 I open this meeting of the Committee of the whole Parliament to consider stage 2 of the coronavirus extension and expiry Scotland Bill. For the duration of these proceedings, I am the convener of the committee. In dealing with amendments, members should have the marshaled list and the groupings of amendments. The division bell will sound and proceedings will be suspended for five minutes for the first division of the afternoon. The period of voting for each division will be up to one minute. Members who wish to speak in the debate on any group of amendments should press their request-to-speak buttons or press R as soon as possible after I call the group, members should now refer to the marshaled list of amendments. I call amendment 1, in the name of Jackie Baillie, in a group on its own. Jackie Baillie to move and speak to amendment 1. Amendment 1 is my legislative attempt to be just a little bit cheeky. The Government and members in this chamber will be aware of my frustration with the scope of this bill being just so narrow—a choice that the Scottish Government quite deliberately made, but that has inhibited members from tabling amendments of substance to fill policy gaps. Most of those amendments from the Presiding Officer have unfortunately been ruled inadmissible on the basis of that narrow scope. This amendment seeks to set out the purpose of the act to increase the scope of the amendments that could be accepted. The delicious irony is that this has been accepted, but the other amendments of substance have not. I continue to live in hope, but my experience with the Government is, as Johnson would have said, a triumph of hope over experience. I move. I call Murdo Fraser. I thank Jackie Baillie for her bold attempt to bring forward this amendment to extend the purposes of the bill. I understand exactly where she is coming from and the point that she is trying to make. Yesterday, in the stage 1 debate, I set out our concerns about the fact that the bill has been too rushed. There has been no time for consultation or detailed scrutiny. Unlike Jackie Baillie, our criticism of the bill is not that it does too little but that it does too much. It is trying to do too much too quickly. What Jackie Baillie is trying to do is exacerbate a problem that already exists, because she is trying to broaden the scope of the bill to allow more amendments to be brought in on which there has been no consultation on which there will be no time for detailed parliamentary scrutiny. For those reasons, I am afraid that I cannot support Jackie Baillie's amendment because I believe that she would make the problem worse rather than better. I think that this is getting us off to an absolutely fabulous start this afternoon. I have to say to Jackie Baillie that it is refreshing to be reminded that she is, if nothing else, up front in what she does. I feel that the contribution that Mr Fraser has just made in contrast to the contribution that Jackie Baillie has made is that I feel that I am almost between the devil and the deep blue sea in arguing that the provisions of the bill are designed to follow a very narrow purpose, which is to ensure that a number of very practical operational factors and provisions that are in place to help us to manage the challenges of Covid are maintained in statute and some of them are expired as a consequence of the amendment. I am grateful to Jackie Baillie for her explanation of the purpose of the amendment. It is, in my view, an unnecessary and potentially confusing amendment. The Government's general approach to the drafting of bills is to avoid including purpose sections. We avoid them because they have a legal effect by virtue of their inclusion in the bill. That means that they are open to legal interpretation and that interpretation may have unintended consequences for other provisions in the bill. The long title of the bill already makes it crystal clear to the reader what the bill does. I do not think that the addition of a purpose section adds anything to the bill and instead introduces an element of uncertainty, which I think is important that we avoid. For those reasons, I invite Jackie Baillie to not press amendment 1, but if she does, I would encourage Parliament to vote against the amendment. I call on Jackie Baillie to wind up and to press or withdraw on the bill. I am glad that the cabinet secretary described Murdo Fraser as the devil and me as the deep blue sea. I would have worried a little if it was the other way around, but the cabinet secretary made the right choice in this instance. I rebut Murdo Fraser's argument. I do entirely accept that we are in the middle of a pandemic. We may be seeing light at the end of the tunnel, but there still is an emergency situation and that is about the policy gaps. It is about ensuring that those people who need the protection that the most are covered by the legislation and that we do not create any gaps. I do not agree with the cabinet secretary. He will be surprised to know that there are consequences for this or that it creates uncertainty. However, in the interests of time, Presiding Officer, because this is not the point of substance, I am happy to withdraw the amendment in my name. I call amendment 2, in the name of Jackie Baillie, grouped with amendments 3, 15, 19, 20 and 21. Jackie Baillie to move amendment 2 and speak to all amendments in the group. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I rise to move and speak to amendments 2, 3, 15 and 19 in my name, which is grouped together with amendments 20 and 21 from Murdo Fraser, which I will indicate that we will support as well. Let me take each of these in turn, but to do so briefly. Amendments 2 and 3 remove the power to extend the bill to September 2022. Emergency legislation is just that. It is for emergencies. I believe that we have come through the worst of the pandemic. The First Minister believes so too, given her very upbeat statement yesterday. I think that that is something that we all hope that is happening. The vaccine programme is now being rolled out at a pace, and restrictions are slowly but surely being lifted. Even pubs are now allowed to open late if the euros go to extra time or penalties. Although that is unbelievably inconsistent with the other restrictions in place, it is a sign that normality is returning. However, that action is not consistent with an emergency. As it stands, the bill will be extended by six months to April 2022. I do not believe that it is necessary to go beyond that. If there is another emergency, then there is time to bring forward legislation at speed to cope with it. I thank the member for giving way, but would she not agree that all the way through this, we have kept hoping that things would be finished quicker than they were, and then we have had a new variant and we have had other problems, shortage of vaccine. Is it not wiser to leave that other six months in place? I genuinely do not think so, because certainly in the discussions that the Government was having with me, they were prepared to consider a shorter extension period. The principle is the thing that applies. At the moment, the extension would be for six months beyond September. I think that that is enough, but it also allows the Parliament time, should there be a need, to bring forward urgent legislation in the future. It allows this Parliament's scrutiny without simply rolling over provisions and giving sweeping powers to the Scottish Government and to ministers. Amendment 15 is about improving scrutiny. This amendment seeks to expire rather than extend the power to use the made affirmative procedure for Scottish statutory instruments in urgent situations. As I said yesterday, I think that the context has changed. Restrictions are lifting, Parliament is sitting, committees are constituted, there is absolutely no reason why regulations should not come before this chamber or before the Parliament. I note that the UK Government has even agreed to bringing changes to be voted on in the House of Commons. If the Conservatives can concede that in an effort to be open and transparent, why is the SNP setting themselves a lower standard to meet? Parliamentary scrutiny, openness and transparency are essential for a flourishing democracy. It is time for this Parliament to do its job on behalf of the people that elected us. Finally, on amendment 19, let me indicate at the start that I will withdraw this and work with the Scottish Government to bring it back at stage 3. Again, this amendment is about improving scrutiny. I want a statement to be made to Parliament before changes are made to measures in place to respond to the virus. I entirely accept that 14 days is just a little too long and a much shorter timescale is needed to allow for a speed of response, but it is the principle that is important. Statements made to this chamber by ministers must happen. I am not going to speak at length about recent events with decisions that appear to lack consistency and simply do not make sense. Members will have an opportunity to scrutinise and that will benefit Government and will benefit our democracy. I move the amendments in my name. I call Murdo Fraser. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I want to speak to the two amendments in my name, numbers 20 and 21, and to comment on the other amendments in the name of Jackie Baillie. Unlike in the previous group, I am happy to support Jackie Baillie's amendments in this particular group. Let me start with amendments 2 and 3 that Jackie Baillie just explained, which remove the power on the part of ministers to extend the bill beyond the initial six months for a further six months period. If that were done, that would have meant that the powers contained in the coronavirus act that we passed as a Parliament in spring last year would have been in place for some two and a half years from when they were originally introduced. The First Minister told us yesterday in this chamber that we were hoping to be in a situation in which the great majority of restrictions that are affecting us would be lifted by the middle of August. As it stands, and I accept that that was a caveated statement, I accept that that is dependent on a number of things, including that the data is continuing to improve. However, if that proves to be correct, that would mean that the various provisions of the bills that we passed 15 months ago will continue until the end of March next year. That is eight months on. However, if there is an extension of a further six months, that means that those provisions would extend for a year and one month after the point that the First Minister is telling us that we should be getting back to a degree of normality. I find it really hard to understand why we would be in that situation. Indeed, if we got to the new year and there was still an argument for those