Seòmar agus comataidhean

We are conducting parliamentary scrutiny now. Professor Britton and Dr Tickell said that there was “no explanation or justification” of the provision for Henry VIII powers in the policy memorandum. In the absence of such an explanation in the policy memorandum, can you tell us why the Henry VIII powers are required?

I will move on, as I would like to ask about the made affirmative procedure. You will know that the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee has commented on that and that, in evidence, Professor de Londras said that the made affirmative procedure

“is inherently problematic and should only be employed in exceptional circumstances.”

Professor de Londras also said that, if regulations were made under part 1 using the made affirmative procedure, a ministerial statement of the reasons for using that procedure, explaining the alleged urgency, should be provided. Would you accept that as a proposal for a way forward?

Good morning, panel. I want to follow up on some of the points about digital exclusion that the convener raised. When reading the submissions, I was taken by the fact that there is a clear difference between the approach of professional organisations and bodies, which are, in the main, very relaxed—indeed, enthusiastic—about a move towards more digital engagement and that of members of the public, some of whom will have concerns. We have already talked about how that might widen inequalities in society.

I want to pick up the last point that David McNeill made, which was about the need to try to provide support for people who might already be digitally excluded. I put my question to Fiona Blair, who is here on behalf of the Association of Registrars of Scotland. What thinking has your organisation done about how a move towards online working will impact on people who are digitally excluded? What specific measures can you put in place to try to assist those who might have some difficulty?

Thank you. That is helpful.

Sections 18 and 20 of the bill give registration officers quite a degree of discretion in how they offer the remote registration of births and deaths. Do you have any thoughts about how they are drafted? Do they strike the right approach?

I go back to Adam Stachura from Age Scotland. We have had positive feedback there on what is being proposed. Are you generally satisfied with what is in the bill around the issue, or do additional measures need to be put in?

I ask Douglas Hendry for a local authority perspective on that.

I did write to you, Mr Swinney, and I got your reply last month. You gave me two pages of very general advice. However, that did not address the specific issue that that man’s GP has told him not to get a booster at the same time that the NHS, without asking to look at his medical records, has told him, “Sorry, you are not eligible for an exemption.” I am slightly confused about how somebody can reach that conclusion about his personal circumstances without liaising with his GP.

I have a specific follow-up question that arises from the case of one of my constituents who had quite a serious adverse reaction to the second dose of the vaccine. I know that that is rare, but it does happen. He then went to his GP, who advised him not to get the booster. His concern was that, if he was required at some point in the future to provide certification of full vaccination status, he would need to get an exemption. He then applied for an exemption, but he was told that he was not eligible. However, nobody spoke to his GP and nobody asked to see his medical records. He is now in limbo, because his GP has told him that he should not get a booster, but he is not entitled to an exemption. Where does he go from here?

Consistent with the view that we have taken on other occasions, I oppose the motions. We have been round the houses on this issue a number of times, so I will not tire the committee by going over all the arguments again.

The instruments seek to extend by another six months the emergency powers that were taken by the Scottish Government to deal with the coronavirus pandemic. We had some discussion earlier around the paper in last week’s Lancet, which, as the first peer-reviewed global estimate of excess deaths, observes no clear relationship between levels of excess mortality and different levels of restrictions. In addition to that, given that we know that the public adhere quite strictly to public health guidance, my view is that we should proceed to address Covid through public health guidance rather than through extending those extraordinary and emergency powers by another six months, as the instruments seek to do.

I recognise that some aspects of the instruments are beneficial, such as the provisions to allow nurses, rather than doctors, to administer vaccines. As ever, the classic challenge for an Opposition party is that we cannot amend the statutory instruments before us; we must either accept them as a whole or reject them as a whole. Given the extent of the emergency powers that they seek to extend, we must, in this case, reject them as a whole.