 Rwyf yn siwr, a defnyddio'r wirfwyr y 7 o sgwladau a Llyfrgellau Llyrgrif Weinidag. Fy fyddwn i chi'n gwybod yn y cael ei gweithio, rydyn ni'n gallu gwneud i fod agon Lyfrgellau o'u gwneud yn gweld, i chi'n gweld gwneud i fod yn sgwladau. Mae gwyl yn gweithio i'r gweithio, wrth i'r cyfrydd yna, yn gwneud ei gweithio i'w gwneud, i chi'n gwneud i gweithio i'w gwneudio i'w gwneud. Under agenda item number two, we are taking evidence from John Swinney MSP, the Deputy First Minister and Cabinet Secretary for Covid Recovery, on two SSIs that differed from last week's meeting. Those SSIs are SSI 2022-40, the Coronavirus Act 2020, Alteration of Expiridate Scotland Regulations 2022 and the Draft Health Protection Coronavirus Restrictions, Directions by Local Authorities Scotland Amendment Regulations 2022. The first of those SSIs are made affirmative and the second is an affirmative. Mr Swinney is accompanied by two Scottish Government officials, Elizabeth Blair, the unit head of Covid Coordination and Graham Fisher, the deputy director of the directorate for legal services. We are welcome you all to the meeting this morning. As the Deputy First Minister knows, this is a chance for members to ask questions on the two instruments that differed from last week. The committee is obviously focused on whether the instruments are correct as a matter of law, including whether the procedure has been applied, while the Covid-19 recovery committee will focus on the wider policy issues. It is likely to take evidence on those instruments on Thursday 17 March. I invite the Deputy First Minister to make you any opening remarks. I welcome the opportunity to address any points that the committee might have on the two sets of regulations on today's agenda. Firstly, on the Coronavirus Act 2020, the alteration of Expiridate Scotland Regulations 2022. Those regulations will amend the date on which five provisions in the United Kingdom Coronavirus Act 2020 will automatically expire from 24 March to 24 September 2022. By changing the expiridate of those powers, this will ensure that ministers have those powers available if and only if their use is needed in relation to coronavirus over the coming months. Secondly, the health protection coronavirus restrictions directions by local authorities Scotland amendment regulations 2022. Similarly, those amendments amend the date on which the health protection coronavirus restrictions directions by local authorities Scotland regulations 2020 would automatically expire from 25 March 2022 to 24 September 2022. Again, by changing the expiridate of those regulations, this will ensure that we keep in place important powers for local authorities to be able to make directions to control local outbreaks of coronavirus. The alteration of expiridate regulations were made using the made affirmative procedure, and I am aware that this is one of the issues raised by the committee. I have emphasised previously that the made affirmative procedure is an unusual power granted by Parliament in those situations when action may need to be taken more quickly than the normal affirmative procedure allows for. If this procedure were not available, there would be a risk that necessary measures could not be brought in quickly enough. The alteration of expiridate regulations are following the made affirmative procedure in this instance because at the time of laying, our understanding was that this was the only procedure available to us. As the committee is aware that it has since come to our attention that it would, in fact, have been possible to use the affirmative procedure. I would like to be clear, though, that even though the made affirmative procedure has been used here, we have nevertheless ensured that Parliament has 40 days for scrutiny of those regulations prior to them coming into force on 24 March 2022, as would have been the case under the affirmative procedure. As for the procedure for the regulations extending the expiridate of the local authority directions regulations, they were laid in draft and are following the affirmative procedure with an expedited timetable. Both of those sets of regulations put back the data on which the key coronavirus provisions would have expired by default, and those regulations protect our ability to be able to put in place any measures that may be considered necessary. We cannot let our capacity to have the measures expired by default because we may still need them. It is our intention and expectation that we will lift the face covering requirements and the other remaining baseline measures with effect from 21 March, however, that is dependent on the course of the epidemic between now and then. But even after baseline measures are lifted, Covid will not have gone away and may have further surprises in store for us. As the strategic framework update states, we cannot rule out the possibility that it may be necessary to impose legal measures once more. We must therefore be ready and be able to respond effectively, and it is essential that we have the powers to enable us to do so. In conclusion, both of those sets of regulations are essential to ensure that the right powers are available to manage Covid in the next phase of the pandemic should that approach be required. I am happy to address any points in the committee. Thank you very much, Deputy First Minister. I am going to open up the questions and I will hand over to colleagues. On the first of the regulations that they made, one of the sections at section 382 and part 2 of schedule 17 is the Powers of Scottish Ministers to give educational and continuity directions relating to the continuity of education and childcare. Is that something that was utilised greatly over the course of the last since the act came into being, but also in terms of going forward with the