have any further questions to ask of the minister given the very comprehensive but short statement that he has made to the committee. Bob Doris, it would be a shame, convener, not given that the minister is here to ask one or two questions just to make full use of his time. I noticed in the papers that we had, one of the concerns that the Scottish Government perhaps did have was the UK Secretary of State's power to appoint the chair and first chief executive officer for area and then the possibility of then other appointments from the UK Government at future dates to be changed to dynamic with scenario. Can you tell what the current situation is in relation to that and whether those concerns have now been fully resolved in relation to making sure that there is no political interference in the independence of the organisation? First, convener, I want to thank my friend Bob Doris for making best use of my time as he always seeks to do. Those were concerns that we had. They were concerns on the basis of the broad thrust of those that we had laid out in terms of the unequal or potential unequal balance that could exist between the two administrations. There was always the potential, as things have been laid out, for a change of approach from the UK Government. Certainly the UK Government has been consistent in talking about the independence of area. I take that at face value and I don't doubt the good faith with which that has been laid out. As things stood, there was the potential for that to change with different administrations. That will also be a creature of statute and could be subject to alteration in due course. However, we now got in place—or will have in place—a memorandum of understanding that lays out the clear independence of operation of this organisation, not just from the Scottish Government and the other devolved administrations, which had seemed to be the concern of the UK Government but also the UK Government. That takes account of those particular concerns, Mr Doris. I thank the minister for that response and give him no further questions or helpful reassurances. Does anyone else want to make good use of the minister's time before the committee today? No, I think that we are all content. It remains for me to thank the minister for his very brief initial appearance before the committee and also for his officials for his time today. The public part of today's meeting is now at an end, and we will move into private session. Can I ask members attending remotely to reconvene in five minutes on Microsoft Teams in order to allow for a comfort break? That will allow us to consider our final two agenda items in private. Thank you again, minister.