���˿���

I do not want to get into the detail of the proposals for a national care service—I do not want to pre-empt what the Government comes forward with—but, given that your report identifies that there is an urgent need for actions in relation to the present system, particularly in adult social care, is there a risk that the difficult decisions that need to be taken now could be put on hold, particularly given the much wider scope of and remit for a national care service, which go well beyond what the Feeley review envisaged?

The timetable on page 19 shows, in effect, the national care service becoming fully operational by 2026. Bearing in mind that we are already into the second quarter of 2022 and no legislation has come forward as yet, do you think that the timetable is reasonable and that any costings that you have seen so far are likely to be deliverable and achievable?

In response to a question from Mr Beattie, you talked about the importance of data. The Scottish Government’s consultation envisages a single national information technology system for patient and resident records. What are the risks in putting together such a huge scheme, given that public sector IT systems have not always run according to plan or budget?

Like the Feeley review, the Government’s consultation continues to envisage the private sector playing a significant role in the delivery and provision of care. How should the Government go about making sure that it fully consults and engages with the private sector and keeps it informed so that it does, in the end, form part of the solution that we will see once there is a national, but not nationalised, care service?

Would you accept that we are almost talking about a fundamental structural reform of local government? I think that it was Mr Clark who referred to the need for urgent action from local authorities and IJBs in relation to the present demands and needs of the care service. However, we can see local government and IJBs being moved out of the picture, in effect—certainly, we can see a rebranding of IJBs—through the process. As we look at the structures and ownership of the system, will there be a risk that we will lose accountability at the local level and perhaps end up seeing some of the issues that you have identified in the past—for example, in relation to Police Scotland?

Would it not have been better to make the public aware of those concerns at that stage?

I welcome the fact that the instrument that we will consider this morning withdraws the scheme. If the scheme were to come back in its present form, would it now be compliant with GDPR legislation?

I echo what Mr Simpson said, and I draw attention to the Deputy First Minister’s response in relation to why the powers need to be extended and how we come to a decision on the basis of their being necessary and proportionate. I thought that he gave a very full response in relation to that, but he said that it all comes down to the judgment of the minister at the end of the day.

In the light of the fact that the particular provision on boarding accommodation that Mr Simpson referenced was not used throughout the height of the pandemic or at the most extreme periods, I think that it may fail that test of being necessary. On that basis, I am minded to vote against the instrument.

Good morning, Mr Swinney. I will open with a slightly wider question that relates to two of the instruments that are before us today. In a parliamentary debate last September, you said that the Government was committed to removing regulations when they were no longer necessary. You said that

“regulations and restrictions have been removed when the situation has improved.”—[Official Report, 9 September; c 96.]

You acknowledged that today, with regard to the expiry of many of the restrictions and regulations. However, at a point in time when the situation has markedly improved, you are still seeking the extension of many of those powers, such as the power to release prisoners early. Your justification for that is that you believe that those powers are still necessary and proportionate. Could you perhaps say a little about how you make that assessment about whether something is necessary and proportionate? Has that changed over time?

Thank you for that full answer.

Obviously, any measures need to be not only necessary and proportionate, but legal. Last week, we considered measures on Covid passports—indeed, we will do so again this week, but thankfully in relation to the expiration of the present system. We also discussed another potentially contentious SSI last week—the Health Protection (Coronavirus) (Requirements) (Scotland) Amendment (No 4) Regulations 2022—which gives you the power to maintain the wearing of face masks and to reintroduce Covid passports at some point in the future. I wonder whether you can reflect on the evidence that was given by the Government’s business manager, Mr Adam, who told the committee that Covid passports were compliant with the general data protection regulation and that your Government

“would not do anything illegal.”—[Official Report, Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee, 14 September 2021; c 9.]

Now that we know that the Information Commissioner warned ministers that the plan was unlawful, would you like to take the opportunity to correct the record? Can you also tell us when the commissioner’s concerns were first raised with you?