restrictions, the way properly for that to be dealt with is for new legislation to be brought forward, rather than just rolling over something that has been passed and rushed through in a desperate hurry. I would support Jackie Baillie's amendments 2 and 3. If Jackie Baillie's amendments 2 and 3 are not successful, I would intend to move amendments 20 and 21, which are, if you like, a further safeguard in relation to the additional extension of time. What those do is require ministers should they wish to extend for that further six months period to give at least 45 days notice of that attention. Why? That would give us the opportunity to have detailed consultation and debate on the impact of rolling those powers over for a further six months period. That would be very welcome in stark contrast to the situation that we have been in over the past few days, when we have had to deal with the bill in a dreadful rush, without getting the opportunity for external input and consultation and without the time for detailed parliamentary scrutiny. I am grateful to the Covid review observatory at the University of Birmingham law school, who have inputted some ideas in relation to that. I read their submission with great interest, and I am grateful to them for their ideas. That is why I have lodged those amendments. I am happy to put them forward and support the other amendments in this group. I call Alex Cole-Hamilton. The outcome of amendments 2 and 3 will be very important to Liberal Democrats when it comes to us deciding whether to support this Bill at stage 3, because they speak to the fundamental principle that these are emergency powers that should exist in the context of an emergency only. We simply do not know what the context with the landscape of the pandemic will look like in 2022. As we all know, coronavirus is unpredictable. It can lead to unimaginable change, but the weather vans all point to the fact that we may finally be emerging from it. The roll-out of the vaccine is going so well. We have to hope that there will be some version of normality in the near future without the necessity for draconian Government powers hanging over us all. The bill, introduced by the Government, would allow ministers to extend those powers in a wholesale way to September 2022 by regulation. As I have said before, the legislation contains powers that are far-reaching and indeed illiberal, and they are only necessary because of the clear and urgent need brought about by the pandemic. There is simply no need for such a power to extend. As we speak, ministers are showing their ability to legislate quickly. If the Government is insisting that three days is enough for scrutiny of a new piece of legislation on this occasion, why could not that time be found again in the new year? I should also reiterate our support for amendments 20 and 21 in the name of a murder-phrase on the same basis. Turning to amendment 19, I am gratified to hear that Jackie Baillie has chosen to withdraw on this occasion. I look forward to working with her on stage 3 because I have a lot of sympathy with Jackie Baillie's intentions with this amendment. It would require a statement to be laid before Parliament on proposed changes 14 days before they came to force. My party has shed frustrations around late changes. Some have been poorly consulted upon. There have been times when businesses have spent serious money preparing for one scenario only to find themselves plunged into a different situation entirely at the last minute. However, I share concerns that 14 days as a requirement would not give the Government the flexibility that it requires to respond to urgent health threats. For example, if such a rule were to apply to adding countries to the red list, would we be able to respond with the speed required in the event of a new variant emerging? We know that a delay in such decisions can have serious and far-reaching consequences. The Government has stretched, and I believe that times overestep the boundaries when it comes to making announcements to this Parliament and in good time. However, I recognise the need to afford ministers flexibility so that they can respond to serious and fast-moving situations. I am grateful again to Jackie Baillie for withdrawing that amendment at this stage, and I look forward to working with her towards stage 3. I am grateful to Jackie Baillie for the explanation of her amendments, starting with amendments 2 and 3, although I understand the rationale behind them. The Government intends to resist the amendments as they attempt to remove important flexibility from the bill. As was commented on several times yesterday, we cannot predict the path of this pandemic or how long we may need some of the important measures contained in these acts. It is not possible to predict with any certainty, of course. Minister, please explain what he means by flexibility, because Jackie Baillie and Murdo Fraser, indeed, in presenting their arguments, said that, that should there still be a need for emergency powers, we would work cooperatively across the Parliament in order to give the Government the powers that it needs in that emergency. So why is the Government resistant in this area specifically? It does not make any sense to someone like me who is listening into this sort of a debate for the first time. Essentially, it is about recognising that we are in a very uncertain situation. We are optimistic about the situation. I think that that is pretty obvious, but there are still anxieties. The case numbers today cause further anxiety for me, frankly. We are not absolutely certain about the course that the pandemic will take, and we are therefore not certain what the implications over the winter period will be. There may be a requirement for us to use some of those powers over a longer period of time. I will come on to explain some of the rationale about the situation that we could face, which could see us having to return to more emergency legislation. What I am trying to do here is to minimise the recourse to emergency legislation by having sufficient flexibility in the legislation that Parliament passes today to enable us to be able to address any circumstances that we may face in due course. I therefore consider that it makes no sense to remove a safety net that we may well need, especially since any further extension would require Parliament to scrutinise and approve affirmative regulations. I want to be very clear on that point. The bill only enables the Government to ask for Parliament's approval to an extension. The decision on whether an extension should be granted is for Parliament to determine. The Scottish Government remains committed to retaining powers only for as long as they are necessary and appropriate. I would remind the chamber that Parliament will, on a bi-monthly basis, scrutinise the decisions of this Government in relation to the continued need for measures in the Coronavirus Scotland Act 2020 and the Coronavirus Scotland Act 2020, which the bill proposes to extend. There will therefore be numerous opportunities for Parliament to scrutinise the continued necessity of those provisions. I would also add that the removal of this flexibility will have an impact on the timing of a permanent bill that we will shortly be consulting on. Without that flexibility, the permanent bill will need to be enforced by the end of March 2022 to ensure that there is no legislative gap. Parliament would therefore be choosing to purposely put a deadline on when the bill making measures on a permanent basis must be enacted by. That does not appear to me to be consistent with the mood within Parliament and is likely to have the effect of reducing the amount of time which Parliament will have to scrutinise that bill. In addition, if it is necessary to extend the measures further, that could result in another emergency measure without this power. Parliament will still be able to consider and debate any extension and the necessity for this through debate on the regulations, and I do not consider an emergency bill designed to achieve the same aim would be an appropriate and effective use of Parliament's time. I therefore ask members not to support amendments 2 and 3, which seek to remove the important flexibility, have wider implications on legislative planning and may necessitate further emergency legislation in six months' time. I am sure that Jackie Baillie will be glad to hear that the Government is content to support amendment 15, which will expire on 30 September 2021, the provisions relating to scrutiny of subordinate legislation in the Coronavirus Scotland Act 2020. The provision of this amendment relates to allow regulations to be progressed under the made affirmative procedure rather than the draft affirmative procedure, and therefore enables regulations to be brought into force immediately where necessary, but only remain in force if parliamentary approval is secured. As a result of Parliament's willingness to accelerate timetabling of scrutiny of relevant draft affirmative regulations, it has not been necessary to use those so far. Therefore, while it would be helpful to retain those provisions in case accelerated timetabling of necessary draft affirmative regulations is not always possible, the Government is willing to accept Parliament's view on this matter, and for those reasons, I lend my support to amendment 15. However, I wish to make Jackie Baillie aware that, if this amendment is agreed to by Parliament today, technical tidying up amendments will be brought forward by the Government at stage 3 to make small consequential amendments. On amendment 19, although I appreciate the sentiments behind it, it is, in my view, unworkable and much more widely drawn than Jackie Baillie suggests, and Jackie Baillie has indicated that she will not be pressing that amendment. The effect of this amendment could be to require ministers to lay a statement before Parliament on any change to any measure in response to Covid, proposed by any person or authority. I do not think that that is deliverable, and I do not think that it is what Parliament would want. Nor would it be feasible for ministers to lay such statements 14 days before they are intended to have effect, but it is very nature that this pandemic has necessitated urgent action in response to its changing impact. I wish that that were not so, but that is the reality that the Government must deal with, and that is likely to be the case for the foreseeable future. At every stage during the pandemic, the Government has fully committed to being accountable to Parliament and its committees. We have agreed specific arrangements with the Parliament for the detailed scrutiny of ministerial statements and accompanying regulations. We stand ready to act on any further measures that the Presiding Officer or Parliament would consider would assist scrutiny. However, ministers must retain the ability to move at pace, where the public health and clinical advice indicates the need for immediate action. On that basis, the Government cannot support this amendment, but I am happy to commit to Jackie Baillie and other members of this chamber that the Government will continue to have dialogue about how best to keep Parliament informed about any significant changes to measures that we consider are necessary. Finally, the Government also intends to resist amendments 2021 as the attempt to remove important flexibility from the bill. It has been the Government's view that a fine balance needs to be struck between making as up-to-date evidence available as possible and allowing sufficient time for scrutiny and implementation in order that stakeholders and public bodies can prepare for any changes. Indeed, we have been discussing that matter over the past couple of days. In my view, it is unhelpful for the Government to be unnecessarily constrained by having this arbitrary 45-day deadline imposed. It would instead be more helpful to maintain a balance and unnecessary flexibility. I therefore suggest that those amendments 2021 are unnecessary and invite members not to support them. I call Jackie Baillie to wind up and to press or withdraw amendment 2. