Seòmar agus comataidhean

The suggestion is to write to the lead committee, and I think we should do that in relation to the points raised by Graham Simpson and Craig Hoy. I think it would also be worth writing to the lead committee on the points raised by Paul Sweeney regarding licensing, so that the lead committee can take that up. There could be policy matters that are important for licensing legislation. Are you content with that, Paul?

We come to agenda item 2. An issue has been raised concerning SSI 2021/277, which revokes the Health Protection (Coronavirus) (Restrictions and Requirements) (Local Levels) (Scotland) Regulations 2020 (SSI 2020/344) but retains some requirements that are still considered necessary by the Scottish Government and provides that those are applied uniformly across Scotland.

The instrument requires that, subject to some exemptions, face coverings should still be worn in most indoor spaces. The guidance accompanying the instrument states that face coverings are not required to be worn while dancing in a nightclub or dance hall. However, a specific exemption for dancing is not listed in the instrument. In correspondence, the Scottish Government said:

“It is considered that dancing is a form of exercise which reasonably requires that the person is not wearing a face covering”,

which is an exemption provided for by regulation 5(1)(r).

Does the committee wish to bring the instrument to the attention of the Parliament on reporting ground (h), which is that its meaning or form could be clearer?

Members indicated agreement.

Is the committee content with the instruments?

Members indicated agreement.

The regulations make provision for the establishment and maintenance of a register of child interview rights practitioners to provide children with advice, support and assistance in relation to their involvement in investigative interviews. Regulation 3(6)(a) provides that

“A person who is included in the register must comply with ... the Code of Practice”

for child interview rights practitioners that has been published by the Scottish Government. However, regulation 3(7), when compared against the mandatory requirements contained in paragraph 17 of the code of practice, appears to provide differing notification timescales and requirements for child interview rights practitioners—yet both must be complied with.

In light of that, does the committee wish to bring the instrument to the attention of the Parliament on reporting ground (h), on the basis that its meaning or form could be clearer, while also calling on the Scottish Government to clarify that issue as soon as possible?

Members indicated agreement.

On the point about the change of minister, it is clear that the officials would remain the same, unless there was also a change there. You raise a valid point, Graham.

Does the committee wish to draw the regulations to the Parliament’s attention on reporting ground (j), as they were laid less than 28 days before they came into force?

Members indicated agreement.

Although the committee’s expectation is that the Scottish Government should adhere to the 28-day rule in order to facilitate proper parliamentary scrutiny, does it nevertheless wish to note that it is satisfied with the explanation that has been provided for the failure to comply with the laying requirements, given the particular circumstances in this instance, notwithstanding the point that Graham Simpson raised a moment ago?

Members indicated agreement.

Before we turn to the two drafting errors that have been raised regarding SSI 2021/249, I highlight that the regulations will consolidate the Council Tax Reduction (Scotland) Regulations 2012 (SSI 2012/303). For a number of years, the session 5 committee called on the Scottish Government to consolidate SSI 2012/303 and also the Council Tax Reduction (State Pension Credit) (Scotland) Regulations 2012 (SSI 2012/319). This is a positive start to the new session. Does the committee wish to welcome the consolidation of the Council Tax Reduction (Scotland) Regulations 2012, as called for by the previous committee?

Members indicated agreement.

Turning to the two drafting errors in SSI 2021/249, I note that there are incorrect references in regulations 20(3)(h) and 77(1). The full detail of those errors is in the published paper that lists all the correspondence with the Scottish Government. Does the committee wish to draw the regulations to the Parliament’s attention on the general reporting ground, in respect of those drafting errors?

Members indicated agreement.

Although the committee might recognise the necessity for breach of the 28-day rule in this instance, does it wish to add in its report that it considers the circumstances of the breach to be unsatisfactory and to emphasise that the Scottish Government should normally comply with the laying requirements in order to facilitate timely parliamentary scrutiny of such important policy choices?

Members indicated agreement.

An issue has been raised on SSI 2021/274, which makes a number of amendments to the Milk and Healthy Snack Scheme (Scotland) Regulations 2021 (SSI 2021/82). The amendment regulations were laid on 28 July 2021 and came into force on the following day, so they are clearly in breach of the 28-day rule.

A letter from the Scottish Government to the Presiding Officer explains that there was a need to bring the regulations into force with immediate effect in order to enable local authorities to make payments for the launch of the Scottish milk and healthy snack scheme on 1 August 2021. This is the second amending instrument that we are considering that has breached the 28-day rule. The instrument makes provision for the basis for the calculation of payments under the scheme, which is an important aspect of its operation.

Does the committee wish to draw the instrument to the Parliament’s attention on reporting ground (j), as it was laid less than 28 days before it came into force?

Members indicated agreement.