Chamber and committees

Let me just finish my sentence if I may, Mr Fairlie.

The Parliament has already demonstrated, as it did two years ago, that it can move very quickly in an emergency to pass legislation. The important point—this touches on the comments that Mr Rowley made a short time ago—is that progressing in that way allows Parliament at that point to amend legislation and Parliament as a whole to lodge amendments. That method of dealing with the law is not possible if we legislate in a way that passes to ministers the power to produce regulations that Parliament cannot amend. Although Parliament has the right to say yes or no to regulations—I welcome the cabinet secretary’s amendments that will strengthen Parliament’s power—it has no power to amend them. Making this a matter of primary legislation would put the power back into the hands of Parliament not just to vote yes or no, but to lodge amendments.

As this is my first contribution, I should refer members to my entry in the register of members’ interests. I am a member of the Law Society of Scotland and I derive some income from rental properties.

I will speak to four amendments in the group—amendments 6, 7, 8 and 9—and I will comment briefly on the Government’s amendments and those of other members.

My amendment 7 seeks to remove section 1 of the bill in its entirety, which goes to the heart of our objections to the bill and asks whether it is necessary at all to legislate at the present time to make permanent what were emergency and extraordinary powers that were given to the Scottish ministers to deal with the public health crisis.

We explored those issues in detail during the stage 1 debate, so I will not rehearse all those arguments today. However, I believe that we still have to hear a credible justification as to why those public health measures need to be in the bill and why such matters cannot be dealt with in another way. The committee has heard from a range of stakeholders who share that view, and our public engagement showed, among those people who responded, a 90 per cent opposition to those measures being in the bill as proposed.

I thank Mr Mason for that intervention, but, as I set out in the stage 1 debate, there is an alternative approach, which was laid out to the committee by Professor Fiona de Londras, who said that it would be quite possible for all parties to agree draft legislation that could sit on the shelf, ready to be introduced as and when required—

Mr Whittle has made a very fair point.

That is the purpose of my amendment 7. If amendment 7 does not attract favour—it might not—I have a number of other amendments in the group that all seek to improve the measures in the bill.

My amendment 6 is very similar to amendment 11, in the name of my colleague Graham Simpson, but its reach is narrower. It requires a statement by ministers of reasons why the made affirmative procedure must be used. The committee recommended that at stage 1, following the evidence that we heard from a number of stakeholders. The amendment is very sensible and reasonable, and I commend it to colleagues.

My amendment 8 requires an assessment to be made of the impact of any regulations on impacted persons, including retail groups, industry organisations, trade bodies and any other relevant groups, before ministers introduce them. It requires ministers to consult such groups, “insofar as is practical”, prior to the introduction of such regulations. That addresses a concern that has been raised over the past two years by a variety of stakeholders, particularly in the business community, about the very negative impact that regulations have had on businesses. They were not adequately consulted on those before they were introduced, and no proper assessment of the impact was conducted. A very good example of that is the vaccination passport scheme, which, as we know, was very controversial and was strenuously opposed by business. Businesses felt that they were not adequately consulted on that before it was introduced and that no proper assessment of its impact was done. Amendment 8 would require ministers to consider the impact that regulations would have before bringing them in and to consult—but only “insofar as is practical”, because I understand the points that have been made about the need to act at speed in response to a public health emergency.

I am not expecting unanimity, nor am I proposing in amendment 8 any sort of right of veto for stakeholders against the actions of ministers. It is simply a requirement to consult. The qualification “insofar as is practical” is a recognition that, in a fast-moving public health situation, ministers may require to act very quickly. I do not want to tie the hands of ministers entirely. However, given the experience that we have had over the past two years and the quite serious concern among members of the business community about the negative impact of regulations that were imposed on them without adequate consultation, I think that we should place an obligation on ministers to consult, in so far as it is practical to do so.

Finally, my amendment 9 relates to the Covid inquiry. I think that the cabinet secretary will give a statement to update Parliament on that inquiry this afternoon. The inquiry has just been established, and we have not yet had any opportunity to hear any evidence that has been presented to the inquiry or to listen to the view of the inquiry in terms of recommendations and lessons to be learned. It seems to me rather strange that we are rushing to legislate for future pandemics before we have learned the lessons of this one. Therefore, my amendment 9 seeks to delay implementation of the bill until such time as the Covid inquiry has concluded, so that we can see what lessons might be learned.