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. Ion's tend to press amendment 2. Let me make a couple of comments just in closing. I recall that Westminster MPs kicked up such a fuss when the UK act was first extended in September 2020 that the UK Government agreed that wherever possible they would bring a debate and vote on new regulations to Westminster before they came into force. They have done that. For example, the UK Government decided to delay the lifting of lockdown on Monday last week. MPs voted on the regulations on Thursday three days later. In contrast, the Scottish Government made regulations on 11 June about social distancing that is required in the fan zone and at Hamden, which MPs are not voting on until today, after the events have basically happened. We cannot continue to operate in this way. I am very pleased that the Government is accepting amendment 15. It does so on the basis that the provision has not been used at all, which proves in my view that we need better scrutiny by this Parliament, because the Government was simply going to extend an emergency measure that has not ever been used. In terms of amendments 2 and 3, I think that scrutiny is important. There is no need or sensible justification, in my view, to extend emergency legislation with such sweeping powers for more than six months. As I said to John Mason in discussion with the Government, a compromise of three months extra was suggested, which tells me that they were prepared to negotiate on whether it is six months, nine months or 12 months. That does not seem to be based on any scientific approach. There is no logic to the cabinet secretary's argument when he says that he does not want any more emergency legislation, but the Government wants the option to extend emergency legislation. Presiding Officer, if we are coming out of the pandemic, we should not have emergency legislation in place any longer than is necessary. We need accountability to this Parliament, and, therefore, I move amendment 2 in my name. The question is that amendment 2 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Parliament is not agreed. Proceedings will be suspended for five minutes for the first division of the afternoon. The question is that amendment 2 be agreed to. Members should cast their votes now. I call Ariane Burgess for a point of order. I did not realise that we were voting on amendment 2, and I would have voted no. Thank you, Ms Burgess. That is noted for the record, but we cannot change the recorded vote. The result of the vote on amendment 2, in the name of Jackie Baillie, is yes, 55, no, 65. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 3, in the name of Jackie Baillie, already debated with amendment 2. Jackie Baillie to move or not move. The question is that amendment 3 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Parliament is not agreed. Members should cast their votes now. I call Claire Adamson for a point of order. I call Claire Adamson for a point of order. My vote does not appear to have registered. I would have voted yes. Thank you. Point of order, Claire Adamson. Unfortunately, we cannot hear the member. I can confirm that you did vote, Ms Adamson. The result of the vote on amendment 3, in the name of Jackie Baillie, is yes, 54, no, 66. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. The question is that section 1 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We now move on to the next group, justice. I call amendment 4, in the name of Pauline McNeill, grouped with amendments 6 to 11, 22, 23 and 27. Pauline McNeill to move amendment 4 and speak to all amendments in the group. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I am speaking to amendments 4, 7, 8, 27 in my name and moving amendment 4. I begin by asking the Deputy First Minister to recognise that, in a rather rushed process, we have all done our best to do and I want to thank the legislation team for ensuring that we could get our amendments drafted and submitted in time. My amendment 4 seeks to address the question of the welfare on prisoners by hooking in the provision to regulate for early release so that the Government has quite a far-reaching power in doing so to discuss the wider implications of prisoners spending long periods in cells due to the coronavirus and concerns of the lack of fresh air for prisoners who cannot get outdoors. It would require the Government to report every two months on those welfare provisions and organisations such as Amnesty International have already expressed concerns about the length of time that prisoners have spent in prison. I think that it would be a help for provision. I think that, from the human rights aspect of this Parliament, for there to be some supervision of the conditions that prisoners are held in, particularly when there is a virus in the prison. The extension of time limits, that is amendment 6 and 7, so first it would expire the uplift in the value of fiscal fines of £500, so it would end that. The fines of £500, I imagine, would require a high tariff crime. I would have some concerns if there was any permanency to that when probing that in the debate, and the expiration of the extension for time limits for criminal proceedings and not extending them. The courts were already delayed. Significant delays, particularly in the high court before the coronavirus, with cases going well beyond 140 days in the 1995 act. The first coronavirus bill suspended certain time limits and had the effect of increasing the maximum time period, so that an accused person to be held on a man-prived trial on the bill seeks to extend that again. Of course, I realise that it is for all time limits and slightly shorter ones for some of the cases. I have expressed extreme concern, at an only lesson this week, about the number of people held on remand in Scotland. It is almost doubled during the pandemic from 982 to 1753 between April 2020 and April 2021, even before the pandemic had an issue with people being held in remand. The Scottish Government acknowledges in January 2020, noting that Scotland has the highest prison population per head in Western Europe, and approximately one in five prisoners in Scottish Jails are currently being held on remand. The horror league published a report last month titled The Scandal of Remand in Scotland and noted that 57 per cent of people held on remand do not go on to be given a prison sentence. Reports this week as well on women in remand are also incredibly concerning. I asked the Government to address the question that, while it is a probing amendment, and I realised why it would want the extension in time limits, I want to acknowledge that it is a kind of serious issue before the pandemic. We should be careful about using those powers, but I do quite understand the reasons why the Government would want to extend those provisions, but I would be welcome if they would actually note that. I have more concerns about my amendment 8 in relation to hearsay evidence. I do question whether we now need that provision, given that there are more opportunities for people to attend court. The Scottish Law Commission noted when we passed the first legislation that it would be used in a narrow set of circumstances. Amendment 8 seeks to expire rather than extend the option for hearsay evidence to be accepted. The rationale given for the use of hearsay evidence in the original bill was that it allowed evidence by statement where there will be a particular risk to the person's wellbeing attributed to the coronavirus or a particular risk of transmitting coronavirus to others. Fundamentally, a statement cannot be cross-examined by the defence. Further, the legislation does not specify whether that is a witness that is diagnosed by the coronavirus that would use those provisions. More important, I am not clear whether the provision would be used for the complainer in a trial or whether that would be a witness. I hope that the Government could see if that is a provision that was more widely used, then it would not serve the interests of justice if a complainer provided a statement and that could not be cross-examined. I am really looking for the Government to see in what circumstances it would be happy for hearsay evidence that is hardly ever allowed in the courts to be used. I am only 27. I ask for more information on how fiscal fines are used. For example, it is unclear what sort of crimes would be used to incur fines of £400 and £500. I really just want the Government to be clear. I personally would like to see some transparency from the Fiscal's Office on how those powers would be used and what types of crimes. I think that that would be in the interests to do so. Let's see that there is fairness being applied. Lastly, on amendment 9 and amendment 23, in the name of Jamie Greene, it is sympathetic to the concerns that Jamie Greene has. I am sure that we will express and I will hear what Jamie Greene has to say in the debate. I would be helpful if the Government could confirm that in using those provisions to have a race of prisoners, there would be at the end of their sentence and it would be relating to a coronavirus outbreak. There is no intention here to abuse those powers for the general prisoner management and the same with pay-back orders. I call Jamie Greene to speak to amendment 9 and other amendments in the group. I want to say that this is the only set of amendments that I will deal with. I hope that members will bear with me. There are a lot of them and there is a lot in it. This is