Chamber and committees

Will Mr Fraser set out what he would consider to be practicable in his consultation exercise? I would contend that there was extensive consultation with a myriad of organisations. What was difficult to secure was unanimity, which I think is the point that Mr Fraser is getting at.

On a point of order, convener. For the sake of clarity, Mr Fraser’s amendment 7, which was disagreed to by the committee, sought to leave out section 1. I assume that, because of the result of that vote, you are not putting section 1 to the committee.

In the context of the judgment that you are talking about, what role do you envisage for public health advice of the nature that the Government and all public authorities received? You did not address Mr Mason’s point about the interface between the decision making of local authorities, as the bodies that are responsible for running education at local level in Scotland, and public health advice. Public health advice might lead to a conclusion with which a local authority was not comfortable, albeit that there was real danger to the public health of the local population.

However, it then says that we must have regard to it.

Amendment 29 exempts the non-educational functions of further and higher education institutions from the regulation-making powers in section 8. The effect of the amendment is that the power of ministers, under section 8, to make regulations in relation to the continuing operation of an educational establishment will continue to apply in relation to further education and higher education institutions but with the express limitation that any regulations that are made under section 8

“may not make provision relating to”

an institution’s

“non-educational functions”.

That will prevent any regulations having an effect on functions of further and higher education institutions that are not connected to the continuing operation of education.

In my response to the committee at stage 1, I committed to

“considering the scope of the regulation making powers”

for further and higher education institutions and to continuing our dialogue with stakeholders. I am grateful to Universities Scotland and Colleges Scotland for their engagement with ministers and officials on the bill, which has allowed us to make progress in that regard.

Throughout the Covid pandemic, we worked in partnership with the sectors and with student accommodation providers, trade unions and student representatives to ensure that appropriate guidance was in place to enable the safe operation of colleges, universities and student accommodation. I can confirm to the committee that, in the event of a future public health emergency, the Government’s preferred approach will be to continue that partnership approach, working with the college and university sectors and other stakeholders, as appropriate, to ensure that effective guidance is in place. We expect that the regulation-making powers in part 2, in so far as they relate to further and higher education institutions and student accommodation providers, would be used only should that partnership approach identify a need for regulatory certainty.

I hope that the amendment reassures members, and the college and university sectors, of our commitment to working in partnership with both sectors in the event of a future public health emergency. On that basis, I encourage the committee to support it.

I move amendment 29.

Amendment 29 agreed to.

Amendments 30 and 31 moved—[John Swinney]—and agreed to.

Amendment 118 moved—[Oliver Mundell].

The Government does not need any legislative encouragement to do that—we are getting on with doing it, and we have already accomplished a significant amount, as I have indicated.

I have slightly more sympathy for the proposal in amendment 142 regarding reporting on readiness for remote learning. However, it assumes that responsibility for implementing remote learning lies with the Scottish ministers. Education authorities have the relevant statutory functions in relation to provision of education, including on contingency planning. I am also concerned that an annual information-gathering exercise would create an additional bureaucratic burden on the education system, distracting operators from their core responsibilities.

As part of the continued recovery from the Covid pandemic, I would be happy to consider an approach that would review the education system’s readiness for future remote learning should that be required. If members are willing to reject amendment 142 today, I will look into that further and return with more detail ahead of stage 3. I would be happy to engage with Mr Mundell on that point.

Amendment 120 would effectively give local authorities a veto over closure of the wide range of educational establishments that are located in their area, including universities, colleges and independent schools. Whether that is the intended effect, the proposal is undesirable in terms of managing a future public health emergency that may require a co-ordinated, national response to protect those in educational establishments or the wider public.

The principle that I would put in place is that any approach in relation to dialogue cannot undermine the clarity of decision making that we require in a pandemic. I am happy to explore the matter, but that is the principle that I would bring to the conversation.

Amendment 143 would place another unacceptable delay on ministers’ ability effectively to respond to an emergency with regulations by placing on ministers a duty to explore alternatives and mitigations and then to report on their consideration through a statement to the Parliament that would accompany the regulations.

Therefore, I cannot support amendments 141 and 143.

I invite the committee to support amendments 36 to 39. I invite Oliver Mundell not to press amendment 112 and I invite him and other members not to press the other amendments in the group.

I have no closing comments, convener.

Amendment 40 agreed to.

