 Welcome to the 7th meeting of session 6 of the Delegate, Reperals and Law Reform Committee. Before we move to the first item on the agenda, I would like to remind everyone present to switch their mobile phones to silent. The first item will be just to decide whether to take item 6 in private. It's a committee content to take this item in private. Moving to agenda item number 2, we are considering instruments subject to the made affirmative procedure. The issue has been raised on SSI 2021 322, the health protection, coronavirus, international travel and operational liability, Scotland regulations 2021. The instrument revokes three previous sets of regulations and replaces them with consolidated international travel regulations, with the aim of improving their readability and accessibility, as well as making certain specific changes. In correspondence with the Scottish Government, the committee highlighted that schedule four of The instrument provides exemptions from requirements in the international travel regulations for certain people, including members of aircraft crew, as defined in paragraph 10 to A, subjection 2. The term EU Ops is used in that paragraph, which is defined in paragraph 10 to C, with reference to the meaning of that term in paragraph 1 of schedule 1 of the Air Navigation Order 2016. However, there is no reference to EU Ops in that order. The Scottish Government has confirmed that this is an error in so far as there is no longer such a reference in the order and undertook to correct this at the next available opportunity. Are members therefore content to report the instrument under reporting around age on the basis that the instrument's meaning could be clearer in this respect? To welcome the Scottish Government's commitment to clarify the position by updating its reference at the next available opportunity, which is now done within SSI 2021 343, the health protection, coronavirus international travel and operator liability Scotland amendment 2 regulations 2021, which is also being considered by the committee today. Turning now to SSI 2021 343. Are members content with the amending instrument? The final made affirmative instrument for consideration today is the health protection, coronavirus requirements, Scotland amendment 2 regulations 2021, SSI 2021 349. This instrument brings into force a Covid-19 vaccine certification scheme. Members will recall that the committee asked the Minister for Parliamentary Business a number of questions on the proposed scheme at its recent evidence session and followed this up with a number of points of clarification. The regulations themselves were laid on 3 September 30, before being brought into force on Friday 1 October. As such, this is the first opportunity that the committee has had to consider the regulations themselves. No technical points have been raised on the regulations, however, I invite comments from members on the instrument. As you have said, this instrument deals with the vaccine passport scheme. Everyone knows what that is. The committee has been asking a number of questions around that for several weeks now of the Government. What we have to do today is to decide not whether we agree with the policy or not. That is for the Covid committee and indeed at some point the full Parliament. Our role is to decide whether the procedure used is the correct one. The Government has put the procedure under the made affirmative procedure, which means that it has come into effect without any proper scrutiny by any committee. Committees have looked at it in general terms, but no committee until today has managed to discuss the regulations in front of them. It is already in force. The question for me is whether that is the right procedure. Given that the First Minister announced weeks ago that she and the Scottish Government wanted to bring in a vaccine passport scheme, given that the regulations having to come into force on Friday, the Government has said that we are not going to enforce them for two weeks, I would argue very strongly that that gives Parliament time to properly scrutinise the regulations. On that basis, the made affirmative procedure, the procedure that the Government has used, which avoids scrutiny, was the wrong one. What the Government should have done was to put the procedure under the affirmative procedure. That would have given Parliament a chance to scrutinise the regulations in some detail, unpick them and possibly avoid some of the problems that we all know about that have come up with that. I am not content with the instrument as laid, and I will be voting against it on that basis. Thank you, convener. I have just been part to echo what Mr Simpson has said. Obviously, I am on the record already. In this committee and elsewhere, we are saying that I have policy concerns and practical concerns about civil liberties, but that is not really what we are being asked to look at today, although I think that the minister's letter to us does not give me reassurance that the concerns that we raised prior to the instrument coming forward have been addressed, but that has been said for the committee to look at. What we are looking at is whether or not the use of the made affirmative is the right approach. We are the arbiter and the gatekeeper in respect of that, and I think that it is right that we do that. It falls down on whether or not the implementation of this instrument is in response to a serious and imminent threat. Given that the Government has been talking about this for three weeks, I have now subsequently delayed it. It is very much echo Mr Simpson's concern that it does not meet that requirement. Therefore, I do not think that that is being put through the made affirmative route because of urgency. I think that it is being put through that route because of political expediency, which is to avoid the juice scrutiny that I think would show that, in many respects, the policy is deficient and simply will not work to be honest with you. I have concerns that the Government is not going down the right route in that, and I will be following Mr Simpson in voting against it. I share concerns regarding the level of parliamentary oversight and the scrutiny of the procedure, particularly in light of the logistical difficulties that were encountered in the past few days, which demonstrated that it was immature in its delivery and that would have benefited from parliamentary oversight, particularly in light of constituency representations that I have received regarding compatibility internationally, as well as the value for money of the technical solution that ministers have decided upon. It has merited greater levels of debate in the Parliament, regardless of whether they support the principle of the vaccine passport or not. I think that the policy enacted by the Government would have benefited from greater levels of parliamentary oversight. Therefore, I would agree that its merits would be better suited to an affirmative procedure than the made affirmative procedure, particularly given that, although the broad context of the pandemic is valid, the serious threat is valid. The primary purpose of the vaccine passport system, as far as I can see, is to create a negative incentive structure for vaccine uptake. Rather than being about immediate need to, for example, deal with transmission issues, which is more readily dealt with through test and trace or test and protect. For those reasons, it would merit greater parliamentary scrutiny and I would support an affirmative procedure in this context. I think that the failure to follow the procedure to make it an affirmative was one that should be made very well aware to the Government. The fact that the committee is unhappy with the procedure has followed. It is important that, because of the nature of what we are dealing with in terms of coronavirus, things have moved on a pace. Potentially it is skipped in doing so some of the oversight that is required in the Parliament. Therefore, I think that this line should be an affirmative procedure. There are a number of points that have been raised. We, clearly, as a committee, have an instrument in front of us. There are no technical points that have been raised on the instrument in front of us, but notwithstanding the points that colleagues have raised. My personal thoughts are that we have to vote on the regulations in front of us. With the fact that no technical points have been raised, I will vote for this particular set of regulations, notwithstanding the points that have been raised by colleagues around the table, regarding the procedure that was used, whether it should have been made affirmative or affirmative. I think that it would be right for this committee to write to the Scottish Government asking some of the other questions around that, but also highlighting all the concerns that colleagues have raised, particularly as we may—who knows what is going to happen at some point over the course of the winter period and whatever actions may or may not have to take place as a result of that. Clearly, I will ask the question, but I also understand what the answer will be. Is the committee content with the instrument? Can I ask those who are content with the regulations to please raise their hands? I can ask those who are not content with the instrument to please raise their hands. Obviously, there are no abstentions. The vote was two, four and three against, so therefore this instrument is not agreed. The committee is not content with the regulations. A report will be published setting out the committee's decision in relation to all the instruments that it considers today and will include a summary of the committee's discussion. We will also write to the Government as agreed, highlighting the points that have been raised regarding the procedure that was used. Under agenda item number 3, we are considering instruments subject to the affirmative procedure. No points have been raised on the draft instruments, the winter heating assistance for children and young people Scotland amendment regulations 2021 and the first year tribunal for Scotland to chambers amendment regulations 2021. Is the committee content with these instruments? Under agenda item number 4, we are considering instruments that are subject to the negative procedure. No points have been raised on SSIs 2021, 333, 335, 340 and 341. Is the committee content with these instruments? Under agenda item number 5, we are considering instruments not subject to any parliamentary procedure. No points have been raised on SSIs 2021, 332 and 339. Is the committee content with these instruments?