really the only opportunity that we will get to talk about the justice-related issues of those emergency powers. I hope that we will get them a good airing accordingly. I also want to thank other members for submitting amendments that I tried to submit, but I also want to thank the parliamentary chamber desk and legislation team, who have been absolutely superb in the past few days, who have gone beyond the extra mile to try to turn what we are just simply concepts into meaningful and workable amendments. The problem is that we identified, as is the case with Pauline McNeill's amendments in the group, that the only way that we could bring about some of those issues to the table is through the simple process of either revocation or expiring the provisions that the Government is seeking to extend. That is far from ideal, because we will inevitably hear from the Deputy First Minister some of the unintended consequences of full revocation or exploration of those measures, and I understand why he will make that case. Indeed, he probably does have a case in some of them. I caveat my comments by saying that some of those measures were necessary in emergency footing. Some of them may still be necessary as we are still living in the pandemic situation, and some of them may even have long-term benefit, and I would be the first to admit that. But emergency measures that are done by their very nature also do things in a very different way that we normally would not do, and that is more so apparent in our judiciary. Those have consequences, and we know already from some of the briefings that we have had and feedback that we have had from stakeholders that some of those measures have caused concern. I think that it is important that we get those concerns on the table. We had to make a judgment call about submitting those amendments. The problem is that, if you do not submit the amendments, there is no debate around them. No one gets the hearing, no one gets their voice heard either on their official report or, indeed, by ministers. There are many ways that I would rather approach those amendments very differently, so I do appreciate that they create some technical difficulties. By the by, let me address them. Amendment 6. We initially supported the raising of fiscal fines from £300 to £500, I think, because the case was rightly made at the time that we can deal with a far greater number of cases rather than through more formal court proceedings putting more pressure on what we are already burgeoning courts with burgeoning backlogs. The question is, and I think that this is an important question, is what impact has this had on the serving of justice? How many cases that would have gone through more harsh measures have been dealt with through the administering of fines? Has this provision watered down the dispensing of justice in certain types of crimes? The problem is that we do not know. We do not have that data and we have not heard evidence to the contrary, so I am minded to support amendment 6 if it is pushed. Amendment 7 deals with the extension of time limits for prisoners on remand, and I think that this is a much bigger issue. I tried to submit an amendment of a similar nature, but it was deemed inadmissible. I think that we took the approach of extending the total of number of days that prisoners can be kept in custody. It is a difficult decision to take at the time, but the maximum of 140 days was clearly not going to be met in a number of cases. It is clear to all of us that we could not allow a situation where some prisoners accused of very dangerous crimes could be allowed back on to the street before the trial comes to pass. Many areas of public service, such as the justice sector, have been hit hard by the coronavirus. The Howard League warns us already of the problem that the number of Scottish prisoners on remand has grown immensely over the course of the pandemic due to the delays, but the way to tackle the problem is not simply to let people out of prison but to speed up the processing of those backlogs. I know that the cabinet secretary is going to tell us what the Government is doing in that respect, but there are thousands of people, literally thousands of people, who are awaiting a trial. There is a real issue within the remand population that I tried to raise a topical question the other day. It is the shocking statistic of suicide in remand. Almost half of all deaths of remand prisoners are down to suicide. That figure is a third in the general prison population. I think that that is shocking. The Howard League describes us as the scandal of Scottish prison services. Given that Scotland's remand population is double that of England in Wales, how can this endless extension of keeping people in remand deal with the number or nature of remand itself? I think that we are faced with an impossible conundrum here. Nobody wants the automatic release of potentially dangerous criminals on to our streets due to forced exploration of the measures, but equally we do not want and should not count on its endless, limitless remand caused by backlogs in court cases, which are neither acceptable or, in my view, humane. I move on to amendment 8 and the hearsay provision. This is an important one, as we have had much feedback on this, and it was much debated in the original legislation. In fact, the latest briefing from the Law Society of Scotland, whom I thank for the information, raised a particular concern over that. Those changes to the 1995 Criminal Procedure Act and the continued changes to hearsay requirements, under the current emergency measures that the Government wants to extend, a witness in a trial can give evidence, but not necessarily be subject to give evidence under oath or be subject to cross-examination to test that evidence. That is the key. Using untested evidence in criminal trials, I think, is extremely problematic and muddies our entire criminal justice process. I am happy to give way. Pauline McNeill. Thank you to the member for giving way. As you have heard, I share his concerns of why the Government would want this provision. I wonder if the member would agree that it seems that even the appeal court has been conducted in a virtual setting, that if the Government wants to allow some flexibility here to allow the court to proceed that it could use other ways of doing it. I wonder if the member would agree that the big question, Mark, is whether it serves the interests of justice if someone who is accused of a serious crime cannot cross-examine a witness or a complainer where an accusation has been made because a statement cannot be cross-examined? Jamie Greene Exactly that. You cannot cross-examine a piece of paper. It is how one lawyer described it to me on Friday, and he is absolutely right. As is the case, we need to consider where there is a necessity to tolerate this practice on a long-term basis. This is not simply a short-term extension, this is 6, 12, potentially even longer as we have seen these powers have rolled on. What they are saying to us in legal profession is that this cannot become the norm, and this should not be acceptable to us as the norm. In response to the original proposal for this measure, the faculty of advocates warned over what the interpretation of reasonably practical might be. Their briefing at the time said, abandoning the hope of sworn oral testimony is only done as a last resort. Knowing that it is at the expense of the quality of that evidence, it is not a step taken lightly. Again, we do not know how much that has been used in practice, because we have not taken evidence on it. That is another by-product of this rushed affair. I move on to my amendments covering 9, 10 and 23 together at a safe time, and they are on the issue of community orders. I think that the use of community orders is a much wider conversation that we will not have today. It is a complex matter, but I think that we do need to stimulate proper debate around it. The problem with what we are facing today is either the approval or revocation of the emergency procedures. I do not think that either in this case is either ideal. Reducing contact in the early stages of the virus, face-to-face contact, is something that we all got behind. It made sense no matter how difficult it was. Therefore, the community order provisions at the time also made sense. However, we are 18 months on now. We are in a completely different situation. The stay-at-home message has been rescinded, people are mingling outside, seemingly more than ever, and 80 per cent of Scots have received their first dose of the vaccine. Therefore, I argue that there is no excuse for those who should be out doing community orders or having them written off or rescinded. There is simply no need for this power to be extended unless the cabinet secretary can give clear evidence to the contrary. I believe that community service can be carried out safely if the scientific evidence allows so. What we also know—and this is a consequence of an emergency power—is that 300,000 hours of community service have been written off, just gone. I think that that will raise a number of eyebrows, no least among those who have been the victims of the crime itself. Social Work Scotland's warning is right now that there is a backlog of 700,000 hours of community service yet to be served within the designated timescale. They say that it is impossible. Up to 450,000 hours of that may be written off. We do not know the answer. I ask the cabinet secretary to think carefully about extending those powers. My amendments seek to revoke them. I have no doubt that we will hear their issues with that, but nonetheless I probe the Government on that issue. It cannot go forward without debate. The final point is an important one, which is amendments 11 and 12. I also linked amendment 4 in the name of Pauline McNeill, which we tried to submit similar. It is about the early release of prisoners, and perhaps one of the more contentious issues. It is an issue that my predecessor Liam Kerr spoke about in detail, and I know that it is an issue that is of concern to the Justice Committee. The amendment 4 that we will support includes useful and important reporting metrics, which will at least give us an indication of the situation. However, we are again being made to vote on a complex policy matter, with a simple yes or no, a simple keep or don't or out. That does a disservice to a prison service when we execute policy decisions in that matter. The provision originally was intended to mitigate a health crisis and an emergency in our prisons. I understand the reasons for that. It allowed Scottish ministers effectively to grant prisoners early release if they were serving less than 18 months and had fewer than 90 days left in custody at the time of May 4 last year. Think about the date and what was going on at the time, especially if they were at a high risk of catching Covid in prison. We supported that back in March 2020, perhaps reluctantly, but we had no idea what was facing us. Again, I argue today that we are in a very different situation. We have a tremendous vaccination programme, which is taking place within the prison population. The decision to vaccinate prisoners in line with JCVI recommendations was a valid one. It is unclear, however, how many prisoners have been vaccinated or not. The average age of a prisoner in Scotland is in the 30s, and more than 70 per cent of those in the 3039 population group have had their first jab. I think that prisoners pose a far lower infection risk to each other than they did before. Nonetheless, any risk that still exists must be addressed, but the way to address that is not simply to release prisoners. It is to deal with prisons on a one-to-one basis and work with the staff and protect those staff. Again, we will object to the on-going extension of those powers unless the Cabinet Secretary can justify them. With all those measures, I revert back to my opening comments, as I conclude. This is all really rushed. We should not be doing it this way. We should be taking evidence on the really important matters that affect our justice system, but we are not able to. It is with regret, therefore, that the Parliament has voted to navigate those complex matters and the way that we are doing in the future are as we have. