Seòmar agus comataidhean

I have a brief comment to make. I nearly asked Mr O’Kane about this, but I did not think that it would be required. However, I would like to put on record the fact that I think that the cross-party group could be of good service to the committees of the Parliament as well. I sit on the Education, Children and Young People Committee, and we will clearly have a scrutiny role in relation to the delivery of the Promise, but we will not always be able to give that as much time as we would like to. I think that the work of the cross-party group could certainly complement the work of the main committees of the Parliament in relation to their responsibility for ensuring that we deliver on the Promise. In that context, it is very welcome that this cross-party group is, hopefully, going to be established.

Thank you. I should say that Mr Sim pointed out that he had only four sitting days in which to respond on the specifics of the emergency powers. The point was more about the issues that have been raised since the 2020 act was passed.

When I asked Mr Little from Colleges Scotland about the issue, he did not raise concerns about specifics but he said:

“We raised concerns about the throughput of officials who had to produce the legislation.”

I think that his point was about officials’ workload. He then said that there was a

“real danger of getting a weekly or even daily diktat”.—[Official Report, Education, Children and Young People Committee, 2 March 2022; c 15.]

I was surprised by that comment—I did not think that such a position was reasonable. Of course, it is not my position to take, but, on reflection, I think that I can put Paul Little’s comment to you, cabinet secretary, so that you can reply to it. What reassurance can you offer that, in taking the powers, the Government has no intention of making a weekly or daily diktat?

I hope that we will discuss that later, convener.

My final question is about the distinction that you have drawn between the power of direction and the power to make regulations. I am guessing that regulations would be made from time to time, based on the CMO’s advice and the state of the public health emergency, whereas directions could, in theory, be given daily or weekly. Could you say a little more about how, if the regulation-making powers had to be used, they would be used proportionately, to reassure the college and university sector that the goalposts would not be moved on a daily basis, which might have been its underlying concern?

This has been a really interesting line of questioning. There is obviously a debate over whether the powers should be permanent but used only in extremis, when there are major public health emergencies.

Separate to that, when I asked the representatives from Universities Scotland and Colleges Scotland last week about the issues with regard to the current suite of powers for dealing with the coronavirus pandemic, Alastair Sim from Universities Scotland said that the bill mirrors the powers in the Coronavirus (Scotland) Act 2020 in many respects. I asked Mr Sim what criticisms he had made at the time when those 2020 powers were being considered—powers that I accept never had to be used, because of the great partnership working. He did not really say anything about that, but he did say:

“If the Government had reached for those emergency powers, it might have found them quite problematic to use”.—[Official Report, Education, Children and Young People Committee, 2 March 2022; c 13.]

Were you aware of any concerns from Universities Scotland at that time? Other than the current statement from Alastair Sim on Universities Scotland’s position, are you aware of any issues that Universities Scotland has had since then about the current suite of powers?

Thank you. That was very helpful.

Perhaps we can decide that in private when we discuss the evidence rather than your own personal views, convener.

Good morning, minister. I have just a couple of brief questions.

My understanding is that, as a result of this bill, nationals of Luxembourg, Poland, Portugal and Spain will qualify for candidacy rights under the proposed new schedule 6A to be inserted into the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973. However, those components of the bill are based on a UK treaty having been signed or its likelihood of being signed imminently. The question, therefore, is: has the UK Government indicated that treaties conferring reciprocal candidacy rights are likely to be signed with any other EU country or, indeed, any other countries at all? Would the bill still be able to cope with our obligations under any new treaties that might be signed?

I am looking for clarity. A small number of, say, Portuguese nationals in Scotland—and, of course, across the UK—will have additional rights to stand as a candidate in UK elections. The bill will enable that to happen. If the treaty with Portugal were to be reneged on by the UK Government or if the UK Government were to withdraw from it, would there be nothing in the bill to allow you to continue to extend those candidacy rights to Portuguese nationals in Scotland? Would we have to withdraw those rights, or could they be sustained?

That is very helpful and gives the clarity that I was looking for. If a treaty is signed, rights are extended; if a treaty is withdrawn, rights are withdrawn.

I have a final question. The Scottish Government will be consulting on an ever-increasing elections bill. I hope that that will extend candidacy rights to all EU nationals in similar situations, irrespective of the four treaties. Can you give us an idea of the timing of the elections bill? I suppose that it gets further delayed every time we ask for something to be added, but there you are.