Chamber and committees

I will comment on one thing before I hand over to Graham Simpson. Last week, Dr Fox indicated to the committee that this type of debate has been going on since the early 1930s. It is obviously not a new debate, and it is clear that nobody has managed to reach a successful outcome since that time. I would imagine that, even if a successful outcome had been found at some point in the past or were to be found, different events will happen and different solutions will be required for them, too.

I will come back on that point, Sir Jonathan. There are three devolved Parliaments in the UK as well as the UK Parliament. I do not have a specific example, but if the UK Government brought in a made affirmative instrument to change travel restrictions to make things harder or easier, but the devolved Administrations decided not to and to keep separate arrangements, I am sure that there would be political discourse challenging the devolved Administrations on why they were not following suit and keeping the arrangements as tightly drawn as possible to enable a four-nations approach on the issue. Do you agree?

We have lost your sound, Professor Tierney.

We are about to close but, before we do so, I ask the witnesses whether they have any additional comments or points that they would like to highlight that they feel have not been covered.

The final point that I raised was about writing to the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Veterans, and we will certainly incorporate members’ thoughts.

Is the committee content with those actions?

No member has indicated that they are not content or that they wish to speak, so we are agreed.

Item 6 is consideration of instruments that are not subject to parliamentary procedure and on which no points have been raised.

Before our consideration of Scottish statutory instruments, I suggest to members that, as we are meeting online, you will find it more challenging to indicate agreement to the instruments under discussion. I therefore ask you to raise your hand if you are not content with the question being put or if you wish to talk about an instrument.

Agenda item 3 is consideration of made affirmative instruments, on which no points have been raised.

An issue has been raised on this instrument, which amends the Prisons and Young Offenders Institutions (Scotland) Rules 2011. As it was laid before the Parliament on 30 November and came into force on 13 December 2021, it does not respect the requirement in section 28(2) of the Interpretation and Legislative Reform (Scotland) Act 2021 that at least 28 days should elapse between the laying of an instrument that is subject to the negative procedure and the coming into force of that instrument.

Before I invite comments from members on whether the breach of the 28-day rule was appropriate, does the committee agree to report the instrument on reporting ground (j) for failure to lay it in accordance with laying requirements under the Interpretation and Legislative Reform (Scotland) Act 2010?

No member has indicated that they are not content, so we are agreed.

As well as the explanation provided by the Scottish Government for the breach, members will have seen the correspondence from the Scottish Centre for Crime and Justice Research. Although the letter probably focuses more on wider policy concerns instead of issues that fall within our technical remit, it also refers to the speed with which the changes have been implemented.

Do members have any comments?

Agenda item 5 is consideration of a negative instrument.

Yes, it does. My question is on the matter of urgency, which Jonathan Jones has touched on and which Dr Fox commented on last week. My question is for both witnesses. Do you have any recommendations on the definition of urgency or the mechanisms that should be put in place that Governments would have to follow before using the made affirmative procedure?