Seòmar agus comataidhean

As you are aware, convener, because you will have read the papers, the instrument deals with where checks can be made on animals. In essence, it would allow checks to be carried out on animals and related products at an appropriate place rather than, as happens at present, at the place of destination of the goods. That sounds not too controversial, but the Scottish Parliament information centre has informed us that no reason has been provided as to why that should be the case. SPICe goes on to say that there has been concern from stakeholders around the issue.

Given that, we should flag up the matter to the lead committee, which I believe is the rural affairs committee—although it has a slightly longer title than that—just to ensure that it casts its eye over the matter. The instrument raises important policy matters, which are not for us to consider, but the rural affairs committee might want to have a look at it. I accept that the negative procedure is correct, but the instrument raises important issues.

I want to follow up on that. Like the minister, I am a football fan. If I go to a football match, I show somebody at the gate my QR code, and he or she scans it into their personal mobile phone. That is what it will be—that is what the Government said last week. My concern is that my name, address and date of birth could show up on that person’s mobile phone. That, to me, is a breach of my data.

That would be useful.

It would be useful for the committee to have something from you about which SLC reports you anticipate implementing and which you do not. Then we will know what we are working with.

I will move on to discuss the Scottish Law Commission. As you know, the committee works closely with the SLC, as do you, and there has been long-standing frustration from the SLC—and from us, but particularly from the SLC—about the amount of work that it has done and the number of reports that it has produced that have just stacked up and not resulted in legislation.

The SLC has provided us with a list of about 18 of its reports dating back as far as 2006 that have not ended up as legislation, covering things from electoral law to level crossings. All kinds of serious work has gone on and the SLC and the committee are very frustrated. In the previous parliamentary session, the committee worked with the Parliament on a set of protocols that would allow the committee to take on more bills, if they were presented. That would help the Parliament to get stuff through.

The programme for government said that the Government wants to do something on moveable transactions. When do you see that legislation being introduced and would it be a bill that meets the criteria for it to be considered by this committee?

I think that trust law was the other one.

Would you accept that what I describe would be a breach of my data?

When we had a private meeting with your officials, we asked about the area of questioning that Mr Sweeney has just covered. We specifically asked whether the Government could provide us with a list of outstanding regulations that flow from acts that have been passed and I am not sure that we have seen that. Mr Sweeney mentioned the Transport (Scotland) Act 2019, but there will be a number of others. I think that there is still some stuff outstanding from the Planning (Scotland) Act 2019. It would be useful to have that list, if we could.

We had a two-hour debate on something about which we knew precious little. We certainly did not know the detail, which is where scrutiny comes in. I know that you know that, but I do not think that that debate counts as scrutiny. The scrutiny will come when you actually tell the Parliament what the Government is proposing to do—if, indeed, you proceed with the proposal.

I will read out what you say in your letter. You say:

“I absolutely accept that the made affirmative procedure must only be used when the test for using it set out in Schedule 19 of the Coronavirus Act 2020 is met.”

Paragraph 1(1) of the Coronavirus Act 2020 says:

“The Scottish Ministers may by regulations make provision for the purpose of preventing, protecting against, controlling or providing a public health response to the incidence or spread of infection or contamination in Scotland”

so that gives you the power to do all this stuff. However, there are also some checks on that power in the 2020 act. Paragraph 2(4)(a) of schedule 19 says:

“Regulations under paragraph 1(1) may not include provision enabling the imposition of a special restriction or requirement”

which could include vaccine passports

“unless—

(a) the regulations are made in response to a serious and imminent threat to public health, or

(b) imposition of the restriction or requirement is expressed to be contingent on there being such a threat at the time when it is imposed.”

The threat therefore has to be both “serious and imminent”.

The First Minister announced her intention to bring in vaccine passports a couple of weeks ago and said that they will not actually come in until the start of October, which does not meet those tests, in my view. When she announced her intention, the threat was not “serious and imminent” and, under the second point about the threat when the restriction is imposed, we cannot possibly know what the threat will be in a couple of weeks. That is why I argue that you should not be using the made affirmative procedure. You should be allowing prior scrutiny of whatever you propose, so that we get it right.

We will have to strongly disagree with each other on that. My interpretation is that you have not met the tests of the 2020 act, which gives ministers the powers to do such things. We are clearly not going to agree on that.