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I will be very brief. I rise in support of all of Pauline McNeill's amendments and some of Jamie Greene's. Scottish Liberal Democrats worked hard to highlight the crisis in our prisons. They were unsafe and overcrowded well before the pandemic struck because the Scottish Government has repeatedly failed to get a grip on the instinct of imprisonment or the instinct to imprison. I have long held that evidence-based proposals for how the prison population could be reduced by stopping the over reliance on remand and giving confidence to community sentence options that do not rely on extra bunks in Barlenny. That power was a mechanism put in place to counter extraordinary measures that had an extraordinary time in the interests of health and safety, but 15 months into the pandemic, with the vaccine roll-out well under way, that threat to health and safety is not what it was. The Government should not get comfortable with the power of executive release. It is not a sustainable option for the long term. Likewise, options for the automatic rebates on community orders do nothing to give confidence to those options. If there are resortal deliverability issues as opposed to health and safety ones, those issues need to be dealt with through proper funding so that people can be supported to meet the terms of those orders. The legislation cannot be used as a get-out-of-jail-free card for the Scottish Government's failure to properly support Scotland's justice system. I will close with a word in support of amendment 7 in the name of Pauline McNeill, which would supply the extension of time extensions to criminal proceedings. I spoke yesterday in stage 1 debate about the issues of remand that Jamie Greene has pointed to eloquently this afternoon, particularly the rising population in remand, the number of people who are going for a plea of convenience and pleading guilty for a crime that they perhaps did not commit because they know that they will spend longer on remand than waiting for their case to come to trial. I absolutely support that because we believe that the extension of time limits has actually caused a drift in the criminal justice system that is no longer exoutable. The proposed amendment 4 would duplicate reporting that is already undertaken on conditions in prisons. The Scottish Prison Service already regularly provides updated information on the website on the effects of Covid, including a regular update on numbers of prisoners that are either infected or self-isolating. The number of prison staff absent from work due to Covid and updates on prison operations and policies in response to Covid. There is also already regular reporting on the bill provisions to Parliament. I fear also that the amendment would not have the intended effect of requiring Scottish ministers to produce a report on conditions within prisons every two months. As drafted, the trigger for the report seems to be the use of the release power so that it would not happen unless that power was used again and there are no current plans to use it. If it were used, it does not seem proportionate to initiate an on-going reporting requirement, which might end up continuing well beyond the period of release when the context may have significantly changed. Pauline McNeill, thank you for giving me the report that the cabinet secretary refers to. Does that currently include how often prisoners get to be outdoors and things like that that I mentioned in my remarks? Do not think that it will carry systematic volume data, but there will be information on the way in which prisons are able to operate within the context of the current situation. I am very happy to write to Pauline McNeill with further detail on that issue. If ministers consider it necessary to make use of the early release power in the future, specific regulations would have to be presented to Parliament on the proposed process, which would have to demonstrate why the action was considered necessary and proportionate, and how the action would support the effective operation of prisons and protect the health of prison staff and prisoners. I therefore urge members to reject amendment 4. Amendment 6 seeks to expire paragraph 7 of schedule 4 of the Coronavirus Scotland Act 2020 on 30 September 2021. Those provisions increased the maximum level of available fiscal fine from £300 to £500 and introduced a new scale of fixed penalties to give practical effect to that measure. That measure has been enforced since 7 April 2020 and represents a small but important part of the wider response to the on-going recovery of the justice system from the significant impacts of coronavirus, which is expected to last for a number of years and certainly beyond 30 September. The increase of the available upper limit of fiscal fine from £300 to £500 has allowed a greater number of cases to be diverted from summary court proceedings without the need for court procedure and associated appearance at court. That has crucially freed up the courts and prosecutors to deal with more serious cases and ease the burden on the courts during a time of significant resource pressure as a result of coronavirus. As members are aware, there remains a significant backlog of cases within the court system as a result of the coronavirus outbreak, and retaining the ability for the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service to divert a greater number of cases from the courts through that measure is an important and proportionate part of the wider approach to enabling the justice system to recover from the impact of coronavirus. Jamie Greene We are using emergency legislation to extend what are extraordinary measures, and I am not saying that I do not support what was achieved through that measure, but the problem is that you have already said in the same sentence that those are backlogs that could take a number of years, far beyond even the longest extension of the legislation. Therefore, would not it be proper and prudent that the Parliament debates those matters properly and the Government comes forward with proposals in a more fulsome manner, so that those long-term measures become long-term with the overt approval of Parliament and not through emergency legislation? We are in danger, of course, to repeat issues that we have aired already within the debates yesterday and around the approach that the Government has taken here. What the Government is trying to do in the bill is to take forward a number of practical measures that are necessary to cope with the disruptive impact of Covid on public services. Where Mr Greene and I can agree is that there is a backlog of court business, that is beyond dispute. The Government is trying to, with the benefit of the legislation that Parliament has already passed and had reports upon over the course of the last 15 months, continue the practical mitigating approaches that are in place that Parliament has already agreed where that is justifiable. The justification that I would make here is that there remains a significant backlog in court cases. That provision provides sufficient flexibility to deal with that. That potentially could exist for a 12-month period after the 30th of September, if Parliament agrees first to the agreement of the legislation and then to a subsequent renewal after a six-month period. However, if there is to be a consideration of longer-term provisions beyond that time, the permanent bill, which we will consult about over the summer and which we will take forward in the normal parliamentary sequence, as I assured Mr Fraser about yesterday, could be a place for that to be undertaken, if there was a necessity for that provision to be taken forward. I also agree with Mr Greene that I do not think that that is a desirable long-term provision, but we need it just now because of the backlog in the courts. The reassurance for Mr Greene is that, in accordance with guidance that is issued by the Lord Advocate, that measure will only be used where such action is considered by independent prosecutors as appropriate in the public interest, having regard to the individual facts and circumstances of each case. Safeguards are also built into the operation of fiscal fines, which are not mandatory penalties. Anyone who offers a fiscal fine as an alternative to prosecution may refuse such an offer by giving notice to the court to that effect. In such an offence, the refusal is treated as a request by the alleged offender to be prosecuted for the offence, in which case the procreative fiscal will then decide what action to take in the public interest. That measure allows where appropriate for a greater range of cases to be dealt out with the court setting, and it remains an important part of the on-going recovery of our justice system from the impacts of coronavirus. Therefore, I invite Pauline McNeill to withdraw amendment 6. Amendment 7 seeks to expire the provisions suspending certain time limits contained in the Criminal Procedure Scotland Act 1995. It may be helpful if I explain to the chamber why the suspension of those time limits will continue to be important in enabling the justice system to recover from the effects of the pandemic even after the immediate impact of coronavirus has abated. The purpose of those provisions is to preserve scarce court resource from having to be used to extend time limits