Chamber and committees

I believe that we have to take the matter further. I would like the Criminal Justice Committee to be informed of the evidence that has been put in front of us in relation to the failure to bring the instrument into force properly.

I am concerned to read about psychoactive substances arriving, via different formats, for prisoners from outside. However, prisoners have human rights, and I do not believe that all their communications from loved ones outside should be treated in the manner that has been suggested. The matter requires further investigation.

I take on board the points from the SCCJR. At the same time, I think that we need to be able to see, following proper investigation through the Scottish Government, the actual circumstances. I do not think that we have been given that opportunity, so that needs to be looked at.

Do you believe that the systems that we have in place, and scrutiny by committees such as this one and the COVID-19 Recovery Committee, are sufficient? Could committees potentially be afforded an opportunity to progress their scrutiny in a fuller parliamentary debate? That would circumvent, to some degree, executive domination with regard to such powers.

Thank you to both our guests. I will not take you back over everything that you have said, you will be pleased to hear. However, when Morag Ross QC spoke to us recently, she emphasised the importance of parliamentary democracy and the rule of law, and she said that there is a perceived increase in executive power.

Do you have any observations, not specifically about the impact of Covid, but about whether there is a more general shift away from legislative power towards executive power, and if so, why that might be the case?

In general terms, Covid notwithstanding, do you think that, among Governments in the UK, there has been a shift away from legislation being passed through parliamentary debate and the committee system towards executive power? Perhaps Professor Tierney could take that one first.

Thanks very much to both witnesses.

That is helpful—I thank you both.

I thank both of our guests for covering just about everything that I was going to ask about—in fact, they did so just a moment ago. I would, however like to re-emphasise the rationale for this committee’s role in the Parliament, because the purpose of scrutiny is to provide clarity of the message in law and to enhance that for us all.

Are there any possible transparency implications with regard to the use of the made affirmative procedure? Is there a danger that it might be used only to press home a political point of view, for example? I may be putting you on the spot, asking that. Is there a danger of that, and therefore a necessity that scrutiny should take place in committees before a made affirmative instrument is debated in the Parliament? Does that make sense?

Thank you very much for that. Dr Fox, do you want to add anything?

It may do no harm to raise the question of whether falcons and other birds of prey can differentiate—obviously, they cannot—between hunt species and ask what the petitioner’s response is to that question.

I agree with my colleagues.

I have seen what the Scottish Government has said that its intention is, how it is approaching the matter and to whom it has spoken about it. Even so, it would not do any harm for us to write to the Scottish Government to ask for a review of the effectiveness of the current financial support that is offered to ensure that all occupiers have the capacity to meet the regulatory requirements and be kept safe. I think that there is still some confusion among the general public, and it would not do us any harm to do that.