next six months with this extension? Is it something that you would anticipate that those powers would be utilised? The powers were certainly used on what I would consider to be a regular basis during the course of the pandemic, both in respect of the requirements that we expected to be in place to be observed to maintain public health in the educational community. At times, they were used to essentially specify what could and could not happen within schools, so at the height of the pandemic the educational continuity regulations were used to specify that, for example, children of key workers could be educated within schools or supported within schools, whereas other children could not. They were used to specify our expectations about educational provision at times as well, so they certainly have been used over the course of the pandemic. As to whether they would need to be used for the foreseeable future, they can only be used where there is a public health imperative to enable them to be so, but their existence and their significance relates to the fact that we must have, in my view, a statute book that is capable of enabling us to address the circumstances as we have to face them. As we progress this year, if it was recognised that that particular power and powers in this instrument if they were not needed, would the Scottish Government be considering bringing forward regulations to remove those powers? That would not be our intention, convener. As the committee will be familiar with, the Government has brought forward primary legislation that aims to ensure that the statute book is equipped to deal with the uncertainties that we may have to face on an on-going basis. That is a separate issue, which will be the subject of detailed and familiar parliamentary scrutiny. However, the whole point of the extension of the legislation that is before the committee is to enable the Government to be able to respond to the emerging situation that we face. Obviously, we have not expressed it clearly with Parliament before that we hope that we do not have to face those situations, but we have to be equipped—the statute book has to be equipped—should we face those circumstances. Thank you very much. I just want to start off, if I can, on this business about made affirmative versus affirmative, just so that it is on the record. I am talking about the instrument coronavirus act 2020 regulation that is number 40. It was laid as a made affirmative, and I think that the Government has now accepted, although it did not accept at the start, that it could have used the affirmative procedure. In reality, it does not make any practical difference because of the timescale that you have allowed, but you do accept that you could have used the affirmative procedure. As a consequence of helpful engagement with the lawyers of this committee, the Government's routine dialogue that goes on between lawyers, we have accepted that we could have used the affirmative procedure as opposed to the made affirmative, but we only brought it forward under the made affirmative because, in our view, that was the only provision that was available for us to do so. Yes, but that was, in fact, incorrect. I think that we have got to be careful about the use of the words correct and incorrect when we are talking about legal debate. Legal debate is at the heart of reconciling different views and interpretations of legislation. Indeed, the courts spend a large amount of time debating the words that we all put on the record in this institution to determine what is the correct interpretation of law. There is a debate about the interpretation of parts of the provision in which the lawyers of this committee have put a position to the Government's lawyers, which we have accepted. I thought that it would be useful if we just went through this instrument because it contains a number of provisions. It would be useful if we hear your thoughts on each of them. I might not cover them all convener, but I will just go through them quickly. I think that some of them are quite straightforward. The first one relates to registration of deaths and stillbirths. The ability to register them remotely, is that something that is a choice for people? With the provision in place, does it have to be done remotely or can people pop into an office still and register it in person? I think that they can register them in person. That just gives people the option to register a death remotely. That sounds eminently sensible. It might be something that you want to keep in perpetuity. That is why I am legislating for it in the substantive act, which is why I think that the act is so necessary. The next one relates to vaccination and immunisation. That allows people to be vaccinated or immunised against—it says in the policy note—any disease, any disease, not just Covid. That can be delivered by somebody who is not a medical practitioner. On the record, if you could just explain the practicalities around that. That is about ensuring that we can have a broader range. The issue is about essentially who can administer the vaccine. It is about ensuring that we have the broadest possible definition, because normally our vaccination programmes do not need to be as comprehensive as the ones that we have just gone through successfully and which we are likely to continue to have to go through for some time. It is about broadening the pool of people who, by law, are able to undertake that task, which would make the render of the vaccination programme impractical to all intents and purposes if we did not have that statute in place. Yes, because if we get into the mass vaccination scenario that we have had, obviously there needs to be that kind of flexibility. I think that there is an interesting and important point in here, which is about the