Seòmar agus comataidhean

There is always a risk of legal challenge. The bill incorporating the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child into Scots law is a standalone bespoke provision that looks to incorporate the UNCRC into our domestic legislation. One provision of that has been challenged by the United Kingdom Government because it does not want the provisions of the UNCRC to be applied in areas in which it has historically legislated.

That is one part of a compartmentalised bill, so Mr Simpson’s whole argument is totally undermined by the practice of his colleague, the Secretary of State for Scotland. He has done exactly what Mr Simpson is talking about on one compartmentalised theme bill. There is no substance to the view that Mr Simpson is putting to me.

It is there simply as an example to indicate that there are threats and challenges to public health that could have widespread effect. The other examples are of significant outbreaks of new diseases, which have to a greater or lesser extent had an effect on our society but have had a much greater effect on other societies. That does not mean that they will not have a similar and comparable effect here. Having the capacity and ability to respond to circumstances that we face is an important point of the legislation.

I will take that point away and reflect on it. My first reaction to all the requirements and points that Mr Hoy has put to me is to say that I would have judged them to be covered by the variety of impact assessments that we are required, by other statute, to do in any given circumstance. I would have thought that all those existing obligations—to undertake a business and regulatory impact assessment where appropriate or an equalities impact assessment where necessary; there are other statutory requirements—would catch the point that Mr Hoy has put to me. However, I will take that point away to satisfy myself that no gap exists there, because I accept the sentiment unreservedly.

The reasoning behind which—

I welcome the opportunity to make a brief opening statement about the proposed made affirmative powers in the Coronavirus (Recovery and Reform) (Scotland) Bill.

The delegated powers memorandum prepared for the bill set out the details of 15 delegated powers proposed for the Scottish ministers in the bill. Of those, five are capable of engaging the made affirmative procedure, and I expect that the committee will have some questions on that issue.

It is worth emphasising that the default for those powers is the normal affirmative procedure, but we consider that there is justification for having the option of made affirmative procedure when urgent action is necessary. It is also worth emphasising that the prisoner release power is an extended temporary power, rather than making the Covid-specific provision a permanent power.

The committee also now has my full response to its report on the use of the made affirmative procedure. I explained in the covering letter to that response that I was responding in general terms to the committee’s recommendations and I hope that the committee has found that to be a helpful explanation of the Government’s position. I also said that I would be happy to consider specific recommendations from the committee in more detail in the context of its scrutiny of the Coronavirus (Recovery and Reform) (Scotland) Bill, and I stand ready to do so.

The committee will by now be familiar with my views on the intricacies of subordinate legislation procedures, so rather than repeating those I will happily answer any questions that you have.

We can consider that adjustment and would be likely to move towards it. The recent Coronavirus (Discretionary Compensation for Self-isolation) (Scotland) Bill took an approach in which we took explicit responsibility for setting out the rationale for the necessity of acting with urgency. I am therefore happy to consider what you suggest. It strikes me as a change that the Government would be likely to embrace, given what we did in that bill.

I am wholly committed to exploring that third way, if calling it that is not too offensive. I am very happy to do that. I might take some advice from Steven Macgregor, after saying what I am about to say, but I think that the challenge is that we would need input from the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee’s perspective on standing orders. The undertaking would then become slightly broader. I am not familiar with that committee’s workload and whether it could address that question on the same timescale as that for the scrutiny of the bill. However, if we proceed with the timetable for the bill, that will in no way dampen the Government’s willingness to participate in a discussion about putting in place an alternative procedure that is somewhere between made affirmative and expedited. I am very happy to look at how we might apply that. Does Steven Macgregor want to add anything?

Good morning.

That is simply because those measures are not ordinary elements of policy that we would want to have in place.

As I have indicated, the Government will certainly happily co-operate with all those processes.