in individual cases. Expiring those provisions will not in itself provide any additional court capacity or result in anyone's case being able to be heard any more quickly than is currently the case. Indeed, it could have the opposite effect. As members may be aware, almost all of the time limits in question can be extended on a case-by-case basis on application to the court by the Crown Office. The changes were made following discussion with justice agencies who noted that, at a time of significant pressure on court resources, it would not have been an efficient use of court time to have to hold individual case hearings in potentially hundreds if not thousands of cases. That reasoning is the basis for which an extension to the effect of those changes is being sought in the coronavirus extension and expiry Scotland Bill. It is anticipated that the resource pressures caused by the backlog will last for a number of years. Retaining the suspension periods as part of the operation of time limits is a policy designed to adapt to a changing environment. Over time, as steps are taken to reduce backlogs within the criminal justice process, it is expected that the suspension periods will not be needed to be used as extensively where someone is subject to court proceedings and that, where they are, they should not need to be used to their maximum extent. The numbers involved should reduce on a year-by-year basis. However, I consider it crucial that flexibility is retained to allow for effective and efficient prioritisation throughout the recovery and renewal period for the processing of court cases. I therefore would invite Pauline McNeill once again to withdraw amendment 7. Amendment 8 seeks to expire the provision allowing the court to admit evidence by statement where a witness is unable to attend the trial because of a risk attributable to coronavirus, for example because they are self-isolating or shielding and where it is not reasonably practicable for them to give evidence in any other competent manner. That list of change helps to minimise the impact of the outbreak on the ability of courts to proceed with trials and so ensure that the justice system continues to operate as effectively as possible. It is especially important at a time when the number of people are required to self-isolate. It should be remembered that section 259 of the Criminal Procedure Scotland Act 1995 already permits statements to be used in evidence in court where a person is, among other things, unfit to give evidence. However, that provision did not cover people who were unable to attend court because they were self-isolating for public health reasons. That measure should be considered along with the provisions that allow witnesses to give evidence remotely. Evidence by statement would only ever be admissible where the witness cannot give evidence in any competent manner. For someone who is self-isolating, it means that they cannot easily be in contact with others. That includes giving evidence remotely as the courts would not generally permit evidence to be given remotely without safeguards through the presence of others to ensure that evidence was being given in a fair manner. My concern here was that the way that it is drafted does not seem to be exclusive to a witness or a complainer who was isolating. I could understand why you might want that provision. Could the cabinet secretary specify that that power would only be used? In other words, it would not just be used in general for someone who was not fit to attend. Some of the lawyers that I have spoken to say that it is not specific in the drafting and that is only part of the concern, but it is a concern. I will reflect on that point and take some further advice, because the body of the argument that I am putting forward is that that would only be utilised where it was impossible for evidence to be given in any competent manner. I think that that is the crucial test. The operation of our court system operates on the assumption and presumption of evidence being given in a competent manner. Therefore, if that would not be a provision that was utilised unless there were very limited circumstances that surrounded the giving of evidence in a particular case, it is not the case that a person could simply give evidence from their home to complete the point that I was making before I accepted the intervention, because safeguards would have to be in place to ensure that evidence was given in a fair manner. Judges will assess the weight to be attached to evidence introduced by statement and may be expected to take into account the fact that it has not been given on oath or subject to cross-examination. Where evidence of a statement is introduced in a jury trial, the judge is obliged to give a warning to the jury that the evidence was not given on oath and was not tested by cross-examination. In appropriate cases, a judge may disregard such evidence or direct the jury to disregard it. Nothing in that provision detracts from the duty of the court to consider the fairness of the trial and to keep the fairness of the trial under review, which I think is the significant reassurance that Pauline McNeill requires on the basis of that assurance. I invite Pauline McNeill to withdraw the amendment, of course. Jamie Greene I am sorry to prolong the debate on this, but it is an important matter that may offer reassurance to members in the chamber, but it does not offer reassurance to the lost site of Scotland, whose state explicitly we cannot support the extension of hearsay provisions as detailed by the Government. What do you say to them? Obviously, there are many issues in which we find common ground with the lost society and important commentators on those questions. However, what we are trying to do is to put in place measures that are one of a number of steps to try to address the substantive court backlog problem that we have to address for all the other legitimate reasons that Mr Greene and Pauline McNeill have raised about the remand position, which is an issue of concern to all of us, regardless of our perspective in this debate. Amendments 9 and 10 would expire the provisions in the bill relating to community orders, while all powers relating to community orders in the 2020 act are exceptional, significant risk and uncertainty remains, and the provisions are necessary to ensure just as social work services do not become overwhelmed, especially as new orders from courts increase as the backlog is addressed. A number of provisions relating to community orders have been expired, and those that have been retained are necessary at this time. We are seeking to retain the provisions that extend the time limit for the completion of unpaid work or other activity requirements in the community payback orders to 12 months from the date when the order was imposed, or such longer period that the court specifies in the order. If amendment 9 is agreed, the time periods would revert to three months for a level 1 unpaid work or other activity requirement and six months for a level 2 unpaid work or other activity requirement. That would put additional strain on the system at a time when significant pressures remain. It would also require lower-level orders to be prioritised as they would have shorter timescales. We are also seeking to retain a power to allow for regulations to be made by Scottish ministers to vary or revoke requirements imposed in community payback orders. Amendment 10 would see that power expired. Regulations to reduce unpaid work requirements in existing community payback orders by 35 per cent, with the exceptions for domestic abuse, sexual offending and stalking, were scrutinised and approved by Parliament. All existing orders imposed up to and including the 15 March were reduced. It did not affect orders made after 15 March. Amendment 23 seeks to revoke the regulations, which are surprising given that they were approved by Parliament so recently and have already taken effect. That proportionate measure helped to address the unavoidable build-up of unpaid work, resulting from essential public health restrictions while ensuring that those on community orders still serve the majority of their sentences. Amendment 10 would prevent the Government from taking a similar measure up to March 2022 if it considered it necessary and proportionate to ease the pressure on the system. To avoid Covid-19 recovery work in 2021-22, approximately £11.8 million has been allocated for use by justice social work services and directly addressing the impact of the pandemic. Although the regulations and funding mitigated risk to the system, there remains risk of community justice services being overwhelmed, as unpaid work simply cannot be delivered in reasonable timescales due to necessary public health restrictions and increasing demand. Current advice on justice partners suggests that such a scenario of court disposal capacity exceeding community justice capacity in the months ahead is a realistic prospect and therefore presents an on-going risk. While the Scottish Government is working with national justice partners to mitigate the risk as far as possible, it is important to extend the provisions that are set out in the bill to ensure that there is flexibility in the system if required. I can assure members that there are no current plans to use those powers. Social Work Scotland states that it supports the extension of the proposals that are outlined in the bill, noting that just as social work continues to face a significant challenge due to the pandemic and the extension will ensure that, should there be a resurgence in Covid-19, action can be taken swiftly to mitigate any further impact. I urge members to reject amendments 9, 10 and 23 that are tabled in Mr Greene's name. I thank Pauline McNeill for her amendment 27. Her amendment would introduce a statutory one-off reporting requirement for the use of fiscal fine powers in the bill. I accept, in principle, the policy that lies behind the amendment, but I would ask Pauline McNeill not to move her amendment and I commit to developing a revised amendment that takes account of the following concern. The wording of the amendment would require the Scottish ministers to comment on the appropriateness of the use of fiscal fine powers by the Lord Advocate. As members will know, the Lord Advocate carries out prosecutorial functions entirely independently of any other person and it would not be appropriate for such comments to be made by Scottish ministers. However, the rest of the amendment is something that I accept, in principle, and we provide a useful one-off report on usage of fiscal fine powers to complement the regular reporting that the Lord Advocate has been undertaking direct to the Justice Committee. I understand that the Lord Advocate agrees with that approach. I hope that Pauline