SOME emergency coronavirus powers are to become permanent in Scotland after MSPs passed legislation at Holyrood.
The Coronavirus (Recovery and Reform) (Scotland) Bill was backed in Parliament by 66 votes to 52 on Tuesday night.
The legislation will give the Scottish Government the ability to impose lockdown restrictions, allow court hearings to take place remotely and restrict access to schools in the event of any future public health emergencies – with oppositions MSPs branding it a “power grab”.
John Swinney told the chamber that in response to concerns expressed over the move, an explanation will be required as to why regulations would need to be introduced urgently, and an expiry date set for instances where there is no time limit.
So-called “Henry VIII” powers in the legislation will be subject to parliamentary approval, he added.
The Covid Recovery Secretary said: “In all of these changes, the Government has been listening to the concerns expressed by the external stakeholders and by members of parliament to ensure that we satisfy the objective of ensuring our statute book is updated to have the necessary powers to deal with the pandemic.”
Use of such powers will be undertaken with an “appropriate” level of scrutiny from MSPs, he said.
Murdo Fraser, of the Scottish Conservatives, said there were aspects of the Bill that his party would have been “happy to support had they been brought forward in another form”.
READ MORE: Nicola Sturgeon declares date of indyref2 in MAJOR announcement
“But too much in this Bill to us was simply not necessary at this stage, and it does represent a power-grab on the part of Scottish ministers,” he said.
“The Covid Recovery Committee heard in evidence at our consultation just how much concern there was from stakeholders over a lot of what was proposed in this legislation.
“The committee survey had nearly 4,000 responses, which I think may well be unprecedented, with as many as 90% of people who responded expressing concern about what is proposed in this Bill.”
Fraser said such feedback proved there is “no broad consensus” in support of the Bill.
Labour’s Jackie Baillie complained that the legislation – which she branded a “Frankenstein-like Bill” – will see powers “handed over to Government ministers”.
The Scottish Labour deputy leader added that concessions by the Government to address concerns “simply don’t go far enough”.
Baillie said: “The executive will still have far-reaching powers which will potentially lead to ministers making rushed, ad hoc decisions, without the benefit of the appropriate level of scrutiny.
“This Bill will not in and of itself lead to a better response to a future pandemic, and would diminish scrutiny and accountability.
“Let’s be clear as to what ministers are attempting to do today, they are wrapping up a plethora of issues into one Frankenstein-like Bill which is wholly unjustifiable.
“There are many individual provisions that Labour supports, but the Government have deliberately wrapped all these up in a Bill that hands sweeping powers to ministers.”
The LibDems also criticised the Government’s approach, with Beatrice Wishart describing it as a “unprecedented and unsavoury power-grab by the Scottish Government”.
She said: “With this legislation the Government is seeking to retain powers that they solemnly promised they would return as soon as possible.”
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel