���˿���

In listening to what you have said about Mr Whittle’s amendment 4, I wonder whether there is room to work with Mr Whittle to improve the amendment for stage 3. You have commented that you feel that it is too restrictive at the moment, but maybe it could be improved.

I do not particularly want you to, but—

The DPLR Committee said that the default position should be the affirmative procedure. It did not completely rule out the made affirmative procedure, but it recommended that certain things should be put in place if that procedure is to be used. That was the purpose of amendments in my name that you have voted against, Mr Mason, despite saying that you agree with me.

Given that the committee rejected those amendments, I will not move the amendments in my name in this group and force a vote. However, I am keen to work with the cabinet secretary—if he is up for it; it is up to him—to see whether we can improve things in the area. I make that offer.

I am sure that alarm bells were ringing in the cabinet secretary’s head when Mr Kerr said, “I am trying to be helpful,” but in this case I think that he actually was trying to be helpful.

I have six amendments in the group: amendments 13 to 18. I will be extremely brief, because I know that the committee is up against the clock—I suspect that you will be sitting long into the night on this one.

Amendments 13 to 15 seek to remove sections 8 to 10. I will come to amendments 16 to 18 in a moment.

Section 8 gives ministers the power to make

“regulations ... relating to the continuing operation of an educational establishment for a specified period.”

Oliver Mundell has spoken extensively about that power, which will give ministers powers to close schools. It is a sweeping power with far-reaching consequences.

In my view, closing schools has, in some cases, been harmful. If we were ever to go down that route again, it should involve proper scrutiny. If we were to do that, we should use primary legislation, which can be taken through at pace but would allow for at least some of the severe implications to be explored. That is the route that we should go down, which is why I seek to remove that specific power from the bill altogether.

However, assuming that the committee will not agree to that, I am very much persuaded by the series of amendments from Oliver Mundell and Stephen Kerr, and I recommend them to the committee.

Section 9, which I also seek to remove, gives ministers the power to

“require a relevant manager of a school boarding establishment to take ... steps to restrict or prohibit access to the establishment for a specified period”.

The same argument applies: that is a sweeping power, and the consequences could potentially be severe.

I said that I would be brief, and I am being brief. I move to section 10, which gives ministers powers over student accommodation that would enable them to “restrict ... access” to such accommodation or close it down. The same arguments apply to all three sections that I have highlighted, and I think that they should be removed from the bill.

Amendments 16 to 18 are very similar to amendments that the committee has already considered and, unfortunately, rejected. Those amendments were extremely reasonable and were based on the DPLR Committee’s recommendations. I suspect that members such as Mr Mason would, in their heart of hearts, agree with those amendments but, given that we have already voted on them—[Interruption.]

I see that Mr Mason is itching to come in. Do you want to intervene?

You have kind of answered a question that occurred to me when you were speaking. Excuse my ignorance, but I was wondering whether parole hearings have been held virtually. It is clear that they have been. In that case, it seems to me that there is no reason whatsoever why victims should not be able to attend for reasons of public safety. With that in mind, I can think of no reason at all why members would not support Jamie Greene’s amendment 1009, which seems eminently sensible.

I thank Mr Brown and Mr Greene for their comments. Sadly, Mr Brown seems to wish to reject all my amendments in the group—even though they are perfectly reasonable, as he well knows—on the basis that he thinks that they would add delays into the system. However, in the same speech, he noted that Parliament is already considering a protocol to deal more quickly with the affirmative procedure. That stemmed from the work of the DPLR Committee, and we are, indeed, considering the matter.

I will follow up on Mr Greene’s comments. The Parliament has shown that it can act extremely quickly when necessary, so we could and should have an expedited affirmative procedure. It should allow what I suggest in amendment 1025: that ministers come to Parliament to give a statement and that we debate—ministers would have to present evidence—and vote on the matter. That is what we are in Parliament to do. Currently, ministers do not have to do any of that. They can do what they like. No evidence is taken and there is no vote until an instrument is in force.

Through amendment 1025, I am merely trying to correct a parliamentary wrong. I will move that amendment.

With amendment 1024, as I explained earlier, I am saying that we should not be able to use the made affirmative procedure; we should just use the affirmative procedure. I will stick to that.

However, I will give ground, unlike Mr Brown, on amendment 1026, because I accept that applying a blanket one-year sunset clause across the bill might be wrong. Perhaps we should have some flexibility, so I will not move amendment 1026, but I will press the other amendments.

Will you take an intervention?

Why did you pick the end date of 31 January 2023 for the first reporting period?

Yes.

I have been listening to the debate with great interest. Based on what you have said, I put it to you that, if you were the victim of a crime—I hope that you never are—you would want to know what had happened in that case. If police had arrested somebody, you would want to know that. You would not necessarily need to know their name—in fact, you would not need to know their name—but you would want to know what had happened in that case. Is that not the point of amendment 1040?