���˿���

Given the examples that have been highlighted today, and the fact that there are people out there who own properties and are trying to cash in, which is causing massive problems, is there anything that the Government should be looking to do in the short term?

Amendment 1 is the only amendment to the bill that I have lodged. As we have heard from many witnesses at our evidence sessions, the bill is wide ranging, and there is an argument to be made that we should focus better. Umpteen bits of legislation could have been introduced, such as the housing legislation that Scottish Labour very much supports. There is a question about the bill in general, but my amendment seeks specifically to remove the so-called Henry VIII powers.

I have argued, and will continue to make the case, for a significant transfer of powers to this Parliament, but the use of the Henry VIII powers basically removes powers from the Parliament, which is the legislature, and puts them into the hands of ministers, or the executive. That cannot be right, and it is why people are rightly using the term “power grab”. I did not particularly support the use of that term at first but, when I looked at the evidence, it was clear that that usage was legitimate.

I will not go through all the evidence—there is plenty of it—but I highlight the evidence from Dr Tickell and Professor Britton from Glasgow Caledonian University. In their written response, they said:

“While powers of this kind have been used by the UK government to adapt the statute book to the United Kingdom’s departure from the European Union, Henry VIII powers are rightly controversial, as they infringe upon the separation of powers, give legislative functions to the executive, and can be imposed with modest opportunities for parliamentary scrutiny, particularly in circumstances when they are used on an emergency basis.”

I therefore lodged amendment 1 on a point of principle. Despite the fact that my party supports many aspects of the bill—we think that it should have been done differently, but we support quite a lot of it—because of that point of principle, we could not vote for it. We cannot vote to take powers from the legislature and put them in the hands of the executive.

In the stage 1 debate, in my view, the best speaker on the Scottish National Party side of the chamber was John Mason. He made the point that, although he hoped that the Deputy First Minister and First Minister would have a long career in those positions, at some point another Government could be in place. It is the principle that is the point: whoever is in power should not have the powers that are set out in the bill.

I acknowledge that the Deputy First Minister has attempted to address the concerns, but I have to say that—based on the evidence—the attempt does not go far enough. In the interest of democracy, of ensuring that the Parliament is the legislature and has the powers to legislate and of making sure that no executive should take powers away from the Parliament and to itself, the mechanism does not go far enough and concerns remain. Although I acknowledge that the gateway vote mechanism is an attempt to address the concerns, it does not go far enough, and I say that on a point of principle. If we allow this to happen, what happens in future when the next Government makes a decision?

I wondered where the phrase “Henry VIII powers” came from. Basically, in 1539, the then king wanted to make law without reference to the English Parliament, and that is when those powers came about. In 2022, when a Scottish Government—an SNP Government—wants to use similar powers to those that Henry VIII did in 1539, and take powers away from the legislature and this Parliament, that has to be a point of principle.

It is a shame, because having sat through evidence sessions and read the responses that we have had, there is a lot in the bill that can be supported, but we cannot support taking powers from the legislature and giving them to the executive. It is a point of principle.

I respectfully disagree. If the Government looked at the evidence and took it seriously, it would support my amendment, which is the only amendment that I am proposing, based on the principle that the Scottish Parliament is sovereign. It, not the executive, is the legislature.

On that basis, I hope that the Government will reconsider the matter. It is a point of principle and it is wrong for any Government, regardless of its political colours, to take powers from the Scottish Parliament and hoard them for itself. Murdo Fraser used the term “power grab”. Sadly, having considered the evidence, I have concluded that that is a fair term to use.

I know that the Government will not support my amendment, but I urge it to think again and, at stage 3, support removing the Henry VIII powers. The Government does not need them and there is a fundamental point of principle that needs to be recognised.

I have welcomed the steps that the Government has taken. It was suggested that the Government has listened, but those steps do not go far enough. That is the point. There is a point of principle, which is that to take powers from the legislature into the executive is fundamentally—

The requirement that an authority

“must take account of any views”

seems a bit weak. How would it demonstrate that it has taken account of any representations?

Thank you. Callum Hood, do you have any comments on that?

Thank you very much.

As we look back over the Covid period, what are the key lessons for Government? What should or could Government do better?

Secondly, in comparing communication in Scotland with that in the rest of the UK, I think that, in Scotland, the First Minister had a press conference near enough every day, and she was communicating a message. Generally, that was well received. That was less so for the UK Government, but the press-release briefs of the UK Government were much more informative. Dr Whitty and Jonathan Van-Tam had never been heard of before, but they are now household names—and they are very informative.

What could Government do better? How did it perform, and what are the lessons?

I will begin with Dr Dawn Holford. In your submission, you say:

“There is considerable collective and diverse expertise among researchers that could support Government in communicating science and public health messages based on evidence-informed principles. However, there is a lack of infrastructure to help with rapid consolidation of this expertise”

to enable that to happen. Could you expand on what you mean by “a lack of infrastructure”, please?