Amendment 41 moved—[John Swinney]—and agreed to.

Section 15, as amended, agreed to.

Section 16—Bankruptcy: meaning of “qualified creditor” and “qualified creditors”

Amendments 42 and 43 moved—[John Swinney]—and agreed to.

Section 16, as amended, agreed to.

Section 17 agreed to.

After section 17

The Scottish Government has acted quickly and decisively in response to the coronavirus pandemic, recognising the unparalleled economic uncertainty that financially impacts on households. A range of measures were introduced through the Scottish coronavirus acts to mitigate the impact of that uncertainty. Among those was an extension to the moratorium period on diligence to provide a longer period of breathing space for those facing issues of unsustainable debt to fully consider their options.

A commitment was made to consider at stage 2 of the bill what would be appropriate for a permanent provision for the moratorium period. As with most provisions in the bill, consultation was undertaken on the issue and a number of options were considered, including reverting to the six-week period that is provided for in bankruptcy legislation, a 12-week moratorium period or retaining the longer protection period of six months.

The Scottish Government is acutely aware that the turmoil resulting from the pandemic has been quickly followed by the onset of additional extreme pressures on the cost of living. We also acknowledge that the committee recommended a moratorium period of 12 weeks at a minimum. Given those very real pressures, we believe that it is justified at present to make provision that continues the existing protection period of six months. All the main debt advice organisations have called for that. Amendments 44 and 45 also provide for a new specific power to revise the period of moratorium against diligence through regulations, subject to the affirmative procedure. That is considered appropriate for changes of that significance.

We have listened to the evidence that the committee heard, and there is little doubt that the current cost of living crisis will see an influx of demand on our excellent but already hard-pressed advice sector. It is very likely that many households that have previously been able to manage their budgets will come under increased pressure, resulting in their debt potentially becoming unsustainable. That is why we have retained the existing enhanced protection, but it comes with a commitment to review and introduce an amended timeframe when the current risks subside, as we hope they will. The regulation-making powers will enable flexible and rapid responses to changing economic circumstances.

For those reasons, I invite the committee to support the amendments in the group.

I move amendment 44.

Amendment 44 agreed to.

Amendment 45 moved—[John Swinney]—and agreed to.

Section 18—Giving information of particulars of birth remotely

Convener, I am afraid that I will detain the committee a little, because there is a large amount of material here on which committee members would expect me to comment. I must do so out of respect to members of Parliament. I have no plans for this evening. [Laughter.]

This is a large and important group of amendments. I will speak, first, to amendments 36 to 39 in my name. As with group 1, the key overarching amendments in the group are those that introduce the gateway vote mechanism, that is, amendments 38 and 39, which provide for the approach that the committee supported in the context of group 1; the amendments are substantively identical to amendment 23, which has just been agreed to, and the same rationale applies. They substantially address a number of concerns that members have about parliamentary scrutiny.

As I said in the debate on group 1, I have considered issues that the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee and this committee identified at stage 1, as we signalled in the Government response to the committees. Amendment 36 makes equivalent provision in part 2 of the bill, including by providing for an explanation of urgency if the made affirmative procedure needs to be used in urgent circumstances.

Amendments 16 to 18, which Mr Simpson lodged, would either mean that the made affirmative procedure was not available for regulations under that part of the bill or lead to delay. There are significant safeguards in the bill, and the Government amendments that we consider today will add to those safeguards, to ensure that regulations are made urgently only when that is necessary to meet the public health emergency that is faced, and to ensure that such regulations are in force for as short a time as possible. The amendments in Mr Simpson’s name would significantly undermine the provision that the bill puts in place with the intention of protecting people in the face of a future public health emergency.

I heard what Mr Simpson said, and I hope that he can, in good spirit, acknowledge that the Government has accepted a number of the arguments that the DPLR Committee advanced. I hope that he also accepts that I have said on the record that we should use the made affirmative procedure only where it is absolutely required.

I welcome the dialogue that is under way with that committee about a form of expedited draft affirmative procedure that would enable parliamentary scrutiny before the effect of regulations is in place. Fundamentally, as members will understand, much comes down to the definition of “expedited”.

I do not want to avoid parliamentary scrutiny at any stage, but I want Government to be able to take action that is necessary to protect public health. It is the reconciliation of that balance that is critical on this question. I will be happy to have further dialogue—I see that Mr Simpson wants to intervene.