Chamber and committees

Obviously, in relation to primary legislation, Parliament is at liberty to apply sunset provisions if it judges them to be appropriate. By their nature, many of the statutory instruments in relation to the handling of Covid that have been introduced through the made affirmative procedure have sunset provisions in them already. Indeed, a large number of those instruments have expired as a result of such provision. There is a role for sunset provisions. There is sunsetting provision implicit in the made affirmative procedure, in that if the Parliament does not vote for the legislation within 28 days, it lapses. There is a role for sunset provisions and the Government would be happy to consider those measures and possibilities as part of the legislative process.

I will be happy to supply any information required.

No. There is nothing intemperate about me, Mr Hoy. I am simply pointing out the absurdity of the point that you and Mr Simpson are putting to me this morning. There is endless opportunity for parliamentary scrutiny of all these issues. For example, there is the statement that the First Minister gives, and I—or one of my ministerial colleagues—have consistently been in front of the COVID-19 Recovery Committee every week. Other committees are also interrogating ministers. There has also been extensive coronavirus legislation. Although I appreciate that Mr Hoy was not in Parliament when it was put through in 2020, two very extensive pieces of legislation were put through Parliament and were scrutinised by members of Parliament. I am not in any way concerned about scrutiny. I submit myself to parliamentary scrutiny on a constant basis. The argument that Mr Hoy is putting to me this morning is—frankly—ludicrous.

In relation to the suggested alternative of a 15-minute debate on the floor of Parliament, to be honest, I think that that would attract the charge of tokenism. Mr Hoy himself just made the point that such a debate might be satisfactory because most of the material is non-contentious—I think that that is the word that he used. If it is non-contentious, it undermines the argument that Mr Hoy has put to me. If members of Parliament generally see this as non-contentious legislation that has to happen to protect public health, that surely makes my argument for me that the made affirmative procedure is the appropriate procedure for it. If issues of a cumulative nature arise out of the legislation, those can of course be resolved by further scrutiny. However, that indicates that a mountain is being made out of a molehill in relation to some of these issues.

I think that we are all agreed on the need to make sure that there is appropriate parliamentary scrutiny of any legislative instruments that come forward. That is vitally important in all scenarios. However, I am simply making the argument that, if we look dispassionately at what has happened in relation to legislation since March 2020, we see that most of what has been brought forward under the made affirmative procedure has been essential and non-contentious material that has been required to protect the public in a public health emergency.

I appreciate that there is a philosophical difference of view among members of Parliament about vaccination certification. I understand that. However, countless other measures have gone through with unanimity across the political spectrum. I take from that that there is an acceptance by members of Parliament of all political persuasions of the validity and necessity of individual pieces of legislation.

I am happy to consider that point. I view myself very much as the servant of Parliament and, if the Parliament wishes to exercise more scrutiny by asking me to be available to answer more questions on measures that are going through under the made affirmative procedure, I will do that. If the Parliament asks me to do something, provided that it is within the law, I will do it. I am a servant of Parliament. I have made it clear to the COVID-19 Recovery Committee that, provided that there is reasonable notice, I will appear before it at any time, because I view that to be my primary channel for parliamentary accountability.

Mr Sweeney is putting fair and reasonable issues to me. If the Parliamentary Bureau were to consider them in relation to the parliamentary timetable or if committees were to decide to act in a particular way, I am a servant of the Parliament in that respect, so I would be entirely happy to participate in such an approach.

I will, of course, do so, convener.

The issue hinges on the question of urgency. The Government budgets on requiring 54 days to be confident that legislation can be enacted under the affirmative procedure. There is a world of difference between a timetable of 54 days and the requirement to apply, for example, international travel restrictions or some form of regulation of the opening hours of hospitality businesses, as we have had to do recently. In circumstances where urgent action is required, we cannot wait 54 days to do that, so I will be interested to hear what the committee suggests in that respect.

If the choice is between a made affirmative procedure that enables us to act urgently to protect public health and an affirmative procedure that takes 54 days, I am afraid that I will come down on the side of the made affirmative procedure, because the decisions that the Government has had to arrive at have had a material impact on the protection of life and limb. To be frank, the timescales that are normally associated with affirmative regulations do not allow for that.

I am open to considering how such measures can be enhanced. My predecessor in handling such issues, Michael Russell, came to pragmatic agreements with the COVID-19 Committee on making regulations available in draft so that that committee could discuss them and ask questions about them at its routine meetings before they were enacted. Those were pragmatic measures to enhance the operation of the legislative system. However, I am happy to consider any other proposals that this committee makes.

Before I answer that question, there was a slight interruption in the line, so I missed what I think was a pretty crucial word in Craig Hoy’s question. Was it about delegated legislation?

The simple rationale was the belief that vaccination certification would be a valuable tool in boosting levels of participation in the vaccination programme among key groups in society and that that would help us to protect public health. There was a necessity to make progress with the vaccination programme as swiftly as we could. Effective participation in the vaccination programme has been an integral part of the strategy to protect the public from Covid, so it was an absolute necessity to drive participation in the programme.

I certainly welcome the contribution that Scottish Hazards and other organisations, as well as trade unions, have made to the process. As Mr Rowley will know, the Government has placed an obligation on business to take account of the requirements that the Government has placed on it to observe the guidance that the Government publishes, and that guidance could not be clearer that, where individuals can work from home, they should work from home. That is part of reducing the social interaction that is taking place in society. If we reduce social interaction—there is reasonable evidence that that is happening—we will contribute to breaking the chains of transmission. I am not familiar with any issues with the funding of Scottish Hazards, but I will look at that, because it makes an important contribution.

If I may, convener, I will return to my previous answer to Mr Rowley. If it would be helpful, I would be happy to write to the committee about the details of the exemption process. There are some wider exemptions from the self-isolation obligations that can be pursued, although, as Professor Leitch said in response to Mr Rowley, they are not exemptions without obligations. There are quite onerous requirements on individuals. However, there are exemptions and, ultimately, organisations can make representations to ministers. I have personally approved a number of exemptions for individual companies, which, without those exemptions, would not be able to provide critical services in the community. Ministers are responding to such requests from companies very swiftly. I will write to the committee on that.

That is about us managing the public finances to minimise negative outcomes for individuals. We will have to consider the timing of programmes and the times at which we authorise and approve financial commitments so as to get as much flexibility as possible.

There are always underspends in a financial year. In a fixed budget, there have to be underspends, or we run the risk of breaching the budget ceiling. The Scottish Government has never breached its budget ceiling, and 16 years of unqualified opinions from the Auditor General are a demonstration of our financial competence. You have to run an underspend if you want to deliver an unqualified audit opinion.

There will therefore be underspends, and we must ensure that those underspends happen in order to deal with the expenditure that we are facing.