recognition that in those type of situations we are dealing with a challenge of a greater magnitude. I do not have all the thought of knowledge on the scale of all vaccination programmes, but I would think that the flu vaccination programme is probably the biggest vaccination programme that takes place in the most concentrated period of time normally. Childhood vaccinations are going on, but they are spread over the whole year and all the rest of it. However, the Covid vaccination programme has, as we all know, been of a completely different character, so it was to provide that capacity that we were able to do so. That is very useful. If we can move on to the next section, this relates to educational institutions and childcare premises. Again, reading from your policy note, I am just reading from it, to date the power to give educational closure directions has not been used. It is considered an unnecessary to extend this power in addition to the power to give educational continuity directions, so that is fine. You do not want that, but what you do want is powers to close boarding accommodation and student accommodation. Can you explain why you feel that you need those powers? For the reasons of public health, because in certain circumstances we may need to take decisions that relate to the prevalence of the virus and its presence in certain scenarios. Yet, you have not used those powers. I think that this is a point that we are going to repeatedly come back to, which is about whether or not the statute book should be equipped with the ability to help us to manage a situation that we may have to manage. If we take the argument that has been proved to me that we should only act on the basis of precedent, we would never change the statute book about Covid, because we had never experienced Covid of the magnitude that we face. However, those are emergency powers that were put in place for a variety of reasons. Yet, in this case, you have never used those powers, you have relied on guidance. I cannot say why you would require to hang on to powers that you have never used throughout the pandemic. However, we may face a situation where we have to act and we have to act to protect public health. This is a point that we are going to continually rub up against as to whether or not the statute will affect the longer-term legislation that Parliament considers. Do we consider it necessary to have, with the benefit of our experience of handling the pandemic, a range of powers at our disposal that would enable us to deal with particular scenarios that we may face? That is the question that Parliament has got to resolve. As I have said again to Parliament on many occasions before, those things can happen extraordinarily quickly. However, I will come back to this point. You are asking for an extra six months for a power that you have never used during a pandemic. At times, it has been pretty hairy and scary for people, not so much now, thankfully. However, you want to hang on to powers that have never been used if you have relied on guidance. I have not heard a justification for that. I am offering the justification, convener, to the extent that I will end up repeating myself again and again. I have given the justification that I am going to give to the committee. I would not wish you to repeat yourself. One more question, if I can. I have an issue with that particular one. The earlier ones that we have discussed, I personally can see the validity in those. Do you consider splitting the instrument up so that parliamentarians who would feel able to support some of it, but not all of it, would be able to do so? I think that that comes into the nature of the way in which we formulate legislation. The questions that Mr Simpson has raised about the earlier sections on registrations of registration of deaths and still births and vaccination and immunisation points will be essentially the type of stand-alone provisions in the on-going legislation that members of Parliament can amend, adjust. As Mr Simpson knows, I take a very open mind about the amendment of legislation, so there will be space for engagement in those questions. When it comes to regulations, Parliament is offered the choice as to whether Parliament is able to accept or reject the instruments. I have not given consideration to separating the instruments, but that opportunity does not arise because of the timescales in which we are now operating. The point that I would make is that we have already expired very significant numbers of powers. We have done that openly and clearly to Parliament when we have judged that there was no compelling reason for us to continue with those powers. That has obviously been the subject of scrutiny by this committee and support from Parliament. I am not really sure whether that was a yes or no. I think that it was a no. Convener, I have not touched on the local authorities instrument. If somebody else wants to pick up on that, that is fine, but I will not be to ask about that if you want. Other colleagues first. Good morning, Mr Swinney. If I could just open perhaps 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, and you have acknowledged that today about the expiry of many of the restrictions and regulations. However, you are at a point in time where the situation has markedly improved, still seeking the extension of many of those powers, for example, to reduce prisoners early. Your justification for that is that you believe that those powers are still necessary and proportionate. Could you perhaps just say a little bit about how you make that assessment about whether or not something is necessary and proportionate, and that has changed over time? That is the subject of a regular process of review, which ultimately involves cabinet decisions and the statements that the