Chamber and committees

I agree with everything that the convener has said, but the instrument highlights a problem concerning the need to be clear in law about what is meant. If it was the Scottish Government’s intention that people in nightclubs who are dancing are not required to wear face masks, why did it not just say that? The word “dancing” appears nowhere. That is probably because it is very difficult, if not impossible, to define dancing in law.

We saw an example of someone dancing in a nightclub in Aberdeen over the weekend. Some people may call that dancing, but some will not. One man’s backward walk is another man’s dancing. It is very difficult to say what we mean. The Scottish Government said that dancing can be

“taking part in exercise of a type that reasonably requires that the person is not wearing a face covering.”

However, while dancing can be exercise, it does not have to be. It is a recreational activity that is not necessarily strenuous. That makes it difficult, if we want to be clear in law, which we do.

It is worth highlighting to the lead committee that there are issues with the instrument. My guess is that the reality in nightclubs—not that I have been to one for many years—is that people take off their face masks as soon as they get inside, whether or not they are dancing. The lead committee should look at the matter, accepting that as a reality. The instrument falls down in terms of clarity of the law and we should highlight that.

I will just quote from the coalition agreement. It states:

“The current plan is to fully dual the A96 route between Inverness and Aberdeen.”

It goes on to talk about having a “transparent, evidence-based review” to

“include a climate compatibility assessment.”

Can the First Minister say whether or not the A96 will be fully dualled?

I want to ask about face coverings. The First Minister has made it clear that she thinks that the law on face coverings should remain. However, she will be aware that that restriction was removed in England a couple of weeks ago, and most people are choosing to continue to wear them. What needs to happen for the First Minister to change her mind on face coverings, so that we can enjoy the same freedoms that are enjoyed in England?

I will press amendment 1 and I assure the Deputy First Minister that my career chances were over some time ago. [Laughter.] My colleagues will, no doubt, testify to that. I am not a mind reader, but I was trying to delve into the Deputy First Minister’s mind from afar and I seem to have got that right. I welcome his comments.

Amendment 1 agreed to.

I thank you, Presiding Officer, for accepting my amendment, which is the same amendment that I spoke to yesterday, when it was in a group with another amendment. It is not my practice to bring back amendments that have already been debated, but we ended up in a pretty strange situation yesterday. My amendment yesterday was on licensing boards. The other amendment, which was in the name of Alex Cole-Hamilton, dealt with councils. In essence, they both sought to do the same thing, which was to expire the provision that allows those bodies to bar members of the public from their meetings.

My argument was then, and is now, that licensing boards and councils should by September be allowing members of the public into their meetings. There is no justification for their continuing not to do that.

We ended up in a situation in which the amendment that dealt with councils was accepted but the amendment in my name, which dealt with licensing boards, was not. That seemed to me to be completely illogical. I went home rather perplexed by that, but I thought that the Deputy First Minister would realise the inconsistency of the situation and think that it would probably be worth relodging the amendment. I thought that he would realise that we are in a pretty daft situation and would reflect on that. I hope that he has: he is normally a reasonable man. I look forward to hearing his comments.

I move amendment 1.

I had better say something, seeing as Murdo Fraser has teed me up. [Interruption.] It is too late for that.

I want to comment on amendment 11, in the name of Paul Sweeney. Mr Sweeney has got it completely wrong. The bill is classed as emergency legislation—we do not see it as that, but that is the way that we are dealing with it. Mr Sweeney seemed to want to introduce a wider transport debate, and of course he rightly points to the provisions in the Transport (Scotland) Act 2019, some of which have not yet been enacted. Parliament can have that debate when those provisions come into force—now is not the time.

I welcome the colossal sums that have been put into the bus industry and rail services to keep public transport moving. That has been vital. What we cannot do, as we move on, is make it a “condition of support”—those are the words in Mr Sweeney’s amendment—that private bus companies, which Mr Sweeney appears to hate, and local authorities can receive support only if they move down a regional franchising route. I should point out to Mr Sweeney that we are talking about emergency support.

I think that Mr Sweeney has got this completely wrong, and we will oppose amendment 11.

There are two amendments in the group—my amendment 12, which relates to licensing boards, and amendment 13, in the name of Alex Cole-Hamilton, which relates to meetings of councils, and which I support.

Yesterday, the First Minister gave an unusually upbeat statement to Parliament, albeit with her usual caveats. If we are to take her at her word, life should return to something like normal in the next few weeks. Social distancing should be coming to an end by August: we will be able to go to the theatre and return to watching football in numbers next to our mates, and office staff will get back to work with colleagues and not just chat to them using Teams. You never know—MSPs might be able to occupy all the seats in the chamber by September, which would be a good thing.

If all that happens by September—it should, if we believe the First Minister—and if we judge by the figures that she has announced, there is simply no reason at all left for why licensing boards and councils should be able to exclude the public from their meetings. The public health reasons for having the restrictions were good, because they allowed licensing boards and councils to continue, but those reasons do not now exist. By the end of September, physical distancing will not be a thing, so licensing boards and councils should be meeting in public—not virtually—by that point.

Public access to such meetings is an essential part of our democracy, so to allow the restrictions to go on longer—it could be up to a year longer, when the public would not be allowed into the meetings—would be beyond the pale. There is no reason to allow it.

I move amendment 12.

I will press amendment 12. I am slightly confused by the Deputy First Minister’s response. On one hand, I am encouraged that he agrees with Alex Cole-Hamilton’s amendment 13, but on the other I am utterly baffled as to why he would agree that councils should meet in public but not agree that licensing boards should do so.

Licensing boards are made up of councillors, so they are, essentially, the same thing—a meeting of councillors, who are just dealing with different matters. Therefore, there is no logic to what the Deputy First Minister has said. I encourage members to back both amendments in the group, because they would do the same thing. They are about democratic accountability.

I used to be on a licensing board. I therefore know that licensing matters can be contentious, so it is important that the public are allowed to sit in on those meetings. In my earlier comments, I accepted that the restrictions were necessary at the time and that they have allowed licensing boards to continue, but there is no reason for the restrictions to persist.

I nominate Stuart McMillan to be convener.

I am content, within the remit of this committee. However, one of the instruments, SSI 2021/242, relates to the travel restrictions from Scotland to Manchester. It is important that people realise that, under the remit of this committee, there are no grounds on which the committee can challenge the regulations.

I have reservations about that particular instrument on a technical level, and I think that it will be difficult, if not impossible, to enforce. However, I will have the opportunity to raise questions about that later. I am merely pointing out, for the benefit of people watching this who might be wondering why on earth we are not saying anything about the instrument, that that is because, under the terms of this committee, the grounds on which we can push back on certain regulations are restricted. However, the Parliament will have a chance to question ministers later this afternoon.