Chamber and committees

I thought that it would be much safer to turn up in person than to rely on technology. For the new member of the committee, I note that, two weeks ago, I tried to make my pitch but my parliamentary Surface device decided to turn itself off as I was in mid-flow and about to get into the meat of the issue.

I will go over some old ground. In the previous parliamentary session, two cross-party groups covered work related to that of the proposed CPG on sustainable transport. There was a CPG on cycling, walking and buses, of which I was co-convener, and a separate CPG on rail, of which John Mason was co-convener.

In the previous session, a number of us who were involved in the two groups got together and thought that it might make sense to merge them into one group in the next session. Those talks have continued, and we decided that it made far more sense to have just one group.

As you will be aware, convener, part of the reason behind that is the problem—which we will probably face as we go through this parliamentary session—of MSPs attending CPGs. There is a rush of enthusiasm at the start, then numbers start to tail off. Perhaps that is an issue that the committee could monitor. That situation is not fair on the groups that turn up, particularly if it is an in-person meeting.

I turn to what the proposed CPG would intend to do. In the past, CPGs have tended to become talking shops, where people who agree with each other speak to one another They go away and everybody is happy but then nothing happens. To make it worth while, a CPG should actually do something—it should do some work, do research and produce reports. I want to be involved in the CPG on sustainable transport because everyone who is involved in it agrees with that.

We have a programme for the first year. If the establishment of the CPG is approved, the first piece of work would be to look at traffic reduction policy. Last week, the Scottish Government produced a paper spelling out how it would like to see car miles reduced over the next few years. We would drill down into that.

If our establishment is given approval this morning, the CPG will meet at lunchtime and we will have a presentation from Scottish Government officials and someone from Transport Scotland, to get that ball rolling. We would probably like to meet every month. We have quite a programme of work. We would seek to produce reports with recommendations.

We would look at traffic demand management and at how to get the modal shift so that people walk, cycle and use public transport more. I know that there is at least one committee member who has strong views on that. That issue is really important.

Whatever you think of cars, getting people more active is a positive thing. That is what the group will consider. It will also look at public transport. It is vital that we consider ways to help public transport to build back better, if I can borrow a phrase, and get more people on to buses and trains. The CPG will not be a talking shop; it will be a working group.

I am happy to take any questions.

That is a really good idea. Actually, as Jamie Halcro Johnston said earlier in the meeting, cross-party groups can work together, which has happened in the past. There is a big opportunity in that respect.

My door is always open to you, Mr Doris, and to any other member who wishes to pop in.

You are absolutely right. We need to cover all sectors of society, including people who are disabled, elderly people and young people. I am looking at the extensive list of organisations that we have, which is our initial group of members—more have wanted to join since that list was compiled—and I do not see any disability-specific groups.

Yes. Thank you, convener. It is a pleasure to join you this morning.

Before I get into my pitch for the CPG, I will just say how much I enjoyed the committee’s recent debate in the chamber. I thought that it was excellent, and I appreciated your kind comments afterwards, convener. During that debate, I mentioned—I am being really cheeky here, but this is to inform the committee—that I have a proposed member’s bill coming up. The consultation for that will go live next Thursday, and I will send it to the committee.

Having got that out of the way, I will talk about the CPG on sustainable transport. The background is that, in the previous session, there was a CPG on cycling, walking and buses and a separate CPG on rail. Those of us who were members of one or both of those groups got together and decided that it would make sense to merge them and call it the cross-party group on sustainable transport. Those who were involved in those—[Interruption.]

Mr Swinney, I want to ask about something that witnesses have raised and that we have not covered yet: the idea that we should introduce sunset provisions in both primary and secondary legislation. What are your thoughts on that?

I can comment on them all. SSI 2021/478 is not contentious, so I will not say a great deal about it. It relates to a technical issue in the chamber. MSPs were unable to vote on a previous set of regulations, which therefore expired. The regulations have now been relaid—that is now out of the way.

However, I take a different view on the other regulations, which came in over the festive period and which relate to leisure, sporting events, theatres, pubs and night clubs. Members of the public and the people who are involved in those sectors know very well what happened. Sporting events were closed down; the football calendar—certainly, the Scottish Premier League—was put on pause—[Inaudible.]

We have just been discussing the made affirmative procedure. My view is that the use of that procedure for those regulations was not appropriate. They would have benefited from some scrutiny but they had none. Parliament could have made time for the use of the affirmative procedure. We have acted—[Inaudible.]—at times previously. The affirmative procedure is the better procedure to use in such instances. On that basis, I will be moving against SSIs 2021/475, 2021/496, 2021/497 and 2021/498.

Yes, thank you. Can I carry on, convener?

Thanks very much. I will spare the officials from now on, which they will be pleased to hear.

I note the Deputy First Minister’s comment that he does not want the use of the made affirmative procedure to become normal. Well, it has become normal. If we look at some figures, we see that, since the start of session 4 up to the end of 2019, the made affirmative procedure was used nine times. Then, from 20 March 2020 to 2 December 2021, it was used 132 times, the vast majority of which were for coronavirus regulations. The percentage of those that were reported—generally for mistakes, which is what this committee picks up on—was 11.6 per cent. That is quite a high number.

It has become normal because the Government has got into the habit of using the procedure—and it is a procedure. If I can put it in layman’s terms—I will ask Mr Swinney to respond to this when I have finished—the Government has been ramming through laws at breakneck speed with little to no oversight. It is an affront to democracy. In fact, the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee at Westminster called it “government by diktat”. I agree with that.

When, retrospectively, the laws eventually come before Parliament, there is very little debate—in fact, there is no procedure in this Parliament for a proper debate. All that is very unsatisfactory. Do you recognise the problem? If so, what do you intend to do about it?

Ms Rayner might want to say something, convener.

I welcome the Deputy First Minister to the meeting. We are all grateful that he is here, and I am interested to hear what he has to say.

Mr Swinney, I note that you have brought three officials with you, and I wonder whether we could start off by hearing from them, because they are the people who have to draft the laws, which is being done at breakneck speed a lot of the time. Before I question you, Mr Swinney, could we hear something from the officials about their experiences of having to make legislation during the pandemic at great speed?