Chamber and committees

We do that in the delegated powers memorandum, and I rehearsed that with Mr Simpson. Fundamentally, judgments on such questions are informed by advice that the Government receives from its chief medical officer, who has a role in statute to provide such advice to Government. The chief medical officer’s views already drive a number of provisions that are in statute and have nothing to do with the bill. The chief medical officer takes a view that is based on his or her professional assessment of the situation that we face, and I would argue that that is exactly as it should be, so that we are influenced by high-quality, independent clinical and epidemiological advice about the situation that we face.

I make the point in trying to answer Mr Hoy’s question—I understand exactly why it was asked—that it almost invites me to define the indefinable, because we do not know what might come our way. If we did not feel that over the past two years, we certainly have felt it over the past two weeks in relation to the awful situation in Ukraine.

The construction of our statute book on many public health issues, which often hinges on the chief medical officer’s advice, is designed to give us the ability to interrogate and interpret events as they unfold and then come to a view on what merits the necessary action by ministers. The challenge of any part of legislation is to make sure that that advice can be offered, that it can be considered by ministers and that Parliament can exercise accountability over that judgment.

What if we encountered an unwilling partner?

Obviously, there is an argument for sunset provisions. The difficulty is that we cannot, for example, predict the moment at which we might face a pandemic, how long it will go on for, or whether—to be blunt—it will coincide with the intricacies of parliamentary sitting arrangements. We could find ourselves in a situation in which we have a gap in the statute book because Parliament is not sitting, but there would be a necessity for us to undertake particular provisions. It is about taking an orderly approach to ensuring that the statute book is in a fit state to respond to different challenges.

It would have to be considered at that time. Obviously, there are certain arrangements in the bill that mean that if, for example, the made affirmative procedure is applied but the Parliament does not support or endorse the provision, it will lapse after a given period of time. Those provisions are built into legislation at the time of its design. However, there is the provision for ministers to consider any other provisions of that nature that might come forward and which members might wish to add to the bill during its passage.

I am very sympathetic to those issues, because a fundamental point that was clear to me during all my interactions as Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills is that communication difficulties lie at the heart of many of the challenges and issues that are faced by young people who have perhaps been isolated in society or have been unable to fulfil their potential as much as they should have been. Early addressing of communication difficulties is utterly fundamental to the life chances of such individuals, so I am wholly supportive of the point that Carol Mochan has made.

As I said in my answer to Audrey Nicoll, the Covid recovery strategy is designed to tackle fundamental inequalities. We are determined to ensure that equality of access to services that support people to overcome difficulties is anchored at the heart of our strategy.

I fear that, on that point, we will go round the houses regularly for the foreseeable future because, fundamentally, the issue comes down to whether our statute book is equipped to deal with all eventualities that come our way. That is the point. That is why we are doing this. On any other day, the Conservatives could be criticising the Government for not taking enough steps. I have heard them do that on countless occasions in the past, during my service in the Parliament.

We are simply preparing the statute book for difficulties that might come our way. I hope that they do not come our way, because we want to avoid them, but if they do, I want us to be prepared and ready for them. That is not an unreasonable thing for even the Conservatives on their most grudging afternoon to come to terms with.

I am very happy to engage on that question. If Rhoda Grant wishes to supply me with further examples or areas where she believes that to be appropriate, I will happily consider them.

The Government designed a host of different business support schemes, some of which applied to a particular sector, such as hospitality. We tried to design them to have as broad a reach as we possibly could, but I accept that some businesses will not have been neatly caught by any of them. That is why we put in place discretionary relief funds for local authorities to do exactly as we envisage with the £80 million fund that the First Minister announced a week past Monday. It is designed to give local authorities the ability to address the issue that Ms Grant puts to me, which is that there might be businesses that have not been reached by discrete funds that could be supported by more general provision.

I will be happy to receive some further information and thoughts from Rhoda Grant on that question, but I also encourage her to point businesses in the direction of local authorities, which have been given substantial discretionary relief funds to try to address exactly the circumstances that she puts to me.

In a previous portfolio question, I answered questions from Mr Rennie and Ms Boyack on fairly similar territory—difficulties in updating vaccination status. I invited both Mr Rennie and Ms Boyack to advise me of the details, and we are working on the particular issues. If Mr Ruskell would like to do that as well, I will happily try to address the issues.

In a programme of such scale, there will undoubtedly be individual cases in which there are issues. The vaccination certification process has worked very well for the overwhelming majority—a huge number—of cases, but I accept that there might well be individual cases in which there are issues. If Mr Ruskell would like to give me more details, I will happily pursue those issues.

There is a need for us to remain constantly vigilant about Covid. Although we are in a much stronger position today than we were, there are obviously dangers and risks out there for us, given the prevalence of the virus. The strategic framework, which the First Minister set out last Tuesday, sets out the type of baseline measures that we will have to have in place on an on-going basis in order to maintain vigilance. Testing infrastructure will also be required. The helpful suggestion that Siobhian Brown has made is that businesses may decide voluntarily to use the certification scheme. If they wish to do so, the strategic framework encourages them to take that decision.

I gave that assurance on the Government’s behalf at the end of last week. It is important to consider the matter in its proper context. The ICO has asked the Government to redraft the privacy notice in order to present the information in a concise, transparent, intelligible and easily accessible form. That is an entirely reasonable request. Mr Lumsden will be familiar with the enormous complexity that exists in relation to the general data protection regulation. It is important that the information is set out clearly and simply, so the Government will do that.

We welcome the engagement with the Information Commissioner’s Office, but there must be acknowledgement that there is a huge amount of complexity involved in wrestling with many of the questions. The Government tries to present the information as clearly and as transparently as possible.