First Minister has made to Parliament on a regular basis. The process involves analytical work that is undertaken within the Government to consider a whole range of different perspectives on the state of the pandemic, its seriousness, its level of threat to public health. That essentially leads to the production of the state of the epidemic report, which is published on a regular basis, publicly available. That is then considered by a group that explores at senior level within Government what we have described. Members of the committee will have heard me talking about the four harms that are caused by Covid-19, the direct Covid health harm and the non-COVID health harm, the social and economic harm that is caused by Covid. Ultimately, a judgment made by that group, which is populated by the chief advisers to the Government, the chief economist, the chief social policy adviser, the chief medical officer, the chief scientific adviser, the chief educational officer, the chief social worker, all those individuals consider that material and provide advice to the Cabinet which makes a judgment about whether or not regulations are proportionate. That is ultimately a judgment. Government was explicit in the strategic framework update last Tuesday that that is, always has been, always will be a judgment. Ministers, because we recognise—and this is entirely appropriate—that all of our decisions are justifiable, that we must be satisfied that such a stance of being proportionate could withstand legal challenge should that happen. Of course, the Government takes those issues very seriously in its deliberations. Ultimately, it leads to a set of decisions that the Cabinet takes, which are then reported to Parliament. According to the legislative measures that flow from that, they are brought before Parliament in the fashion with which the committee will be familiar. Obviously, they have to be necessary, they have to be proportionate, they also have to be legal. Last week, we considered—again, this week, we will consider measures in relation to Covid passports, thankfully the expiration of the present system of Covid passports. Last week, we discussed another potentially contentious SSI, the health protections number four, extension regulations, which gives you the powers to maintain the wearing of face masks and reintroduce Covid passports at some point in the future. On the latter issue, I would like to ask you to reflect on evidence given to this committee by the Government's business manager, Mr Adam, who told the committee that Covid passports were compliant with GDPR and that your Government, and I quote, would not do anything illegal. 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? Could you say when the information commissioner's concerns were first made to you? Well, certainly my reading of the information commissioner's communication with the Government would indicate to me that the issues the Government has to address are about explaining the approach that has been taken to information handling. It was not the information handling that was the issue. It was an explanation of the, that is the remedial action that the Government has got to take is to better explain the basis to members of the public of why their information is being handled and the way it has been handled. It is not the means of handling of the information. In terms of my knowledge of the situation, I became aware of the ICO's concerns on, I think, around about the 28th or 29th of September. I would have to verify exactly which day it was, but it was one of those two days. Wouldn't it have been better if you had made the public aware of those concerns at that stage? Well, I've obviously got to make a lot of judgments about the merits of particular stances to take. My judgment, having heard the issues that were on the minds of the information commissioner's team and given the necessity of ensuring that we had in place an accessible Covid certification scheme for members of the public, because I would remind Mr Hoy that this was important not just for domestic certification but for international certification as well, but that the appropriate course of action was to launch the app when we launched the app, as we had indicated, would be the case. Just to find any stimulation to that, I welcome the fact that the instrument that we considered this morning withdraws the scheme. If the scheme was to come back in its present form, would it now be compliant with GDPR legislation? Mr Hoy will be aware of the contents of the information commissioner's letter to us of last week. Obviously, the Government will take all the steps necessary to ensure that we address those issues, but they are, as a stress, about the explanation that is given to the public about the basis in which the information has been handled and the way that it has been handled. I thank the Deputy First Minister for his comments so far. I would rather zoom out from the specifics of the SSI, because I do not have any contention with the content of it, but I think that perhaps bearing in mind the report that was published by the committee recently in the debate that we had in the chamber last week, I think that it was, after all, to keep track of time at the moment. It is sort of my past moving events. I think that bearing that in mind, it is clear to me that, obviously, the Government had to address the architecture that was facing it at the time of the pandemic and however imperfect that architecture might have been. I think that it is clear that, on reflection, the system of made affirmative affirmative might not be perfect and best suited to current legislative measures and reflecting on how best the Parliament might be involved in that process. Could there be, in the spirit of continuous improvement, a way of piloting? Just