Seòmar agus comataidhean

We are conducting parliamentary scrutiny now. Professor Britton and Dr Tickell said that there was “no explanation or justification” of the provision for Henry VIII powers in the policy memorandum. In the absence of such an explanation in the policy memorandum, can you tell us why the Henry VIII powers are required?

I will move on, as I would like to ask about the made affirmative procedure. You will know that the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee has commented on that and that, in evidence, Professor de Londras said that the made affirmative procedure

“is inherently problematic and should only be employed in exceptional circumstances.”

Professor de Londras also said that, if regulations were made under part 1 using the made affirmative procedure, a ministerial statement of the reasons for using that procedure, explaining the alleged urgency, should be provided. Would you accept that as a proposal for a way forward?

My second question is on an entirely separate matter, concerning vaccinations.

Over-75s are currently being called for their second booster. I have been contacted by someone living in the Rannoch area, which you know well. At present, residents are being directed to travel to the vaccination centre in Pitlochry, which is a substantial round trip and difficult for people who rely on public transport. Could rural GP practices be authorised to deliver vaccinations for people who have transport difficulties? Is the Scottish Government considering that?

I would like some clarification on an issue that has been discussed over the past day in relation to education. Following yesterday’s announcement about lifting the requirement to wear face masks from 18 April, there seems to be some confusion about what situation will apply in schools, where face masks are still being worn in communal areas. Yesterday, a Scottish Government spokesman said that face coverings would still

“be required in communal areas for staff and secondary school pupils”

after 18 April, but that seems to have been reined back on this morning. Will you clarify exactly what the position is, Deputy First Minister?

Good morning, Deputy First Minister. I hope that you are feeling a bit better.

I will ask some questions about the exercise of ministerial powers. However, before I do that, as you referred to public consultation earlier in your comments, I will ask about that first.

It is fair to say that, when it ran its own consultation, the Government found a wide degree of public concern about and opposition to what is being proposed. The committee ran its own survey with the public with a call for views. We received just short of 4,000 responses from the public, of which 90 per cent were in opposition to the bill, with people expressing concerns about the impact on personal liberty and the lack of parliamentary scrutiny over what is proposed. In two decades, I cannot remember a piece of legislation in this Parliament attracting that level of public concern. Can you?

It is de Londras.

I ask Douglas Hendry for a local authority perspective on that.

Good morning, panel. I want to follow up on some of the points about digital exclusion that the convener raised. When reading the submissions, I was taken by the fact that there is a clear difference between the approach of professional organisations and bodies, which are, in the main, very relaxed—indeed, enthusiastic—about a move towards more digital engagement and that of members of the public, some of whom will have concerns. We have already talked about how that might widen inequalities in society.

I want to pick up the last point that David McNeill made, which was about the need to try to provide support for people who might already be digitally excluded. I put my question to Fiona Blair, who is here on behalf of the Association of Registrars of Scotland. What thinking has your organisation done about how a move towards online working will impact on people who are digitally excluded? What specific measures can you put in place to try to assist those who might have some difficulty?

Thank you. That is helpful.

Sections 18 and 20 of the bill give registration officers quite a degree of discretion in how they offer the remote registration of births and deaths. Do you have any thoughts about how they are drafted? Do they strike the right approach?