Chamber and committees

Mr Simpson is free to lodge an amendment to that effect.

We did that because of the necessity of the situation in relation to Covid, which might require us to take particular steps, as we had to do during the Covid pandemic. As a general rule of thumb, that was not envisaged as a power that was appropriate to be included in legislation of this type on a long-term basis.

Essentially, we are codifying where we can do that and where we believe that we have the basis of so acting to enable us to exercise those powers.

That goes back to the question whether, in principle, we are taking a consolidated route to the handling of the issues that have arisen around the pandemic or taking all those issues out element by element and putting them into the policy development work that we undertake on wider questions around housing and tenancies. I and other ministers have made the choice to put together a bill that, in essence, tries to update the statute book in light of the pandemic experience, instead of taking the compartmentalised approach.

I am simply saying that the Government would not ordinarily want to have the necessity of undertaking that in an emergency.

We might have to identify areas as being related to outbreaks, or we might have to restrict access to them if we are trying to prevent the spread of the virus in the same way as we had to do, regrettably, during the pandemic.

Time and again, we are going to come back to the crucial point: do we want a statute book that is fit to handle such circumstances or do we want to have to do things in a hurry? Mr Sweeney has, quite fairly, said to me that we need a process of thinking through what we need to do in certain circumstances. I am simply asking whether, on the basis of our past experience, we want to prepare the statute book for that. That is the crucial point.

That is the subject of a regular process of review, which, ultimately, involves Cabinet decisions and the statements that the First Minister has made to the Parliament on a regular basis. The process involves analytical work that is undertaken within Government to consider a range of perspectives on the state of the pandemic, such as its seriousness and the level of threat to public health. Essentially, that leads to the production of the “Coronavirus (COVID-19): state of the epidemic” report, which is published on a regular basis and is publicly available.

A group at a senior level within the Government considers that report and explores the four harms—which we have described and which committee members will have heard me talk about before—which are the direct Covid health harm, the non-Covid health harm and the social and economic harms that are caused by Covid. That group is populated by the chief advisers to the Government: the chief economist, the chief social policy adviser, the chief medical officer, the chief scientific adviser, the chief educational officer and the chief social worker. All those individuals consider that material and provide advice to the Cabinet, which makes a judgment about whether regulations are proportionate.

That is, ultimately, a judgment to be made. Indeed, the Government made it explicit last Tuesday, in its strategic framework update, that that is, always has been and always will be a judgment. However, ministers recognise—appropriately, given that all our decisions are justiciable—that we must be satisfied that the stance of regulations being proportionate can withstand legal challenge, should that arise. The Government takes such issues very seriously in its deliberations.

It all leads to a set of decisions that are taken by the Cabinet and then reported to the Parliament. Accordingly, any legislative measures that flow from that are brought to the Parliament in the fashion with which the committee will be familiar.

My reading of the Information Commissioner’s communication with the Government indicates that the issues that the Government has to address are about the explanation of the approach that has been taken to information handling, not the information handling itself. The remedial action that the Government has to take is to explain better to members of the public why their information is being handled as it is being handled. The issue is not the means of handling the information.

As to my knowledge of the situation, I became aware of the concerns of the Information Commissioner’s Office on, I think, 28 or 29 September. I would have to verify exactly which day it was, but it was one of those two.

Mr Hoy will be aware of the contents of the Information Commissioner’s letter to us last week. Obviously, the Government will take all necessary steps to ensure that we address those issues, but I stress that they are about the explanation that is given to the public about the basis on which and the way in which information is handled.

That would not be our intention. The committee will know that the Government has introduced primary legislation that aims to ensure that the statute book is equipped to deal with the uncertainties that we might have to face on an on-going basis. That is a separate issue, which will be the subject of detailed and familiar parliamentary scrutiny.

The whole point of extending the expiry date of the act through the instrument that is before the committee is to enable the Government to respond to the emerging situation that we face. I have previously been clear with the Parliament that we hope that we will not have to face those situations, but the statute book has to be equipped, should they arise.