Chamber and committees

Perhaps we can decide that in private when we discuss the evidence rather than your own personal views, convener.

I hope that we will discuss that later, convener.

This has been a really interesting line of questioning. There is obviously a debate over whether the powers should be permanent but used only in extremis, when there are major public health emergencies.

Separate to that, when I asked the representatives from Universities Scotland and Colleges Scotland last week about the issues with regard to the current suite of powers for dealing with the coronavirus pandemic, Alastair Sim from Universities Scotland said that the bill mirrors the powers in the Coronavirus (Scotland) Act 2020 in many respects. I asked Mr Sim what criticisms he had made at the time when those 2020 powers were being considered—powers that I accept never had to be used, because of the great partnership working. He did not really say anything about that, but he did say:

“If the Government had reached for those emergency powers, it might have found them quite problematic to use”.—[Official Report, Education, Children and Young People Committee, 2 March 2022; c 13.]

Were you aware of any concerns from Universities Scotland at that time? Other than the current statement from Alastair Sim on Universities Scotland’s position, are you aware of any issues that Universities Scotland has had since then about the current suite of powers?

Thank you. That was very helpful.

Thank you. I should say that Mr Sim pointed out that he had only four sitting days in which to respond on the specifics of the emergency powers. The point was more about the issues that have been raised since the 2020 act was passed.

When I asked Mr Little from Colleges Scotland about the issue, he did not raise concerns about specifics but he said:

“We raised concerns about the throughput of officials who had to produce the legislation.”

I think that his point was about officials’ workload. He then said that there was a

“real danger of getting a weekly or even daily diktat”.—[Official Report, Education, Children and Young People Committee, 2 March 2022; c 15.]

I was surprised by that comment—I did not think that such a position was reasonable. Of course, it is not my position to take, but, on reflection, I think that I can put Paul Little’s comment to you, cabinet secretary, so that you can reply to it. What reassurance can you offer that, in taking the powers, the Government has no intention of making a weekly or daily diktat?

My final question is about the distinction that you have drawn between the power of direction and the power to make regulations. I am guessing that regulations would be made from time to time, based on the CMO’s advice and the state of the public health emergency, whereas directions could, in theory, be given daily or weekly. Could you say a little more about how, if the regulation-making powers had to be used, they would be used proportionately, to reassure the college and university sector that the goalposts would not be moved on a daily basis, which might have been its underlying concern?

That is fine. As things stand, the bill is fit for purpose to cope with that.

Treaties get signed, but they also fall into abeyance and countries withdraw from them. It is therefore reasonable to ask whether it would be open to Scottish Government ministers to continue to extend candidacy rights to schedule 6A nationals even when a treaty came to an end by not exercising the powers in paragraph 3 of the proposed new schedule 6A of the 1973 act. “Renege” is perhaps the wrong word, but, if the UK Government were to withdraw from a treaty, would the Scottish Government be keen to ensure that those candidacy rights were not lost? Does the bill contain provisions to ensure that that can happen?

Good morning, Fergus. I have to admit that I am no expert on the wood panel industry in Scotland, as will become apparent. I looked at the committee papers and, because I do not know the sector, it seemed slightly unusual that, where you have listed the organisations that are involved in the cross-party group, you refer to only the Wood Panel Industries Federation and Invicta Public Affairs. Normally, a whole host of organisations and stakeholders come forward to partner with cross-party groups, so that seems quite limited.

I think that you said that there are three main wood panel manufacturers in the UK that are based in Scotland and that they are the key stakeholders in the Wood Panel Industries Federation. I am interested to know whether there are other players in the wood panel industry—perhaps smaller manufacturers that might have a voice and provide different perspectives. I have no idea where large timber merchants fit in. Any more information that you can provide on that would be welcome and helpful.

Due to time constraints, I will roll my two questions together. As I listened to your answers, I was reflecting on the fact that most Scottish consumers do not think about the supply and sustainability of wood, or the economic contribution, job creation or employment involved in the industry. Is there a wider mission for the group to think about how Weegies such as me, who just pitch up and buy their furniture, can learn more about the sector and the contribution that it makes to the economy?

That is very helpful.