I support my colleague Brian Whittle’s amendments 4 and 5, and I think that he has made some fair points. I am very much in support of Alex Rowley’s amendment 1. In fact, if Mr Rowley had not lodged amendment 1, I would have lodged an amendment in similar terms. Mr Rowley made an eloquent case as to why the Henry VIII powers should be removed, and he gave us a helpful history lesson in relation to the powers of monarchs in that respect. I reiterate the point that I made in response to Mr Mason and Mr Fairlie. Although I welcome the Government amendments that restrict, to an extent, the operation of Henry VIII powers by the Government, the amendments do not remove those powers entirely. Again, this is an issue about putting power in the hands of ministers rather than in the hands of Parliament.

Regulations that are introduced by ministers—however qualified they are—can only be voted for or against by Parliament. There is no opportunity for Parliament to amend the regulations. That is why I believe that removing the Henry VIII powers is an essential move, so I will support amendment 1.

Although the Government amendments in the group do not go far enough for me, they are nevertheless an improvement on the bill as drafted, and I will be happy to support them.

I listened with great interest to the comments that the cabinet secretary made and I will respond briefly.

I do not regard asking someone simply to sign a declaration—to say that they understand the role and responsibilities of being a named person—as a major bureaucratic burden. I go back to the fact that we took evidence on that from stakeholders, who were clear in their view that it would be a positive step to incorporate that particular measure. It was a unanimous recommendation of the committee in its stage 1 report and, on that basis, I press amendment 3.

I will not rehearse all the arguments that have been put forward by Edward Mountain. I have a lot of sympathy for the points that he made, and the submission to the committee from Scottish Land & Estates, NFU Scotland, the Scottish Association of Landlords and the National Trust for Scotland makes strong points about the unintended consequences of the proposed legislation.

Scotland needs to have a vibrant private rented sector. People depend on the provision of private rented accommodation—often, they are young; often, they are in transient employment and want to move from place to place. There is a concern about a reduction in the supply of private rented properties, and that is likely to be exacerbated if we continue down the route that is proposed in the bill. Mr Mountain is correct to bring some of those issues to the committee.

Amendment 147 is similar to Mr Mountain’s amendment 146, but it is narrower in scope and intended to deal with a specific issue in relation to rural communities. We know that housing in rural communities is often in short supply, and it is important that rural businesses have access to suitable accommodation for those whom they employ.

The purpose of amendment 147 is to make sure that there is a mandatory eviction ground for a landlord who owns property in a rural business, such as a farming or forestry business, who wishes to recover possession of that property to provide accommodation for an employee who might struggle to find somewhere to stay. If accommodation is not offered with employment in rural areas, particularly remote rural areas, it is simply not practical for people to take up the offer because they cannot find anywhere to stay. Amendment 147 would therefore protect a rural business or employer who wants to create employment and provide accommodation to go along with it.

My concern is that, if we do not put such a provision in the bill, the unintended consequences will be that rural landlords, who are looking ahead and might be in a position in which they can take on a new employee, might just decide to leave a property empty rather than offering it up for a long-term let, or they might decide to let it in the short term rather than make it a residential let, and that is probably not in the interests of wider public policy.

Amendment 147 is supported by the NFUS and Scottish Land & Estates. It provides a sensible balance in protecting the interests of rural communities.

Thanks. With the previous witnesses, my colleague Alex Rowley touched on the issue of how messages are communicated. We saw regular briefings on television, particularly in the early part of the campaign. Have you made any evaluation of who were the best communicators of those messages? We saw politicians—Boris Johnson and Nicola Sturgeon—giving the messages, and we saw people such as Jason Leitch and, down south, Chris Whitty giving them. Did people take the messages better from politicians or from medical professionals?

That is very diplomatically put.

Just for clarity, does Ofcom have any role in policing what is on the internet? Do you have any locus in that?