Seòmar agus comataidhean

The provisions are broadly comparable to those in England and Wales. If my memory serves me right, those provisions have been in place for the best part of a decade or more. That gets to the nub of the bill, which is the necessity of ensuring that the legislative framework that we have in place is appropriate to deal with the emergence of a major national public health issue such as a pandemic.

The legislation that the Parliament considered in this respect in the past—the two coronavirus acts—was taken through Parliament at great speed. There was significant parliamentary co-operation to enable that but, of course, the level of scrutiny that was available for the provisions was limited. Therefore, with the bill, we are taking a calm period to consider with full parliamentary scrutiny the types of measures that could be put in place should we face a further pandemic and to ensure that we have the necessary statutory force to provide for that as well as sufficient parliamentary scrutiny if the Government takes any steps within the framework of the bill.

On the point made by the legal academics that you have just highlighted to me, convener, it is important not only that we have a structure of legislation in place to enable us to handle a future pandemic but that we consider that in slow time to ensure that we have the right arrangements in place. As I have indicated, the provisions are broadly comparable to the ones in England and Wales.

That theme has been the subject of extensive discussion with the committee during the pandemic, and it has been very much at the heart of the Government’s decision making about the handling of the pandemic. Indeed, it has been central to the decision making around the four harms framework and the strategic framework.

The question of proportionality is fundamental, because it is a legal test of whether or not any measures that the Government puts in place are appropriate in a certain set of circumstances. Ministers will make those decisions and must be satisfied that, on the basis of the evidence that is available to them, there is a proportionate case for applying restrictions.

We have wrestled with that question on countless occasions over the course of the past two years. We have come to conclusions about when we judge measures to be proportionate and have withdrawn measures, because we did not believe that they were proportionate at that particular time. Ultimately, those decisions are made by ministers and, as with all decisions that are taken by ministers, they are justiciable. There have been two legal challenges to the provisions that we have had in place, and at the heart of those questions, which the courts have wrestled with, was the question of proportionality. Proportionality is not a tabulated concept but one that is based on the availability of evidence to enable ministers to take rational decisions that can be defended in the courts, if necessary.

I suspect that other pieces of legislation have attracted public concern. I also suspect that the degree of public concern might have had something to do with the way in which some members of the Parliament characterised the legislation. I am sure that Mr Fraser understands the point that I am making with that remark.

It is important that members of Parliament concentrate their deliberations on the substance of the issue. For me, that substance is whether we have in place the right legislative framework to deal with the possibility of a pandemic. Clearly, in March 2020, we did not, because we had to rush through two pieces of legislation in a matter of days to provide the legislative force to handle the pandemic. Our statute book was not sufficient or appropriate to deal with the circumstances that we faced in March 2020.

The Government is now learning a lesson from that experience and putting in place legislation that we consider to be proportionate and appropriate for those circumstances. The public health provisions of that legislation are to be used only in those circumstances, and there is to be appropriate and effective parliamentary scrutiny of the Government’s exercise of those functions. That is the justification for the bill, and that wider appreciation of it would be clearly understood by members of the public.

It depends on how you look at the questions. Do we look at the experience of the pandemic and think that there are no lessons to be learned and that we should be quite happy to put through significant primary legislation in a matter of days? On other occasions, members of Parliament would rail against making significant changes to primary legislation in that timescale. Generally, in my experience in Parliament, that is not viewed as a desirable approach.

Nobody saw the pandemic coming. We were aware that there was a likelihood of us experiencing some kind of pandemic, but that did not prompt us to review our statute book. Now we have had the pandemic—actually, we are still going through it; believe you me, some of us certainly are—and we are trying to adapt the statute book to learn the lessons from it so that we can put in place proportionate powers that can be scrutinised by Parliament through the normal legislative process, which is what we are going through just now, and Parliament can decide whether it wants to change the statute book to enable the provisions.

That is the type of thinking that has gone into the legislation to ensure that we do not have to rush significant primary legislation through Parliament in a matter of days. We take stock, learn the lessons from the pandemic and put in place powers—with sufficient parliamentary scrutiny—that enable us to act accordingly when a situation arises.

There is a lot in this area that we need to look at further. I welcome the report from the DPLR Committee. I had a thoughtful discussion with that committee when I appeared before it a few weeks ago. It was quite pragmatic in understanding the challenge for the Government, which is that the made affirmative procedure generally takes about 40 days. That procedure can be utilised with greater urgency, subject to parliamentary consent at a later stage. The DPLR Committee was exploring whether there was some other approach that we could take, which might be a halfway house or a partway house within all that. I am happy to explore that. I think that the point that Mr Fraser made—I did not quite catch the academic’s name—

We have to be careful here. Mr Mason will recognise the benefits of digital interaction, which we can see in all walks of life. We are trying, through the provisions in the bill, to make a set of pragmatic moves that will enable us to reform our public services in the light of the experience of the pandemic, where the technology allows us to do so.

We must always be mindful of whether everyone can participate using such platforms. If not, there is a need to have alternative arrangements in place to ensure that all parties can participate effectively in the administrative process that is involved. Although the digital approach suits many people, we must ensure that all individuals can access services accordingly.

As I said in my answer to the convener, they are broadly comparable. The provisions in England and Wales have been in place for in excess of 10 years, as I think I said earlier. Situations of this type were envisaged in the legislation that was considered by the United Kingdom Parliament, and the United Kingdom Government has been able to operate under many of its provisions, supplementing them under the emergency legislation that it has introduced.

Either I will have to defer to my officials to give me further guidance on whether it has been used or we can write to you, convener, to clarify that. Unless my officials can add detail now, I propose to write to you.

The powers are being included to address potential situations in which regulations are needed to respond to a public health threat that might conflict with existing legislation. That is the justification. As with all regulations that are made under the legislation that was put in place, the powers could be used only where it was necessary to respond to a significant risk to public health as a result of the pandemic. There are significant regulatory constraints and limits around what the Government would be able to do but, fundamentally, there would have to be a significant risk to public health to justify the use of any of those powers.

That is the rationale behind those powers being in place. The threat to public health is the trigger, and there is the possibility that there might be a conflict with existing legislation that needs to be resolved.

We have to do both. We could do nothing to update the statute book but, if we have another pandemic, we will find ourselves having to rush through parliamentary legislation and, heaven forfend, but Mr Whittle might be one of the people who say that it is ridiculous to rush it all through in a few days. I do not rule out that possibility.

Then there are the logistical preparations for pandemics. Those are all elements that Lady Poole will look at during the public inquiry, and the Government is reviewing the preparations that we have in place for a whole range of emergencies. We regularly review the potential threats that we face and consider the degree to which we are equipped to deal with those threats. We will continue to do that for the foreseeable future.