Chamber and committees

There are frequent four-nation ministers and officials calls focusing on Covid, which take place at every level, including with the participation of the First Minister. The most recent First Minister call took place on 19 December to discuss the response to the omicron variant, and one is due to take place later today. A separate call for health ministers took place on 6 January. We will continue to engage proactively at four-nation level to protect as effectively as possible the health of the people of Scotland and to recover from the pandemic.

I understand entirely the point that Mr Rowley has put to me. Scottish ministers have raised those issues with the United Kingdom Government. I would imagine that we share Mr Rowley’s concerns about the impact of rising energy prices on household incomes, which has, coupled with the reductions in, for example, child payments under universal credit, further eroded household incomes. By doubling the Scottish child payment, the Scottish Government has taken measures to try to remedy some of the issues.

I agree with Mr Rowley about the importance of energy costs and the necessity of addressing them. Energy costs are obviously reserved, so it is entirely proper to discuss them with the United Kingdom Government. I assure Mr Rowley that Scottish ministers will continue to press those arguments to protect households in Scotland.

I understand the distinction that Mr Kidd made between businesses that remained open and businesses that closed. A measure that we have taken and that has affected a range of businesses has been provision for a number of sectors of business rates reliefs, which have been available on a continuing basis. The Cabinet Secretary for Finance and the Economy has said that those reliefs will continue for part of the next financial year.

The Government makes on-going support available through the small business bonus scheme, which assists with the costs of running small businesses in all localities in Scotland.

We have a number of strategies in place to support, for example, the retail sector, and there are developments in enterprise policy that are designed to support the very companies to which Mr Kidd referred.

Recovery from Covid remains the priority as we continue to respond to variants such as omicron. The First Minister joined four-nation Cabinet Office briefing room calls on 10 and 19 December to discuss actions across the different Governments and the co-ordination of a cross-United Kingdom response to the omicron variant. Those calls included consideration of the latest data, international travel, vaccination programmes, testing, self-isolation and the impact on public services. Funding to support additional interventions was also discussed.

Last week, the First Minister confirmed that we will publish a revised strategic framework in the next few weeks that seeks to be more sustainable, less restrictive and more proportionate as we continue to live with Covid and manage any future variants.

As Mr Fraser will be aware, we look at a range of data to inform our judgments about the appropriateness of any restrictions that are applied, and ministers have to be satisfied that those restrictions are proportionate in relation to the evidence that lies before us.

I counsel Mr Fraser against jumping to the assumptions that underpin his question. We must also factor in the fact that variants can affect different parts of the United Kingdom at different times. For example, developments in London preceded developments here in Scotland and have no doubt completed their course earlier than they will complete their course here in Scotland. Fundamentally, the Scottish Government must take the appropriate decisions that we judge to be essential to protect public health in Scotland.

Obviously, in relation to primary legislation, Parliament is at liberty to apply sunset provisions if it judges them to be appropriate. By their nature, many of the statutory instruments in relation to the handling of Covid that have been introduced through the made affirmative procedure have sunset provisions in them already. Indeed, a large number of those instruments have expired as a result of such provision. There is a role for sunset provisions. There is sunsetting provision implicit in the made affirmative procedure, in that if the Parliament does not vote for the legislation within 28 days, it lapses. There is a role for sunset provisions and the Government would be happy to consider those measures and possibilities as part of the legislative process.

I will be happy to supply any information required.

No. There is nothing intemperate about me, Mr Hoy. I am simply pointing out the absurdity of the point that you and Mr Simpson are putting to me this morning. There is endless opportunity for parliamentary scrutiny of all these issues. For example, there is the statement that the First Minister gives, and I—or one of my ministerial colleagues—have consistently been in front of the COVID-19 Recovery Committee every week. Other committees are also interrogating ministers. There has also been extensive coronavirus legislation. Although I appreciate that Mr Hoy was not in Parliament when it was put through in 2020, two very extensive pieces of legislation were put through Parliament and were scrutinised by members of Parliament. I am not in any way concerned about scrutiny. I submit myself to parliamentary scrutiny on a constant basis. The argument that Mr Hoy is putting to me this morning is—frankly—ludicrous.

In relation to the suggested alternative of a 15-minute debate on the floor of Parliament, to be honest, I think that that would attract the charge of tokenism. Mr Hoy himself just made the point that such a debate might be satisfactory because most of the material is non-contentious—I think that that is the word that he used. If it is non-contentious, it undermines the argument that Mr Hoy has put to me. If members of Parliament generally see this as non-contentious legislation that has to happen to protect public health, that surely makes my argument for me that the made affirmative procedure is the appropriate procedure for it. If issues of a cumulative nature arise out of the legislation, those can of course be resolved by further scrutiny. However, that indicates that a mountain is being made out of a molehill in relation to some of these issues.

I think that we are all agreed on the need to make sure that there is appropriate parliamentary scrutiny of any legislative instruments that come forward. That is vitally important in all scenarios. However, I am simply making the argument that, if we look dispassionately at what has happened in relation to legislation since March 2020, we see that most of what has been brought forward under the made affirmative procedure has been essential and non-contentious material that has been required to protect the public in a public health emergency.

I appreciate that there is a philosophical difference of view among members of Parliament about vaccination certification. I understand that. However, countless other measures have gone through with unanimity across the political spectrum. I take from that that there is an acceptance by members of Parliament of all political persuasions of the validity and necessity of individual pieces of legislation.

I am happy to consider that point. I view myself very much as the servant of Parliament and, if the Parliament wishes to exercise more scrutiny by asking me to be available to answer more questions on measures that are going through under the made affirmative procedure, I will do that. If the Parliament asks me to do something, provided that it is within the law, I will do it. I am a servant of Parliament. I have made it clear to the COVID-19 Recovery Committee that, provided that there is reasonable notice, I will appear before it at any time, because I view that to be my primary channel for parliamentary accountability.

Mr Sweeney is putting fair and reasonable issues to me. If the Parliamentary Bureau were to consider them in relation to the parliamentary timetable or if committees were to decide to act in a particular way, I am a servant of the Parliament in that respect, so I would be entirely happy to participate in such an approach.