Chamber and committees

I was his chief whip, so I know that working with him was not easy.

It is trust law, title conditions, contract law and judicial factors.

It will be within the current parliamentary session. I do not know the dates.

With the greatest respect, Mr Simpson, it is a nonsense question. I do not believe that you are going to end up in such a situation. I could walk out in the street and get knocked down by a bus, but then again I might not—I might cross the road safely. You are speculating a wee bit too much there.

I spend most of my life reminding my colleagues of various regulations such as the 28-day period. I tell them that the rule is serious and that they should avoid breaching it at all costs. To be honest, I do not want to come to the committee for something that, in effect, should just be natural for us to do within the timelines. I find breaches irritating, although there have been times when they have been unavoidable. We will probably have to agree to differ on whether those cases were unavoidable. However, I agree that we need to continue to get better in our approach to the 28-day period. For me, it is a process, and we should just do the process.

In general terms, I expect the number of EU exit related SSIs to remain relatively low, compared to the number at the peak. As Mr Simpson and the convener will be aware, there was a period when that was literally all that the committee was dealing with.

I expect about 18 EU exit related SSIs up until the end of December, but that could be subject to change. Since 2019, we have lodged 74 EU exit related SSIs and I expect to see more of those during 2022, but there will not be anywhere near the number that we have had in the past.

There should be a reduction in the number.

At the end of the day, I think that we all know what dancing is and what going to a nightclub is. I know that you and Mr Kidd had a discussion about what constitutes dancing. Right enough, I have seen Mr Kidd dancing, and that is perhaps something that defies definition.

At the end of the day, when people go to a nightclub and go on to the dance floor and start doing whatever they do—for men of our age, it is known as dad dancing—that constitutes dancing, and they can take their masks off.

I think that we are dancing on the head of a pin with regards to this. I agree that we need to be clear at all times but, at the same time, we have to use a bit of common sense when we are talking about the issue. I think that most of the young people who will go to the dancing—to use a very Weegie term—will understand what constitutes dancing. I do not think that you could do it in a shop. You could not just take off your mask and start dancing in the middle of the store.

I understand the need for clarity but, as I said, there is common sense as well. Someone taking their mask off in the middle of Tesco and having a wee dance is not the same as dancing in a nightclub.

I do not have the same view of the made affirmative procedure as Graham Simpson. The procedure still offers a level of scrutiny by this committee. As I keep saying, parliamentary scrutiny and accountability are extremely important, so I agree that wherever possible we should give the Parliament the chance to scrutinise regulations before they come into effect.

However, there needs to be a balance between parliamentary scrutiny and maximising ministers’ ability to finalise decisions as near as possible to the relevant time in order to take account of the fact that the situation is changing rapidly. We live in unprecedented times; over the past 18 months there have been times when the Government has had to deal with things rapidly.

As well as all the emerging data that we receive, there are a number of moving parts in the decision-making process. A number of issues are being worked through in relation to the design and operation of the vaccination certification scheme, including how medical exemptions could be considered.

As I outlined in my letter to the committee, there is an urgent need for the measure to be implemented to provide an additional layer of protection in a limited set of higher-risk settings. I say in all honesty that I want to work with the committee on the issue, but in relation to Covid regulations I cannot, as has been the case over the past 18 months, guarantee that we will not use the made affirmative procedure. I said that to your colleague Alexander Stewart in answer to his question in the Parliament a couple of weeks ago.