Chamber and committees

Are members content with page six?

Members indicated agreement.

Good morning and welcome to the 14th meeting in 2022 of the COVID-19 Recovery Committee. Agenda item 1 is consideration of the draft annual report for the parliamentary year from 13 May 2021 to 12 May 2022. The purpose of the report is to set out our activities over the past year.

I propose to go through the report page by page. If you have any comments on any of the paragraphs, please just raise your hand. We will start with page 1. Are members content with page one?

Members indicated agreement.

Are members content with page 10?

Members indicated agreement.

We have reached the end of the report. Thank you very much, everybody.

I confirm that the annual report is agreed to. As today is the last day of the reporting period, the draft report will be updated to include the relevant statistics from our meeting this morning, prior to its publication tomorrow.

The committee’s next formal meeting will be on 26 May, when we will have two evidence sessions as part of our inquiry into the communication of public health information on Covid-19.

Before I close the meeting, would any member like to reflect or comment on the past year?

Are members content with page three?

Members indicated agreement.

Are members content with page four?

Members indicated agreement.

Are members content with page five?

Members indicated agreement.

Are members content with page seven?

Members indicated agreement.

I am pleased to speak in the debate on behalf of the COVID-19 Recovery Committee. I put on the record the committee’s thanks for the hard work and support of our clerking team.

I will first provide an overview of how the bill has been scrutinised at stage 1, before I outline the committee’s key findings in its stage 1 report.

The wide-ranging nature of the policy areas that are engaged by the bill arguably reflects the profound impact that Covid-19 has had on our society and our economy. As we enter the recovery phase of the pandemic and much of the temporary coronavirus legislation expires, the bill invites us to consider what lessons we have learned since 2020 and which measures should be retained to ensure that we can respond to future public health threats effectively and proportionately.

We worked with relevant subject committees to ensure that the bill received thorough and informed scrutiny to answer that question. I am grateful to the Education, Children and Young People Committee, the Criminal Justice Committee and the Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee for working jointly with our committee to scrutinise the bill. I am pleased that the conveners of those committees will take part in today’s debate, and I will therefore focus my contribution on the provisions that our committee scrutinised in parts 1 and 3 of the bill.

Part 1 contains powers to co-ordinate a national response to a public health threat. Those powers formed the backbone of the Covid-19 response but they are broadened by the bill to enable the Scottish ministers to respond to any infectious disease or biological or chemical contamination in the future.

We do not often consider legislative provisions that have had such a profound and direct impact on all our constituents, and I think that that is reflected in the high response rate to our consultation. We received more than 3,900 responses to our survey, and nearly 100 written submissions. A clear majority of the responses to the short survey were opposed to the bill. For example, more than 80 per cent of responses argued against the provisions in part 1 being made permanent. Although the responses to our survey do not form a representative sample of the population’s views, they highlight that there is significant public interest in the bill.

The committee was therefore keen to reflect on how the powers were used in response to Covid-19 and whether they provide the right framework for dealing with a future threat. I thought that it was interesting that an expert in public health drew an analogy with preparations for war, noting that

“military planners are always planning for the previous war, not the next war”.—[Official Report, COVID-19 Recovery Committee, 3 March 2022; c 4.]

When we looked into the legislative template that has been used, we found that the provisions implement the World Health Organization’s international standards for public health legislation. That is an important point. The framework was developed internationally in response to the experience with severe acute respiratory syndrome—SARS—and similar powers have been in place in England and Wales since 2008.

Part 1 of the bill largely mirrors the English and Welsh legislation, but it includes some substantive differences. The key difference that we focused on was the inclusion of the Henry VIII powers that are found in parts 1 and 6, which would enable the Scottish ministers to amend any legislation for a purpose related to the scope of the bill.

The committee noted that there are alternative approaches to the inclusion of the Henry VIII powers in the bill. The provisions could be removed entirely and brought forward in emergency legislation in the future, if required. Another approach would be to delay the commencement of those provisions until a public health emergency arises, and to give the Parliament a role in scrutinising the decision to commence the powers in those circumstances. The committee did not come to a consensus on that matter, but I welcome the fact that the Scottish Government has considered it, and I welcome the update from the Deputy First Minister in his opening speech.

Some members of the committee agreed with the general purpose of the provisions in chapter 1 of part 1, which is to enable the Scottish ministers to co-ordinate a national response to future health threats. Other members considered that the Scottish Government had not made a sufficient case as to why those powers should be made permanent. Instead, they considered that the powers could be brought forward quickly in primary legislation, if required, in the future.

However, committee members were in agreement on many aspects of the bill. We all agreed that the role of the Parliament in a public health emergency is paramount, notwithstanding the challenges faced by the Government in responding to such threats. That is why we argue that part 1 could be strengthened, including in relation to the use of the made affirmative procedure. On that, we are in agreement with the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee. My colleague Stuart McMillan will contribute to the debate, so I leave it to him to explain those recommendations in more detail.

The COVID-19 Recovery Committee would also like some of the best practice that was developed between the Parliament and the Government to be reflected in the bill, such as the reporting requirements that were contained in the temporary Covid-19 legislation and the requirement that the reviews of the use of the legislation be reported to the Parliament. We also ask that the Government consider amending the bill to require that an appeals process be created if the requirement to use the powers in part 1 is triggered. I note that the Government has indicated that it does not support those recommendations, and we may return to the reasons for and against them during the debate.

I conclude by commenting on part 3 of the bill. The non-justice measures in part 3 are aimed largely at ensuring that our public services can be delivered remotely and are intended to ensure that our public services are more resilient to any disruption in the delivery of in-person services. The committee agreed with the general principles of those provisions, but we argue that the bill should also include a requirement for local authorities to provide a choice between remote and in-person services. We also ask the Scottish Government to give further consideration to how it is going to work with local authorities and the third sector to ensure that sufficient and appropriate support is available to users of online services, particularly those who are digitally excluded. I welcome the Scottish Government’s agreement, in its response to our report, that we cannot disadvantage those who do not want to, or cannot, access public services online.

The bill also deals with the nomination of a named person under the Mental Health (Care and Treatment) (Scotland) Act 2003. We consider that the bill could be strengthened by requiring a nominated person to confirm that they have read and understood the guidance on their role, when they take it on. We also recommend that more needs to be done to ensure that people take up what is an important safeguard, and I note that the Scottish Government intends to take forward some of our recommendations in guidance.

The committee recommends that the Parliament approve the general principles of the bill. We came to that decision through a vote.

I look forward to hearing more detail on the Scottish Government’s response to our report during the debate.

Last week, the chancellor said that it was “silly” for the Tory Government to help households who are struggling with their bills. Yesterday, Boris Johnson admitted that he has not done enough to alleviate the pain of the cost of living crisis, and today, the Secretary for State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs said that to cope with the cost of living, people should choose value brands, and that the Government intervening would be throwing money at a crisis. Does the First Minister think that the Tories do not understand or simply do not care about the pressure that people face?