reflecting on this particular SSI, but maybe going forward, looking at a way of using one of those procedures to pilot an expedited affirmative procedure as a way of trying to flesh out exactly in practical terms what that might look like. I think that we have already heard from the debate that people would be happy to adapt to meeting irregularly in order to meet the timescales demanded of the situation, etc. Perhaps given the fact that the Parliament is able to meet virtually in a hybrid format, it helps to move that practicality forward. In principle, I invite the Deputy First Minister to reflect on that dispute that has emerged about made affirmative versus affirmative being the most appropriate mechanism and whether a new structure could be designed and perhaps looking at how we actually now start that process in a practical way. Those are fundamentally issues for Parliament, but I recognise that the Government has got a significant contribution to that discussion. The Government would engage willingly and positively in that discussion. I recognise—I have been a parliamentarian now for just short of a quarter of a century, and I have always recognised the importance of effective parliamentary scrutiny of all business and self-government, whether that is in questioning or whether that is in regulations or legislation. However, our parliamentary system has been tested by a very serious public health threat that required us to move in the fashion. One of the observations that I would have on the debate last week was a number of comments that were made about the fact that the made affirmative procedure had hardly been used at all before 2020, and then it had been used a bit like number nine buses, although there were 130 of them or something at the one time. My simple point about that is that we had not had a pandemic before 2020. Parliament's procedures were tested by the need to move quickly and sharply. However, there are a lot of days between 0 and 40, so if there is a way of getting us closer to the zero days, which gives Parliament the opportunity to scrutinise legislation, it allows the Government to get on with the measures that are necessary to protect public health. The Government will be very happy to engage in that discussion, so I think that there is space for that to happen for us. It is difficult to perhaps pile it because we all need to know on what basis are we bringing forward regulations. As things stand just now, we have made affirmative, we have affirmative and we have negative instruments. If we are going to consider expedited procedures, I am very happy to engage in that process. Just to put on the record that the Covid number four regulations that we discussed at the committee last week were one of those examples of the expedited affirmative procedure, which is certainly unusual for our committee to undertake. I will make everyone aware that the discussions between our officials, the Government officials and the parliamentary officials regarding the procedures that are available to the committee, those discussions are under way, and we will have more feedback in due course. Is it on this particular issue or is it going to bring in Bill Kidd? Bill, that is the other instrument. Okay, okay, okay. Thank you very much. I know that you, from what you have been saying and from what I have heard you saying before, recognise and appreciate the procedural imperatives that this committee brings forward for the benefit of Parliament and for good governance. On the back of what you have been saying today and acknowledging the range of legal necessities that the Scottish Government has to recognise, is it overarching in this instance that it is really the immunisation, it is the scientific, it is the health imperatives that come first and foremost for the Scottish Government, which then leads to the extensions that we have been talking about here, the potential necessity during the six months extension that we might have to come back again to look at what might be another, hopefully not, eruption of Covid. That is the reason as to why this six month extension is being looked at. I understand entirely why people want to move on and want to move on from Covid. I completely understand that, but I am not sure if I have made this point to this committee, I may have done, not only is it difficult to remember what days of the week it is, it is difficult to remember where you have said particular things, but if I go back to late November, the Cabinet had a discussion on a Tuesday late in November, I cannot remember the dates, at which generally I would say that we came to the view that things were quite benign. We thought that we would be looking forward to a fairly stable Christmas and that things were on the up. By Thursday afternoon, Michael Matheson had been requested to join a call with United Kingdom Government ministers and our colleagues in the other devolved Governments to consider travel restrictions on southern African countries because of Omicron. We received briefings about the spread, the transmissibility of Omicron. Within 48 hours, we had gone from a view that things were benign and were on for a stable approach to Christmas to having to contemplate what measures were necessary to try to prevent transmissibility. In retrospect, looking in the rear mirror, the example of an outbreak of Covid came the closest to overtopping our national health service. All the stuff up until November had been challenging, but it hadn't come as close as Omicron to overtopping the national health service. The reason why Omicron came close was because of the degree of transmissibility, the volume of infection, the number of hospitalisations and the impact on staff availability. We hadn't faced that combination in previous variants. I simply say that