Seòmar agus comataidhean

I do not have the same view of the made affirmative procedure as Graham Simpson. The procedure still offers a level of scrutiny by this committee. As I keep saying, parliamentary scrutiny and accountability are extremely important, so I agree that wherever possible we should give the Parliament the chance to scrutinise regulations before they come into effect.

However, there needs to be a balance between parliamentary scrutiny and maximising ministers’ ability to finalise decisions as near as possible to the relevant time in order to take account of the fact that the situation is changing rapidly. We live in unprecedented times; over the past 18 months there have been times when the Government has had to deal with things rapidly.

As well as all the emerging data that we receive, there are a number of moving parts in the decision-making process. A number of issues are being worked through in relation to the design and operation of the vaccination certification scheme, including how medical exemptions could be considered.

As I outlined in my letter to the committee, there is an urgent need for the measure to be implemented to provide an additional layer of protection in a limited set of higher-risk settings. I say in all honesty that I want to work with the committee on the issue, but in relation to Covid regulations I cannot, as has been the case over the past 18 months, guarantee that we will not use the made affirmative procedure. I said that to your colleague Alexander Stewart in answer to his question in the Parliament a couple of weeks ago.

I do not know about my officials, because they have not been here today.

We could probably come back to you with the detail of the position.

To take an example, in its letter, the SLC mentioned trust law. I understand that the Minister for Community Safety will shortly write to Lady Paton about a bill on that, so we will be able to take that forward. I think that it is reasonable for the committee to infer a reference to the SLC’s trust law report in the programme for government.

I am going round in circles here but, all in all, I am trying to say that I am taking seriously the need to find a way forward. As Minister for Parliamentary Business, I am not too keen on there being too many members’ bills kicking about, because I am trying to manage the five-year programme. If we can find a way to manage the SLC commitments that we have made and look at some of the other stuff, we will do what we can.

As the convener said, the numbers are not as bad over the period, although some reports are always left.

Are you talking about the 28-day issue?

That would be fine. I can give the committee the list of what we are doing, and we can take it from there.

Again, Mr Simpson, we are faced with differences in interpretation. We are trying to make sure that key groups are vaccinated and have certification. We are facing an important and serious health scare.

My interpretation of what is needed is the opposite of what Graham Simpson said, because key groups of people need to be vaccinated and the whole idea of Covid certification is to ensure that those key groups are vaccinated and safe.

I do, convener.

Thank you very much for asking me to come to the meeting. I, too, hope that we will have a good working relationship, because it is important that I, as the Minister for Parliamentary Business, have a good relationship with this committee, in particular. I am aware of the work that you do, as I used to be a member of the committee, and I know how important it is to make the cogs of this place work.

I congratulate you on being chosen as convener of the committee. Although we support rival teams in Renfrewshire—we can leave that argument for another day—we have known each other and have been friends for a very long time, so it is good to see you as the convener.

I welcome everyone who is new to the committee and those who are continuing past roles.

The committee has an important role in scrutinising all the secondary legislation that goes through Parliament. That has been particularly challenging for the committee in the past year, which has been a difficult year because of all the legislation that has gone through. There has been a full legislative programme and we are still addressing many of the challenges from Covid.

From the feedback from the committee, I recognise that the Government has improved its processes. Policy notes are more accessible now, and outstanding commitments have been met. There has been huge improvement, which will continue. There has been improvement in management of volumes of Scottish statutory instruments and improvement in the number of SSIs that are reported. That number was 13 per cent of the 396 SSIs that were laid in 2020-21—the majority were in the last quarter. I am not complacent; obviously, we want to see further improvement on that, as we continue.

I provide the clerks with forward looks of the SSIs that are to be laid in the following two weeks. That has been on-going.

There is a need to avoid breaches of the 28-day laying period, where possible. I know that such breaches vex the committee particularly. Unfortunately and regrettably, recent breaches have been unavoidable. However, I am aware of the issue, and I want to try to make things better. What has happened recently has not been systemic. Of the 143 negative SSIs that were laid in the past year, 25—or 17 per cent—were unavoidable breaches. That is not good enough, so we will try to do better.

I would like to ensure that the committee regularly receives information on the volumes of legislation that come to Parliament and that it can expect to receive from the Government.

I welcome the views that the predecessor committee expressed in its legacy report in relation to consideration of Scottish Law Commission bills. I am pleased to note that, as was announced in the programme for government, we will introduce a moveable transactions bill, which will be a Scottish Law Commission bill. We committed in the programme to introducing other Scottish Law Commission bills. I know that that is another major issue for the committee.

I look forward to hearing the committee’s views and to working with you. I hope to have a relationship with you that is similar to the one that you had with my predecessor. Having known Mr Dey for years, I find it difficult to believe that people find him charming, but you obviously all had a good working relationship with him. I am quite happy to try to keep that going. If you did not have such a relationship, I am quite happy to make it better. Back to you, convener.

It is inevitable that, in any legislation connected to Covid, there will be a need to progress things quickly. However, I do not expect the bill on compensation for self-isolation to require an emergency timetable. I expect the committee to have sufficient time to scrutinise any delegated powers in the bill.

I cannot guarantee what will happen one way or the other. There is a good chance that the procedure will be used for some regulations.

As I said, I will try where possible to work with the committee in a way that will be acceptable to members.

Last week, we had a debate and a vote in the Parliament about Covid vaccination certification, so the proposals have already had one level of scrutiny in Parliament.

All the points on the Scottish Law Commission that the previous committee made in its legacy paper have been listened to and taken on board by the Government. I know that the issue has been an open sore for the committee and the Scottish Law Commission for a wee while. The bill on moveable transactions will probably come to this committee, when we take it forward.

This year’s programme for government announced quite a few SLC bills that will be going through. I use that as an example of the Government listening. It is a good news story; we have listened to what the committee said and implemented it through the programme for government. I probably have the dates for the moveable transactions legislation here somewhere but, to make sure that I give them to you accurately, I will get that information to the committee at a later date.