Seòmar agus comataidhean

The committee has not seen that yet.

My question is not about policy but about giving the committee enough time to deal with whatever is in front of it. I have not mentioned the policy behind the bill.

Lovely, thank you.

I was talking about not the UK Government, but you, Mr Adam.

I do not particularly want you to, but—

The DPLR Committee said that the default position should be the affirmative procedure. It did not completely rule out the made affirmative procedure, but it recommended that certain things should be put in place if that procedure is to be used. That was the purpose of amendments in my name that you have voted against, Mr Mason, despite saying that you agree with me.

Given that the committee rejected those amendments, I will not move the amendments in my name in this group and force a vote. However, I am keen to work with the cabinet secretary—if he is up for it; it is up to him—to see whether we can improve things in the area. I make that offer.

In listening to what you have said about Mr Whittle’s amendment 4, I wonder whether there is room to work with Mr Whittle to improve the amendment for stage 3. You have commented that you feel that it is too restrictive at the moment, but maybe it could be improved.

I am sure that alarm bells were ringing in the cabinet secretary’s head when Mr Kerr said, “I am trying to be helpful,” but in this case I think that he actually was trying to be helpful.

I have six amendments in the group: amendments 13 to 18. I will be extremely brief, because I know that the committee is up against the clock—I suspect that you will be sitting long into the night on this one.

Amendments 13 to 15 seek to remove sections 8 to 10. I will come to amendments 16 to 18 in a moment.

Section 8 gives ministers the power to make

“regulations ... relating to the continuing operation of an educational establishment for a specified period.”

Oliver Mundell has spoken extensively about that power, which will give ministers powers to close schools. It is a sweeping power with far-reaching consequences.

In my view, closing schools has, in some cases, been harmful. If we were ever to go down that route again, it should involve proper scrutiny. If we were to do that, we should use primary legislation, which can be taken through at pace but would allow for at least some of the severe implications to be explored. That is the route that we should go down, which is why I seek to remove that specific power from the bill altogether.

However, assuming that the committee will not agree to that, I am very much persuaded by the series of amendments from Oliver Mundell and Stephen Kerr, and I recommend them to the committee.

Section 9, which I also seek to remove, gives ministers the power to

“require a relevant manager of a school boarding establishment to take ... steps to restrict or prohibit access to the establishment for a specified period”.

The same argument applies: that is a sweeping power, and the consequences could potentially be severe.

I said that I would be brief, and I am being brief. I move to section 10, which gives ministers powers over student accommodation that would enable them to “restrict ... access” to such accommodation or close it down. The same arguments apply to all three sections that I have highlighted, and I think that they should be removed from the bill.

Amendments 16 to 18 are very similar to amendments that the committee has already considered and, unfortunately, rejected. Those amendments were extremely reasonable and were based on the DPLR Committee’s recommendations. I suspect that members such as Mr Mason would, in their heart of hearts, agree with those amendments but, given that we have already voted on them—[Interruption.]

I see that Mr Mason is itching to come in. Do you want to intervene?

In saying that you are happy to have further dialogue, you have probably answered the question that I was going to ask. We can probably reach an accommodation between your desire to be able to act quickly and my desire to have more parliamentary scrutiny—we can meet somewhere in that regard. I am happy to take you up on your offer.

Before the meeting, Mr Rowley and I made a pact that, if he was brief, I would be brief. I knew that he could not stick to his end of the bargain—but rightly so, because he had some really important points to make, which I agree with.

I sit on the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee. I am not representing it here, but, as this committee knows, the DPLR Committee produced a report, which this committee has seen, into the delegated powers in the bill, and we made some recommendations. I will take members through them before I speak briefly about my amendments in the group.

The first recommendation was

“that the Scottish Government”

should bring

“forward amendments on each power which can be exercised subject to the made affirmative provision”.

Our main area of concern was the use of the made affirmative procedure, so we recommended

“that Scottish Ministers provide a written statement prior to the instrument coming into force providing an explanation and evidence as to why the Scottish Ministers consider the regulations need to be made urgently when using the made affirmative procedure”.

We also recommended

“that Scottish Ministers include an assessment of the impact of the instrument on those affected by it”

and

“that statutory instruments made under the powers are subject to a sunset provision.”

I lodged some amendments for yesterday’s Criminal Justice Committee meeting that reflected those recommendations, and I have done the same for this meeting.

If members read amendment 10, which is the first of my three amendments in the group, I am afraid that they will struggle to work out what it does. I have a long and technical explanation, which I will spare you. In essence, amendment 10 removes the ability of ministers to use the made affirmative procedure—it is quite blunt. If you agree with that, that is all well and good and the other amendments fall; if you do not agree with that, we have some alternatives.

The alternatives are amendments 11 and 12. Amendment 11 says that, if ministers think that the regulations should be made “urgently”, they should explain to the Parliament why that is so—with evidence—and there should be a vote on the regulations. As the committee is well aware, using the made affirmative procedure does not allow for a vote—stuff just goes through without scrutiny. The amendment reflects the recommendations of the DPLR Committee.

Amendment 12 says that there should be a statement with evidence, an assessment of the impact of the regulations and a sunset clause period of a maximum of one year. Given that I am a very reflective sort and that I listen to arguments—I listened to those of Mr Swinney’s colleague Keith Brown yesterday and to those of Mr Swinney today—I think that amendment 12 probably goes a bit too far in that it would impose the sunset clause for one year across the board. Having reflected on that point, I think that Mr Swinney’s amendment 28 is probably better than amendment 12, so I will not press it. However, I will move amendments 10 and 11.

I will end there—I promised to be brief.