to the committee to indicate that I hope that, over the next six months, we have six to nine months ahead of us in relation to Covid, but I can't sit here with certainty and say that to the committee. I'm simply trying to put in place the statutory arrangements to ensure that the Government can act fast. There is going to be a public inquiry into Covid and the handling of Covid. One of the first issues that Lady Poole's inquiry will consider is preparations for the pandemic. I have to make judgments on a constant basis about how prepared we are as a Government and as a country for certain eventualities. That's my ultimate responsibility for resilience. The legislation that is brought forward to the committee and to Parliament on this question is about making sure that we have the necessary preparations in place to deal with the situation as we may face it. I hope that that doesn't happen, but it's there to be undertaken. Thanks again, convener. Mr Swinney, I just want to talk about the other instrument that you've come in to speak about. That relates to powers that councils have. They have powers over premises, events and public outdoor spaces. Can you explain what those powers actually are and why? Given that we're about to remove pretty much all of the restrictions on our daily lives, a going face coverings will be the final one. Why on earth councils would be required to hang on to those powers for another six months? Essentially, to provide the capacity to deal with outbreak management would be the most appropriate way to express that. We saw in the course of the pandemic, as the pandemic began to go back to 2020, that there were certain outbreaks that fuelled the spread of the pandemic. What we were trying to do in the early part of the pandemic was to isolate those as much as we possibly could. Some of them were about workplaces, some of them were about venues, some of them were about localities. We were trying to take measures that would try to insulate the rest of the country from those outbreaks to avoid communal spread. Local authority powers and actions, particularly in the work that we do, along with environmental health officers, for example, are critical to enabling that to be the case. This instrument gives councils a power over public outdoor spaces. If we could describe that as possibly parks, why would councils need powers to do anything in public outdoor spaces for the next six months? There may be particular areas that we have to identify as being related to outbreaks or we may have to restrict access if we are trying to prevent the spread of the virus in the way that we had to do regrettably at stages in the pandemic. However, the crucial point is that we are going to come back to this time and time again. Do we want to have a statute book that is fit to handle circumstances or do we want to have to do it? Mr Sweeney is fairly saying to me that we need to have a process of thinking through what we need to do in certain circumstances. Based on the experience that we have had, do we want to prepare the statute book for that or do we not? That is the crucial point here. Another crucial point is that we want to cede powers to Government or councils. There are emergency powers. Do you want them to become the norm? Government and local authorities in the statute book just now have a whole range of different emergency powers given to us by Parliament, which are only exercised when there is a justification for exercising them. That is no different. So, if they have that range of powers, why do they need these? No, in general, in life, in other circumstances, we have plenty of powers that we can use in emergency situations. However, when it comes to the handling of a pandemic of this nature, we have found out, frankly, the hard way that the statute book was not equipped to handle those things. I am now trying to remedy that. Parliament will have the opportunity—it has the opportunity in those regulations to either accept them or to reject them. Parliament will have the opportunity in the legislation that I am bringing forward to consider whether or not it is proportionate and appropriate to ensure that our statute book has those provisions. It is not to say that those powers are getting exercised every day of the week because they are not. They have to have particular justification for them to be used in those circumstances. However, Parliament has to consider whether or not those powers should be there, should they be required. Do we have any further questions for the Deputy First Minister? No. With that, Deputy First Minister and officials, thank you very much for coming to the committee this morning. I will suspend the meeting briefly to allow the current Secretary and officials to leave the table. Moving to agenda item number three, we are considering instruments subject to the made affirmative procedure. The first is SSI 202240, the Coronavirus Act 2020, Alteration of Expiry Date, Scotland Regulations 2022. As well as the evidence session with the Deputy First Minister just now, the committee had previously exchanged written correspondence with the Scottish Government. That can be read in paper 1 for this meeting and led to the Scottish Government revising its policy note. Do members wish to make any further comments on regulations? I think that we had a very useful session with the Deputy First Minister there. In relation to the instrument that clearly deals with a number of areas, I can be content with some of them, but there is one that I am really not comfortable with. That is the power to close student accommodation and boarding accommodation, as we heard during the discussion earlier. That is a power that has never been used during the entire pandemic. The Government has relied on guidance, so I cannot see any justification