Chamber and committees

I welcome the fact that the instrument that we will consider this morning withdraws the scheme. If the scheme were to come back in its present form, would it now be compliant with GDPR legislation?

I echo what Mr Simpson said, and I draw attention to the Deputy First Minister’s response in relation to why the powers need to be extended and how we come to a decision on the basis of their being necessary and proportionate. I thought that he gave a very full response in relation to that, but he said that it all comes down to the judgment of the minister at the end of the day.

In the light of the fact that the particular provision on boarding accommodation that Mr Simpson referenced was not used throughout the height of the pandemic or at the most extreme periods, I think that it may fail that test of being necessary. On that basis, I am minded to vote against the instrument.

Good morning, Mr Swinney. I will open with a slightly wider question that relates to two of the instruments that are before us today. In a parliamentary debate last September, you said that the Government was committed to removing regulations when they were no longer necessary. You said that

“regulations and restrictions have been removed when the situation has improved.”—[Official Report, 9 September; c 96.]

You acknowledged that today, with regard to the expiry of many of the restrictions and regulations. However, at a point in time when the situation has markedly improved, you are still seeking the extension of many of those powers, such as the power to release prisoners early. Your justification for that is that you believe that those powers are still necessary and proportionate. Could you perhaps say a little about how you make that assessment about whether something is necessary and proportionate? Has that changed over time?

Thank you for that full answer.

Obviously, any measures need to be not only necessary and proportionate, but legal. Last week, we considered measures on Covid passports—indeed, we will do so again this week, but thankfully in relation to the expiration of the present system. We also discussed another potentially contentious SSI last week—the Health Protection (Coronavirus) (Requirements) (Scotland) Amendment (No 4) Regulations 2022—which gives you the power to maintain the wearing of face masks and to reintroduce Covid passports at some point in the future. I wonder whether you can reflect on the evidence that was given by the Government’s business manager, Mr Adam, who told the committee that Covid passports were compliant with the general data protection regulation and that your Government

“would not do anything illegal.”—[Official Report, Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee, 14 September 2021; c 9.]

Now that we know that the Information Commissioner warned ministers that the plan was unlawful, would you like to take the opportunity to correct the record? Can you also tell us when the commissioner’s concerns were first raised with you?

You mentioned that there were three quite significant in-year budget changes in 2021. Can you give the committee a flavour of how such changes are monitored and reported, particularly in relation to that Covid-related expenditure?

I want to look at the transparency of reporting on the record amounts of money that were spent on the Covid pandemic last year and the year before. At the beginning of the meeting, you summarised the situation, and the fact is that record amounts of money—£10.7 billion more—were pumped in in 2020-21, with £8.6 billion of Barnett consequentials from the UK Government and a budget underspend of £580 million. Looking at those figures, do you agree with the Auditor General that there should be greater transparency in the Government’s financial reporting of Covid-related expenditure?

Looking at the overall levels of public expenditure in Scotland, including non-Covid moneys, I would suggest that we have seen record amounts of money and perhaps more complex arrangements than we have ever seen in the history of devolution. We have record spending, the levelling up agenda and huge Covid disbursements through local authorities as well as the upcoming health and social care levy. Given that that set of spending arrangements is perhaps more complex than we have ever seen since this Parliament was created, would you welcome and possibly encourage greater UK-level oversight and scrutiny of spending in Scotland?

Will you give the committee some flavour of the underlying reasons for the underspend of £580 million? How much of that is available through the Scotland reserve?

Good morning, Mr Boyle. Thank you for joining us on what I understand is a busy morning.

I am looking for clarification. Your report provides information on Scottish Canals’ financial performance for 2020-21. However, it is not clear from the report whether you have any specific concerns about Scottish Canals’ financial performance, or the information that you set out is in the report in order to provide the broader context of the overall situation. Will you clarify your position on that?

If I can just return to transparency around Covid-related spending, Mr Marks, could you say what plans the Scottish Government has to be more open and to make clear links between the budgets, the funding arrangements and the spending on the ground in relation to Covid?