 Good morning, and welcome to the 12th meeting of session 6 of the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee. Before we move to the first item on the agenda, I'd like to remind everyone present to switch their mobile phones to silent. The first item of business is consideration of instrument subject to the affirmative procedure. It's the health protection coronavirus requirements Scotland amendment number 4, Regulations 2021. These regulations were laid yesterday and amend the Covid certification scheme so that it will be possible to access venues or events covered by the scheme by showing it a proof of vaccination or exemption from the scheme as now or a recent negative test result. The Scottish Government considered it necessary to implement this change from next Monday, 6 December. The Government has chosen to use the affirmative rather than the made affirmative on this occasion. The timescale does not, however, allow for the normal scrutiny of the timescale for affirmative procedures. Whilst the committee has, in the past, called for the affirmative procedure to be used instead of the made affirmative procedure, this shouldn't be at the cost of proper parliamentary scrutiny. While I was minded to agree to the timetable set out by the Scottish Government on this occasion, I'm clear that this does not set a precedent for future regulations. On the very limited timescale available, no points have been raised on the instrument. I reserve the right for the committee to look at the instrument again next week should any issues subsequently be found. We could then write to the Scottish Government to highlight anything that may emerge as a consequence of that. With that, I would like to invite colleagues if they get any comments to make about the instrument. Thank you very much, convener. It's obviously good that this has been dealt with under the affirmative procedure in that it does allow Parliament some time, though not much has to be said, but some time to scrutinise this regulation. I would argue that we probably need more time, but something is better than nothing, which is the alternative that we could have been faced with. As you've said, it essentially adds an alternative into an existing regulation. We could call it the vaccine passport regulation. We all know about that. We've debated that in this committee and other committees. That adds an alternative to that if you want to get into certain events. That is, if you can just read from the regulation that you would have to take a lateral flow test, the results of which have been submitted through the NHS public reporting system. Most people, if they are going to take those tests or doing so at home, will have a kit at home. My problem with it is that if it is to meet the policy intent in the draft policy note of reducing the risk of transmission of coronavirus, then it relies entirely on people being honest about that. If you have people who are desperate to get into an event, it could be a football match, it could be a concert, all they need to do is open their kit up, report that they've had a negative test result, whether or not they have, whether or not they've actually done the test. It's really easy just to say that you have done it and to say that you've had a negative result and then 24 hours later go into the event. It relies completely on people being honest. To be fair, the First Minister has admitted that herself. It does rely on people being honest. I'm not convinced that it meets the policy intent as stated here. However, there's nothing that this committee could report it on. I don't think that it's badly drafted. I just don't think that it will achieve what it sets out to achieve. I echo what Mr Simpson has said in welcoming the use of the affirmative, albeit expedited. That means that, effectively, some scrutiny is better than no scrutiny at all. I just want to record for the record that the instrument, even though its sound will give effect to a policy that doesn't, in my view, meet the principle policy objective, which, if you look at it, is to say to reduce the risk of transmission of coronavirus in ensuring that specified indoor public spaces where transmission risks are higher are used only by those who are vaccinated or can prove a record of a negative test. We know that the vaccine passport scheme is flawed in that it doesn't prove the person who presents the passport is the person who was double vaccinated. It doesn't necessarily prove that the person has recorded a negative test. The problem with the underlying scheme that the instrument gives further effect to is that it relies on goodwill and honesty rather than on science or proof. On reporting grounds, I think that we would seek to do if we thought that the instrument was drafted in a way that was defective. I don't think that the instrument is defective, hence why I don't think that we're calling for it to be reported, but I certainly do think that the policy that it gives effect to and the scheme that is being applied is defective. I would very much welcome us drawing that to the lead committee and then perhaps hearing what they have to say in relation to that before we look at the instrument further next week. I think that given what established protocols have been to have a double vaccination proof that is now combined with proof of a negative test is a reasonable procedure in practice. It has been demonstrated across Europe that most other countries are operating similar protocols. However, I understand that there is a potential for people to deceive that procedure in that process. Perhaps that is a matter for the lead committee to further consider how the aims of the legislation can be better achieved in the procedure. Perhaps there are opportunities to improve it, such as introducing some liability for those who are found in the course of random inspection to have cheated the system. That could perhaps introduce a greater incentive to comply with the proper honesty that is required from the community as a whole to protect each other. I agree with what has been said. I understand that there is a necessity to, if you are going to be coming forward with forms of legislation, particularly those that are going to be enacted in a daily basis by members of the public, then you have to try and make them straightforward. You also have to try and avoid the capability of them being the rules being broken. I do understand what has been said. I think that it is very important that we write to the committee, the Covid committee and actually raise this issue and ask that they will consider it. We can hear what they have said and we can bring it back here next week. There are a couple of points. First of all, on the actual drafting of the instrument. As has been discussed, that is not considered to be technically deficient with the advice that we have received from our legal team. I will deal with that issue first. Taking that particular point into account is the committee content with the instrument. On the other issues that have been raised by my colleagues, I think that the best sensible procedure to follow would be to write to the Covid committee. There are points that have been raised by my colleagues today. As I said in my earlier comments, I would reserve the right to bring the instrument back to the committee next week if that is something that would be required. Under agenda item 2, we are considering instruments subject to the negative procedure. No points have been raised on SSIs 2021, 420, 421 and 424. Is the committee content with the instruments? Also, does the committee wish to welcome that SSI 2021, 424, rectifies errors in the public procurement agreement on government procurement, thresholds, etc. Amendment Scotland regulations 2021, highlighted by the committee at its meeting on 16 November. Under the final agenda item, we are considering an instrument not subject to any parliamentary procedure. No points have been raised on SSIs 2021, 419. Is the committee content with this instrument? On the next meeting of the committee, it will take place on Tuesday 7 December.