Meeting of the Parliament (Hybrid) [Draft]

Meeting date: Thursday, February 24, 2022

Official Report 1048KB pdf

---

Parliamentary Bureau Motion

The next item of business is consideration of Parliamentary Bureau motion S6M-03341, on approval of a Scottish statutory instrument. I ask George Adam, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, to move the motion.

Motion moved,

That the Parliament agrees that the Health Protection (Coronavirus) (Requirements) (Scotland) Amendment (No. 4) Regulations 2022 [draft] be approved.—[George Adam]

I call Murdo Fraser.

16:53  

Presiding Officer, I wish to oppose motion S6M-03341, which relates to a statutory instrument that extends the Scottish Government’s extraordinary emergency powers in response to the Covid pandemic for a further six months, from 1 March until the end of September this year. That will mean that, in total, the Scottish ministers will have held those powers for two-and-a-half years. That includes the powers to require vaccination passports for entry to certain premises and to make face masks mandatory. The instrument is only a precursor to the Scottish National Party’s intention to make the emergency powers permanent. That cannot be acceptable.

Across all parts of the United Kingdom, we have seen a relaxation of the legal restrictions that were previously imposed to tackle Covid. We saw that first in Wales, then last week in Northern Ireland and, on Monday, the Prime Minister announced a scrapping of the rules in England. In all those jurisdictions, rules are being ditched. We are at the point at which

“we move away ... from legal restrictions and rely instead on sensible behaviours, adaptations and mitigations.”—[Official Report, 22 February; c 20.]

Those are not my words, but those of the First Minister in this very chamber on Tuesday afternoon.

Why, if that is the position of the Scottish Government, do we need to have these emergency powers in the hands of ministers for a further six months? Surely, it is time to start trusting the people to exercise personal responsibility.

Already the Scottish people have demonstrated that they can be trusted to act responsibly. Some members of this Parliament were left looking rather foolish earlier this week when they commented on the Prime Minister ditching the rules that required self-isolation following a positive test in England, as they were seemingly unaware that there has never been a law in Scotland that required people to self-isolate in those circumstances. The only laws on self-isolation here related to the limited circumstances of international travellers. Instead, we have public health guidance, which has been strongly adhered to by the Scottish public.

Therefore, the Scottish people have already demonstrated their willingness to comply with guidance. We also saw that in December when, within hours of advice being issued by Public Health Scotland about Christmas parties, the hospitality trade was being deluged with cancellations. It was not the law that forced people to take that action, but their adherence to public health guidance.

We should, in this Parliament, be trusting the people to exercise their good sense and judgment, which the Scottish people have demonstrated in spades that they are capable of doing. There is no need to extend the emergency powers for one day longer and the Parliament should reject the instrument that is before us.

I call the Deputy First Minister, John Swinney, to respond on behalf of the Scottish Government.

16:56  

The amendment regulations extend the date on which the Health Protection (Coronavirus) (Requirements) (Scotland) Regulations 2021 expire, from 28 February 2022 to 24 September 2022. If that expiry date is not changed, the baseline measures will automatically cease on Monday 28 February.

We have started taking steps to remove the baseline measures. The First Minister announced to the Parliament on Tuesday that the Covid certification scheme will come to an end on Monday, and this morning I signed regulations that will make that happen. Murdo Fraser was, quite simply, plain wrong on what he said to the Parliament on that point.

We expect that the other legal requirements will be converted to guidance on 21 March, although, as the First Minister said on Tuesday, that is subject to there being

“no significant adverse developments in the course of the virus”.—[Official Report, 22 February 2022; c 18.]

Will the Deputy First Minister give way?

Of course.

The COVID-19 Recovery Committee discussed the matter this morning. It is good that we are starting to see the baseline measures removed, but we are not yet out of the pandemic and we should not give the impression that suddenly everything is back to normal. That is why Labour was willing this morning, and will be willing tonight, to support the continuation of these temporary measures for the next six months.

I want to be clear that we oppose any move to make any of the measures permanent, and we will oppose a permanent extension of any powers. However, I believe that right now it is sensible to allow the Government to have that flexibility, because we are not out of the pandemic. The Government needs to make that point again and again.

I am grateful for the considered point that Mr Rowley has made. This matter comes down to a fundamental point of legislation: whether there should be, in statute, provision that enables the Government to take swift measures to control a pandemic—not that it must or that it will take those measures, but that it might have to use those powers.

Mr Rowley raises fair points about the long-term legislative issues, which the Parliament will consider and scrutinise. However, at this moment we still face challenges in relation to Covid. The extension of regulations that I am putting to the Parliament today, which is essentially about ensuring that the face coverings restrictions can remain in place, if that is necessary, until September—although we hope that it will be only until 21 March—will ensure that the Government has the ability to do exactly that.

I welcome Mr Rowley’s contribution and, as I confirmed to Mr Whitfield in discussions—yesterday, I think—we will of course have full parliamentary scrutiny on all those points.

We do not know for sure that it will be appropriate to lift the measures that are included in the regulations from 21 March. We hope that that will be the case, but we want to make sure that we have the arrangements in place to enable us to do that. For now, it is really important that we do not allow the remaining baseline measures to expire by default on 28 February. The regulations will ensure that that does not happen and that the measures can be removed when the time is right.

Subject to the course of the virus over the next few weeks, we expect to be in a position to remove the measures on 21 March, but approval of the regulations will provide the statutory basis for the Government to be able to act, should there be any deterioration in the coronavirus situation. Members will be familiar with the very sharp turns of events that have taken place over the course of the pandemic, when we have gone from a position that we thought was stable and benign to an acutely difficult position in a very short space of time. I simply counsel members to consider that point as I invite them to endorse the regulations that are before the Parliament.

The question on the motion will be put at decision time.