McNeill is content with that approach and that I will develop a revised amendment for stage 3 tomorrow. I urge members to reject amendments 11 and 22. Amendment 11 would remove the only power of emergency release from prison that exists and would do so during an on-going pandemic. That has been needed once, and although we have no current plans to use it again, expiring the power would be imprudent action given the uncertainty over the on-going impact of coronavirus. Amendment 22 would revoke two existing regulations laid under those powers, while revoking the release regulations would have absolutely no impact, given the time period set in those as long past. Revoking the miscellaneous temporary modification regulations relating to victim notification would remove the changes that were made to extend victim notification to cover the release arrangements. I urge members to reject that amendment. I apologise, Presiding Officer, for detaining Parliament so long on this important and detailed section. Pauline McNeill to wind up, press or withdraw amendment 4. Can I begin by agreeing with Alex Cole-Hamilton and Jamie Greene? It has been a very rushed process. In some ways, what we are trying to do here is impossible because, on the one hand, we are trying to defend the interests of justice. On the other hand, we do see some of the Government's issues relating to managing the courts. I want to begin by addressing the question of amendment in six and fiscal fines. The cabinet secretary said that the greater number of cases would be diverted, and we do not know what types of crimes they would be, but they would be used in the basis of trying to recover from the coronavirus. I note what the cabinet secretary said, and I think that that is important. I do not think that it is a desirable provision in the longer term. For me, that is an important statement, because I do not support the general extension of fiscal fines to £500. If I can beg to deliver with a Lord Dadricate, should I be so bold? That is that, when it comes to fiscal fines of £500, I would imagine that we would attract a fairly high tariff crime. I do think that it is a legitimate interest of the Parliament if they felt that fiscal fines were being issued by fiscals for what we mean with serious crimes. You might say that that might never happen, but I would say that it is quite legitimate for the Parliament to have an interest in that for that reason. However, if the cabinet secretary is indicating that that is a provision that will be used primarily for Covid times, I am less concerned about it. On amendment 7 to time limits, I think that Jamie Greene said that we are in a possible position here, and I agree with Jamie Greene on that. On the one hand, I am very exercised about long delays to court proceedings, not just for the accused but also for victims. I am generally not happy about extending time limits. I do appreciate that there are difficulties finding courts, and I know that we are having to find venues all over the country, which is suitable at the moment for social distancing, so I do have some sympathy with that. However, I would remind the chamber that the law is that when someone is in custody waiting a child, it should be no longer there in 140 days. We will really need to think very shortly after the discussion of this bill how we can plan to return to those provisions, which, after all, are the current law. On the reporting procedures on amendment 4, I seek to withdraw amendment 4. On the basis that the cabinet secretary is going to write to me on a specific issue, I know that the cabinet secretary says that it is a duplication of the reporting mechanisms in Scottish prisons that is already done. I would really like to hear from the cabinet secretary on the issue of prisoners, particularly when there is a coronavirus that they are getting out of their cells and outdoors. On that basis, I will withdraw. I am not going to press the others. I want to finish on amendment 8 on hearsay. I am going to press this one. I did listen to what was said, that the hearsay principle helps to minimise disruption. If, under section 259 of the 95 act already permits hearsay evidence on applications to the court when a person is not fit to give evidence, then I would say that those provisions are therefore not needed. Also, under cabinet secretary, it is going to return to this point. It does not seem in the drafting that it is exclusively for the purposes of those who are isolating due to the coronavirus. Using hearsay evidence is very seldom used in the courts. I would argue that section 29259 is not that often used, but it is a dangerous provision. We must be very careful about it for reasons that Jamie Greene spoke to, which is that, in the interests of justice, it must be absolutely fair to the accused that any statement can be cross-examined. I realise that it is only in extreme circumstances, but I do think that provisions already exist for that to happen, so I will be pressing on amendment 8. Pauline McNeill seeks to withdraw amendment 4. Does any member object? The amendment 4 is withdrawn and we now move on to the next group, support for tenants. I call amendment 5 in the name of Mark Griffin, grouped with amendments 16 and 24. Mark Griffin to move amendment 5 and speak to all amendments in the group. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I draw members' attention to my research that I have interests as an organ of our rental property in North Lanarkshire. I begin my moving amendment 5 in my name. I highlighted in the stage 1 debate yesterday guidance issued by the UN special rapporteur on adequate housing, which states that housing has become the front-line defence against the coronavirus. At all points of the pandemic, the key public health advice has been to isolate at home. No matter if you had symptoms, had you been in close contact with a confirmed case or had Covid-19 yourself, you should isolate at home. With that in mind, I had lodged amendments that would have extended the eviction ban to level 1 and 2 areas to protect those threatened with eviction, to no fault of their own, due to a global pandemic, and to protect their ability to isolate at home under any of those circumstances. However, because of the way that the Government has crafted the legislation, it has been deemed out of scope. Since amendment 1 in the name of Jackie Baillie has been withdrawn, I hope, when the Deputy First Minister talked yesterday of supporting policies raised by opposition speakers that can be taken forward without the need for legislation, the eviction ban is at the top of his list. In the absence of an ability to amend to include a ban, amendment 5 will require ministers to report on the efficacy of their measures to protect tenants in Scotland from eviction for as long as the legislation is in force. That amendment will hold Scottish ministers accountable for their policy decisions in this area, place the requirement on a statutory footing that will ensure that Parliament is fully aware of the effect of the Government's decisions on some of the people made most vulnerable by the effects of the pandemic. Turning to the other amendments, the Scottish Government's £10 million tenant hardship loan fund was supposed to help people to avoid the risk of losing their homes because of pandemic-related financial pressures, but so far only £490,000 has been paid. It is also not a viable solution to people's housing's debt to put them into more and more debt. We have repeatedly called for this loan fund to be converted into a grant fund and welcomed the Government's announcement to do just that yesterday. Amendments 16 and 24 should be looked at together as a package. If amendment 16 is passed and amendment 24 falls, tenants will be in a weaker position and I would want to avoid that situation. Amendments 16 expires all the pre-action checks in the current legislation that landlords must complete before raising a notification of proceedings against a tenant. However, amendment 24 replaces that with the requirement that notices of proceedings against tenants cannot be raised until they have received a grant from the Government paying off their rent arrears. That amendment also gives a statutory basis for the tenant hardship grant fund that the Government announced yesterday. Those amendments are lodged with the intention of supporting tenancies and ensuring that individuals and families have the ability to comply with one of the most important pieces of public health advice during the pandemic, which is the ability to isolate at home and ask members to support all amendments in this group. The question of tenants rights and the evictions ban was subject to significant debate yesterday in stage 1 when we considered the bill. We have been very clear that we supported the provisions in the previous act passed last year to protect tenants, requiring a 7 months notice period prior to a landlord commencing proceedings for eviction, because it is right that tenants who are in financial difficulty get additional support at this time when Covid is impacting on the economy and people's incomes. We would support the continuation of that sixth month period for so long as it is appropriate to do so. However, we recognise that there are concerns that have been expressed by many groups about the long-term impact of an evictions ban being in place, representation that we have had from registered social landlords, including the Glasgow and West of Scotland forum of housing associations pointing out the unintended consequences of such a ban long term. Those voices are right to point out that an evictions ban is not a solution to a problem, it is simply postponing a problem. The solution to the problem is providing better financial support for tenants so that they are able to reach agreement with their landlords about paying rent arrears. In that respect, I agree with what Mark Griffin said about the inadequacy of the loan fund and I welcomed yesterday the announcement from the Deputy First Minister about the new grant scheme, although we do not have any details of how that will work. Turning to Mark Griffin's amendments, amendment 5 on additional reporting seems reasonable, but I will hear from the Deputy First Minister what his response is to that. Amendment 16, as it stands, would remove protections from tenants, although I hear what Mark Griffin said about that being tied in with amendment 24. However, when we look at amendment 24, it seems to me that it is very prescriptive in its terms. It is referring to a grant scheme that has not yet been established, we do not know what the terms of that grant scheme will be, we do not know how generous it will be, we do not know whether it is realistic, as the amendment would suggest that every tenant will receive a grant that is equal to the full amount of