Official Report 567KB pdf
Agenda item 4 is consideration of a supplementary legislative consent memorandum on the Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill. I refer members to paper 2. The timescale for consideration of the bill in the UK Parliament means that the legislative consent motion will need to be taken in the Scottish Parliament before the October recess, which limits the options for scrutiny that are available to us. Do members have any comments on that?
I have a question not on the timescale but on the whole thing. Maybe our witnesses for the next item could answer it. [Laughter.]
No, they are here for a separate session.
It would obviously be unfair to ask them.
You could give it a go.
When I read through the papers, my only area of concern was that ministers seem happy with an informal arrangement that they will be consulted. I do not doubt that that commitment has been made in good faith or that that will be the case, but how can we be certain that, 10 years from now, several ministers later, such an arrangement will still be honoured? We cannot. That might be an inconsequential issue, which I presume is why ministers are relaxed, but I would like someone to tell me that.
I think that that is the case. Do our colleagues from the Scottish Parliament information centre have any comments on that? They do not, but Kate Nevens wishes to comment.
I, too, had made a note about whether we should seek a written assurance from our Government that it is content that there are guardrails in place for when the UK Government makes amendments to primary legislation, including acts of the Scottish Parliament. I am also keen to understand what is meant by the statement that the powers in question are “narrowly focused”. Could we maybe write—
Given the timescale, if we are not content to recommend today that the Parliament should agree to the draft motion, we can write to the Cabinet Secretary for Justice to ask for a quick reply before we do so. Are members content for me to sign off such a letter on behalf of the committee?
Members indicated agreement.
10:00
Obviously, some of our key sectors have been subject to cyberattacks. Looking at the papers, I am slightly concerned about the almost relaxed approach to clause 45, which Martyn Day referred to, and the fact that there is no statutory requirement to obtain the consent of the Scottish ministers on issues such as the resilience of the Drinking Water Quality Regulator for Scotland, because responsibility for that is devolved to Scotland and lies with the Scottish Parliament.
We need an assurance from ministers. I am happy for you to pursue the issue, convener, but I am not convinced that, when it comes to something as important as the resilience of our drinking water quality body, we should trust ministers to speak up.
That point is noted. We will write to the cabinet secretary and ask for a speedy reply.