Seòmar agus comataidhean

We are not quite in private yet. I apologise, but I want to raise an issue.

We know that we are to have a debate in the Parliament on vaccine passports. I do not actually know what we will debate yet, because we have not seen any details. Frankly, all that I have to go on is what the First Minister announced last week and what I have read in the press. We will have a debate and vote and I imagine that, for such a significant measure, regulations will be laid at some point.

There is a process issue. A lot of the coronavirus legislation has gone through under the made affirmative procedure, under which the law comes into force and then the Parliament has a look at it. A lot of planning has clearly gone into vaccine passports. The First Minister said last week that, if MSPs approve the proposals, she would like them to come in at the end of this month. Therefore, there is time to do what I would describe as proper scrutiny. I argue that the regulations should be laid before they come into force and that we should use a process other than the made affirmative procedure.

Given the lack of clarity, the committee could write to the Government to ask what its plans are. We do not want to know about the detail of the plans—that is for a policy committee to scrutinise—but we want to know how the Government plans to proceed and what process it plans to use. We could also flag that up to the COVID-19 Recovery Committee, which I think will be the main policy committee.

The reason for the 28-day rule is to allow parliamentary scrutiny. There will be occasions when the Government will breach the rule for very good reasons—for example, there can be emergency legislation—and we will often accept that. However, I do not believe that the regulations fall into that category. There was simply no good reason, in my view, for the Government to breach the rule in this case, and we should push back strongly on it. The explanation, to be frank, does not wash. A change of minister is not a reason to breach the 28-day rule, in my submission.

I agree with everything that the convener has said, but the instrument highlights a problem concerning the need to be clear in law about what is meant. If it was the Scottish Government’s intention that people in nightclubs who are dancing are not required to wear face masks, why did it not just say that? The word “dancing” appears nowhere. That is probably because it is very difficult, if not impossible, to define dancing in law.

We saw an example of someone dancing in a nightclub in Aberdeen over the weekend. Some people may call that dancing, but some will not. One man’s backward walk is another man’s dancing. It is very difficult to say what we mean. The Scottish Government said that dancing can be

“taking part in exercise of a type that reasonably requires that the person is not wearing a face covering.”

However, while dancing can be exercise, it does not have to be. It is a recreational activity that is not necessarily strenuous. That makes it difficult, if we want to be clear in law, which we do.

It is worth highlighting to the lead committee that there are issues with the instrument. My guess is that the reality in nightclubs—not that I have been to one for many years—is that people take off their face masks as soon as they get inside, whether or not they are dancing. The lead committee should look at the matter, accepting that as a reality. The instrument falls down in terms of clarity of the law and we should highlight that.

I nominate Stuart McMillan to be convener.

I am content, within the remit of this committee. However, one of the instruments, SSI 2021/242, relates to the travel restrictions from Scotland to Manchester. It is important that people realise that, under the remit of this committee, there are no grounds on which the committee can challenge the regulations.

I have reservations about that particular instrument on a technical level, and I think that it will be difficult, if not impossible, to enforce. However, I will have the opportunity to raise questions about that later. I am merely pointing out, for the benefit of people watching this who might be wondering why on earth we are not saying anything about the instrument, that that is because, under the terms of this committee, the grounds on which we can push back on certain regulations are restricted. However, the Parliament will have a chance to question ministers later this afternoon.

I am sorry to be awkward, but I see from the chat box that Mr Sweeney had indicated that he wanted to speak on a previous instrument. He may be struggling with the platform, which is understandable.

I am content with that approach. We will get a chance to speak about the paper later. I have only just thought of this, but it might be nice for the committee to write to the previous convener, Bill Bowman, to thank him for his work.

I have no relevant interests to declare.