for hanging on to this power for another six months. I do not think that Mr Swinney made a compelling argument for that. If you have had a power, you have not used it during the height of the pandemic, and we are in a much better place now than we have been, then I cannot see any justification for hanging on to that power, which was an emergency power. On that basis, I think that this actually throws up the issue of where we as parliamentarians are asked to approve instruments that contain a number of provisions, some of which we like, some of which we do not like. I think that there needs to be some flexibility in the system to allow us more to pick and choose. If that was able to be reported to the lead committee, that would be useful. On the basis that I do not like one of those provisions, convener, I will be voting against it, but I would much rather have the ability to pick them off, if you like, but that is not available to us. Unfortunately, on that basis, I will vote against. Do other members wish to make any comments? Thank you, convener, just to echo what Mr Simpson said, but to draw attention to the Deputy First Minister's response to why those powers need to be extended and how they come to a decision on the basis of it being necessary and proportionate. I thought that he gave a full response to that, but at the end of the day, he said that all matters all come down to the judgment of the minister at the end of the day. In light of the fact that the particular provision that Mr Simpson has referenced in relation to boarding accommodation has not been used throughout the height of the pandemic and at the most extreme periods, I think that it may feel that test of being necessary and, on that basis, I would be minded to vote against as well. I have listened to what has been said, and I can understand an element of it at the same time. I am very worried about throwing babies out with bathwater. There is a lot of stuff here, which is absolutely very necessary going forward, and I would be voting in favour of keeping. I note the concerns raised by colleagues on the committee, and I have some sympathies with superfluous provisions that are highly unlikely to be utilised. Therefore, there are questions whether they are essential to be included in the SSI. That opens up a wider discussion about quality assurance and legislation, which we have to consider bearing in mind the committee's report recently. However, I do not, on the balance of probabilities, think that it is a major risk to permitting that to continue for another six months. With that, I will pose the question. Is the committee content with the instrument? It appears that we will have a division on this instrument. I will ask members to raise their hands, whether they wish to make no recommendations in relation to the instrument. The three options are to agree, to not agree and also to abstain. So could all members who agree with the instrument please raise their hands? Just for the record, could all members who wish to abstain please raise their hands? So the vote was three votes for and two votes against. Therefore, the committee has agreed who are members' concerns about the instrument that have been expressed on the record, and also that there will be a report published and sent to the committee, and the concerns will be noted in the report. Also, under the agenda item, no points have been raised on SSI 2022-74. That is the health protection coronavirus requirements at Scotland, amendment number 5, regulations 2022. Do members wish to make any further comments on the regulations? No, there is a committee content with the instrument. Under agenda item number 4, we are considering instruments that are subject to the affirmative procedure. No points have been raised on the draft health protection coronavirus restrictions directions by local authorities, Scotland, amendment regulations 2022. Given the evidence heard earlier from Mr Swinney in relation to the regulations, do members have any comments to make on the instrument? Just a brief comment, convener. As we heard earlier, the instrument extends the powers given to councils for another six months in relation to premises, events and public outdoor spaces. Given where we are with the health situation, I cannot see a justification for councils hanging on to those particular powers for another six months, and in those circumstances, I will be voting no. Any other comments from colleagues? No, okay. With that, is the committee content with the instrument? It appears that we will have a division on the instrument of last members to raise their hands, whether they wish to make no recommendations in relation to the instrument. The three options are to agree, to not agree or to abstain. All members who agree, please raise your hands. Thank you. All members who do not agree, please raise your hands. And there are no abstentions. So the vote was three for and two against. The committee is therefore agreed. However, members' concerns about the instrument have been expressed and noted in the record, and also when the report is published they will be noted in the report. Also, under this item, no points have been raised on the following draft instruments. The Equality Act 2010, specific duties, Scotland amendment regulations 2022, the coronavirus Scotland act's amendment of expiry dates regulation 2022 and the local government finance Scotland order 2022. It's a committee content with these instruments. Under agenda item number five, we're considering instruments subject to the negative procedure. No points have been raised on SSIs 2022, 47, 49, 52 and 64. Do members have any comments to make on any of these instruments? Okay. So it's a committee content with these instruments. Thank you. With that, I will move the committee into private.