Chamber and committees

Thank you.

Good morning. I will raise a couple of issues arising from my constituency mailbag but, before that, I will ask about an issue that has been in the news this morning: the transfer from hospitals to care homes of individuals who were not tested for Covid who then died from Covid or potentially infected others with it.

Yesterday, the High Court in England determined that such practice was unlawful there. That relates to England, and the precedent does not necessarily impact on the Scottish courts, but it is clearly the subject of a great deal of discussion and public interest. Does the Scottish Government have a reaction to that High Court judgment? When might you be likely to respond on that question?

Do you have a sense of when Lady Poole is likely to report on such issues?

Thank you—that is helpful.

I want to ask about two specific constituency issues that have been raised with me. The first relates to access to the second booster, which is currently available for individuals in vulnerable groups. A constituent of mine—Mr Nolan from Dunfermline—is undergoing chemotherapy. He was offered a date for his second booster by NHS Fife, but his consultant advised that he should not take it up at that point because of the interrelationship between that and his chemotherapy. However, the consultant suggested another date some days later when he could have it. Mr Nolan called the NHS helpline to try to shift his appointment but, for whatever reason, the call handler was unable to accommodate that request.

I might be wrong but, as far as I can tell, there does not seem to be any drop-in provision for the second booster. Is there some way in which individuals such as Mr Nolan can easily rearrange appointments? At the moment, that does not seem to be happening.

Thank you for that response.

The level of parliamentary scrutiny and ministerial accountability go to the heart of our scrutiny of the bill. I will first follow up on the convener’s line of questioning about the use of the Henry VIII powers that are contained in the bill.

In their written evidence to the committee, Professor Britton and Dr Tickell said that this is a

“highly problematic element which has not been adequately explained or justified by the Scottish Government.”

They also said that the lack of comment on that in the policy memorandum is “remarkable”, and that

“this aspect of the proposals requires clear justification and anxious scrutiny.”

Why do you think that it is appropriate for ministers to have those sweeping Henry VIII powers when we have a clear alternative route, which is the use of emergency legislation? As you have already accepted, that route was used two years ago to put through the Coronavirus (Scotland) Act 2020 very quickly when that was required.

It has been suggested that effective parliamentary scrutiny of the bill could be strengthened by, for example, a duty on Scottish ministers to appear before a relevant parliamentary committee regularly, provision for creating a bespoke parliamentary committee in charge of scrutinising the emergency response, or a duty on ministers to provide to the Parliament a draft instrument in advance of the Government laying a Scottish statutory instrument.

Those are, in effect, practices that the Government has already followed, but would you be open to them being put into legislation?

Thank you.

I have a couple of particular constituency issues that I would like to raise. A number of constituents have contacted me. They are parents of children in fifth year, who are studying for their highers in a few weeks’ time. First, they are looking for an assurance that there is no prospect of the current exam diet being cancelled. We know that there are some schools with large staff absences. Also, there are constituents who are wondering what other arrangements will be in place for any pupils who contract Covid and will therefore not be able to sit their higher exams on the day required. Can you help me with that?

We are conducting parliamentary scrutiny now. Professor Britton and Dr Tickell said that there was “no explanation or justification” of the provision for Henry VIII powers in the policy memorandum. In the absence of such an explanation in the policy memorandum, can you tell us why the Henry VIII powers are required?

I will move on, as I would like to ask about the made affirmative procedure. You will know that the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee has commented on that and that, in evidence, Professor de Londras said that the made affirmative procedure

“is inherently problematic and should only be employed in exceptional circumstances.”

Professor de Londras also said that, if regulations were made under part 1 using the made affirmative procedure, a ministerial statement of the reasons for using that procedure, explaining the alleged urgency, should be provided. Would you accept that as a proposal for a way forward?