Chamber and committees

Thank you for that response.

The level of parliamentary scrutiny and ministerial accountability go to the heart of our scrutiny of the bill. I will first follow up on the convener’s line of questioning about the use of the Henry VIII powers that are contained in the bill.

In their written evidence to the committee, Professor Britton and Dr Tickell said that this is a

“highly problematic element which has not been adequately explained or justified by the Scottish Government.”

They also said that the lack of comment on that in the policy memorandum is “remarkable”, and that

“this aspect of the proposals requires clear justification and anxious scrutiny.”

Why do you think that it is appropriate for ministers to have those sweeping Henry VIII powers when we have a clear alternative route, which is the use of emergency legislation? As you have already accepted, that route was used two years ago to put through the Coronavirus (Scotland) Act 2020 very quickly when that was required.

It has been suggested that effective parliamentary scrutiny of the bill could be strengthened by, for example, a duty on Scottish ministers to appear before a relevant parliamentary committee regularly, provision for creating a bespoke parliamentary committee in charge of scrutinising the emergency response, or a duty on ministers to provide to the Parliament a draft instrument in advance of the Government laying a Scottish statutory instrument.

Those are, in effect, practices that the Government has already followed, but would you be open to them being put into legislation?

Thank you.

I have a couple of particular constituency issues that I would like to raise. A number of constituents have contacted me. They are parents of children in fifth year, who are studying for their highers in a few weeks’ time. First, they are looking for an assurance that there is no prospect of the current exam diet being cancelled. We know that there are some schools with large staff absences. Also, there are constituents who are wondering what other arrangements will be in place for any pupils who contract Covid and will therefore not be able to sit their higher exams on the day required. Can you help me with that?

We are conducting parliamentary scrutiny now. Professor Britton and Dr Tickell said that there was “no explanation or justification” of the provision for Henry VIII powers in the policy memorandum. In the absence of such an explanation in the policy memorandum, can you tell us why the Henry VIII powers are required?

I will move on, as I would like to ask about the made affirmative procedure. You will know that the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee has commented on that and that, in evidence, Professor de Londras said that the made affirmative procedure

“is inherently problematic and should only be employed in exceptional circumstances.”

Professor de Londras also said that, if regulations were made under part 1 using the made affirmative procedure, a ministerial statement of the reasons for using that procedure, explaining the alleged urgency, should be provided. Would you accept that as a proposal for a way forward?

My second question is on an entirely separate matter, concerning vaccinations.

Over-75s are currently being called for their second booster. I have been contacted by someone living in the Rannoch area, which you know well. At present, residents are being directed to travel to the vaccination centre in Pitlochry, which is a substantial round trip and difficult for people who rely on public transport. Could rural GP practices be authorised to deliver vaccinations for people who have transport difficulties? Is the Scottish Government considering that?

I would like some clarification on an issue that has been discussed over the past day in relation to education. Following yesterday’s announcement about lifting the requirement to wear face masks from 18 April, there seems to be some confusion about what situation will apply in schools, where face masks are still being worn in communal areas. Yesterday, a Scottish Government spokesman said that face coverings would still

“be required in communal areas for staff and secondary school pupils”

after 18 April, but that seems to have been reined back on this morning. Will you clarify exactly what the position is, Deputy First Minister?

Good morning, Deputy First Minister. I hope that you are feeling a bit better.

I will ask some questions about the exercise of ministerial powers. However, before I do that, as you referred to public consultation earlier in your comments, I will ask about that first.

It is fair to say that, when it ran its own consultation, the Government found a wide degree of public concern about and opposition to what is being proposed. The committee ran its own survey with the public with a call for views. We received just short of 4,000 responses from the public, of which 90 per cent were in opposition to the bill, with people expressing concerns about the impact on personal liberty and the lack of parliamentary scrutiny over what is proposed. In two decades, I cannot remember a piece of legislation in this Parliament attracting that level of public concern. Can you?

It is de Londras.