Seòmar agus comataidhean

Convener, I do not really have anything else to ask, although I may jump in later. We will see how it goes.

That is not uncommon. You have just spelled out the difficulties, and I think that reforming the area would help thousands of people not just in Edinburgh and Glasgow but, frankly, right across Scotland, although the situation mainly affects those two cities. I am pleased to hear what you have said and I would be grateful if you could keep us informed.

Let us talk about your work. I was going to ask how you have been getting on since you became chair of the commission, but I think that you have answered that already. You have also talked about how you have been dealing with the pandemic, so I do not really need to go into that either.

In the previous parliamentary session, prior to your appointment, our predecessor committee visited your offices with Lord Pentland as our host. I found the visit really useful, and I think that we got to meet all the commissioners. Would you consider hosting another such visit?

Wherever it happens, such a visit would be useful. Indeed, I found it useful just to hear in more depth about your work and to speak to individual commissioners. After all, they all have their own specialities and different backgrounds. As I have said, I—and I think all the members of the predecessor committee—found the visit really useful.

All my questions have been covered, but I want to go back to my own area of interest that the convener mentioned: tenement repairs. As the convener said, I chaired a working group on the issue, and the recommendations that stemmed from that work have led to your being contacted. Given that this is a personal priority, I wonder whether you can give us any idea of the timescale for such work if you were to take it on. When would it start and how long do you think it would take?

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 welcome the minister’s comments at the start of the meeting about the relationship that he wants with the committee. When I was the convener, I had a good relationship with Graeme Dey, you will be horrified to hear.

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.

I am speculating because we do not actually know. However, you said that you will write to us with the details.

I move on to another item. You mentioned earlier the need for clarity when you lay instruments. At committee recently, we had an interesting discussion about what constitutes dancing. You will recall that, if you are dancing in a nightclub, you do not have to wear a mask. Of course, we do not yet have a proper definition of a nightclub, let alone dancing. The Government came back to us and said that dancing is a form of exercise, so it will fall into that category. As Craig Hoy then pointed out, somebody could be dancing in a supermarket aisle and could take their mask off. That is why there is a need for clarity. Have you defined what is meant by dancing?

That was the problem with the way that the law was framed, which was why we raised the issue. We are joking about it, but it is a serious matter that, when we write law, it needs to make sense and be understood, and there should not be loopholes.