rent arrears that have been accrued, I do not know of any assessment that has been done as to the amount of money that would be involved in that, and to tie the question of evictions to access to a fund of which we have no details seems at best premature. I welcome Mark Griffin's approach to this and I welcome the debate, I think that we would struggle to support amendments 16 and 24 as they are currently set out. I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in support of amendments 5, 16 and 24, in the name of Mark Griffin. An eviction ban applying to all levels of Covid restrictions has been a central ask of the Scottish Labour Party over many weeks now. It is disappointing that the amendment to give this effect has been ruled as inadmissible, largely because the Scottish Government has quite deliberately made this legislation very narrow in its intent, and many of the amendments that we have sought to table, and I know others too, have been out of scope. The cabinet secretary points to a permanent bill, but the timescale for this is not altogether clear, and there will be a legislative gap in protection. Eviction orders are before the courts now. People could be in danger of losing the roof over their heads and all because the protection only applies to levels 3 and 4 when it should apply to all levels while restrictions continue, the economy is still struggling and people are about to come off furlough without knowing if they have a job to return to. Things are financially precarious, so on that basis let me welcome John Swinney's response to Labour's demands to turn the tenant hardship fund from a loan fund to a grant fund. We know that the loan fund was not fit for purpose when it only dispersed less than 5 per cent of the money available and rejected double the applications that were approved. Praise is deserved when the Government does the right thing, but the cabinet secretary needs to urgently tell the chamber what the criteria will be, when will it be operational, whether it will convert those small number of loans already made into grants and whether it will in the interim defer loan repayments. It is important that people in debt and struggling should not be saddled with more debt. There is no time to waste to set up this fund, nor barriers put in the way of people being able to access funding if we are to prevent people from losing their homes. Amendment 5, before you ask the Government to report on evictions, is a much weaker amendment than we would want, but it is the only thing that would be considered admissible. Let me say to the Government that this is, I think, critically important because we need to work harder to understand what is happening with evictions and use the fund to stop those evictions from happening when it is a matter of financial hardship due to Covid. I urge the chamber to support amendments 5, 16 and 24 in Mark Griffin's name. Amendment 5 seeks to place an additional reporting requirement on the Scottish ministers in the coronavirus Scotland Act 2020 in relation to the operation of schedule 1 of that act, eviction from dwelling houses. Subsection 1 of the amendment, as drafted, is drawn very widely and it is unclear whether it is referring to adequate protection for tenants in terms of social, economic or health grounds. It would also require the Scottish ministers to set out any limitations encountered in protection for tenants—again, it is very widely drawn—together with the reasoning for why those limitations exist, which would make it a cumbersome and in some cases potentially impossible reporting requirement to comply with. In addition, much of the information is already publicly available and is included in the bi-monthly reports that are produced and will continue to be produced for the schedule 1 provisions. For example, the bi-monthly reports set out how many orders to evict have been issued by the first tier tribunal, as well as levels of renter rears in the social rented sector. However, we are always seeking to improve the data that we collect and the Scottish Government is working together with local authorities and the society of messengers-at-arms and sheriff officers in order to collect new data to better understand what evictions are taking place across the country and for what reasons. As we develop new sources of data, those will of course be reflected in bi-monthly reports, and I would be very happy to discuss some of those issues and how we can enhance some of that reporting with Mr Griffin and interested members to ensure that the reporting that we supply to Parliament and which we are scrutinised upon meets the legitimate aspirations for information that Mr Griffin has highlighted in the debate today. The Scottish Housing Regulator already also reports in its dashboard report on the number of notices and proceedings issued to tenants in social housing and the total value of renter rears in the social housing sector accumulated during the reporting period. For those reasons, I do not think that it is necessary to proceed with amendment 5 and I would urge members not to support the amendment. I am surprised that Mr Griffin has tabled amendment 16, which would expire the pre-action requirements for renter rears on the one hand and then seek through amendment 24 to preserve them until such time as all tenants applying for or receiving a loan under the tenant hardship loan fund have received a grant for the renter rears. Amendment 24 would appear to be designed to enable the continuation of the pre-action requirements until such time as all tenants in Scotland have all of their renter rears paid by the grant from the Scottish Government or another body. However, amendment 24 would be time limited in any event as the number 2 act, which will, by virtue of the current bill, expire either in March 2022 or September 2022. We will make sure that everyone who is in receipt of a loan through our tenant hardship loan fund is made aware of the £10 million tenant grant fund that I announced yesterday. If people in receipt of a loan are eligible for a grant, they will be able to take that up. Mr Fraser made a point about the, which I think is a fair point, that amendment 24 is rather premature in relation to the details of the tenant hardship loan fund. We intend to consult with stakeholders over the summer and introduce the grant fund later on in the year. Again, I would be very happy to engage with, as would the Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice and Local Government, members about the approach to the tenant hardship loan fund. The pre-action requirements formalise the steps that all landlords should be taking to support tenants who have accrued renter rears. That is why we committed in housing to 2040, our long-term national strategy for housing, that we would take steps to place pre-action requirements on a permanent footing. The move to introduce pre-action requirements permanently has been broadly welcomed by tenants and landlord representatives alike. I can confirm that our consultation on a permanent bill will seek views on making the pre-action requirements permanent to prevent any gap until superseded by any future housing bill. Jackie Bailey raised the issue at the timescale on the permanent bill. We are consulting on that over the summer and Parliament will then be scrutinising the legislation after the summer recess. Mr Griffin's amendments to expire the pre-action requirements on the one hand and to continue them in effect on the other are therefore unnecessary. In addition, they would introduce complexity for tenants and landlords as to when the pre-action requirements actually apply. That complexity does not currently exist and I would therefore ask members to reject this amendment. I call on Mark Griffin to wind up and press or withdraw amendment 5. I take on board members' comments about this group of amendments and I would concede that they are not ideal. We are left in that situation because of how the bill has been drafted, where we would have liked to table amendments that purely extended the ban on evictions to level 1 and level 2 restriction areas, but that has not been possible. I take on board the points that the Deputy First Minister makes on amendment 5 about the range of reporting mechanisms in place. We will seek permission to withdraw amendment 5 and potentially have discussions between now and the deadline for submitting amendments at stage 3 and consider whether amendment 5 would be appropriate to be resubmitted after considering the Deputy First Minister's points on amendments 16 and 24. As I said earlier, I would not want amendment 16 to pass when amendment 24 failed. Those amendments are in place to ensure as much as possible that no evictions could be carried out while the emergency powers were still in place until that grant fund was put in place. I have listened closely to the Deputy First Minister's points and will review those amendments overnight, with those that I have used to resubmit them, so I will not move amendment 16 and 24. Can I confirm Mr Griffin that you seek to withdraw amendment 5? Mark Griffin seeks to withdraw amendment 5. Does any member object? Amendment 5 is withdrawn. I call amendment 6 in the name of Pauline McNeill, already debated with amendment 4. Pauline McNeill, to move or not move. Amendment 7, in the name of Pauline McNeill, already debated with amendment 4. Pauline McNeill, to move or not move. Amendment 8, in the name of Pauline McNeill, already debated with amendment 4. Pauline McNeill, to move or not move. The question is that amendment 8 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. Members should cast their votes now. I call Sarah Boyack for a point of order. My digital machine did not pick it up, but if I was able to vote, I would have voted yes. I call Oliver Mundell for a point of order. My vote did not register, I would have voted yes. I call Stephanie Callaghan for a point of order. My device would not vote, I would have voted no. I call Humza Yousaf for a point of order. My app was not working, and I would have voted no. The result of the vote on amendment 8, in the name of Pauline McNeill, is yes, 62, no, 59. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore agreed. I call amendment 9, in the name of Jamie Greene, already debated with amendment 4. I call amendment 10, in the name of Jamie Greene, already debated with amendment 4. I call amendment 11, in the name of Jamie Greene, already debated with amendment 4. I call Jamie Greene to move or not move. The question is that amendment 11 be agreed to, are we all agreed? Parliament is not agreed, members should cast their votes now. I call Humza Yousaf for a point of order. I apologise for playing off so I got the same error message, I would have voted no. Thank you. We will ensure that that vote is recorded. The result of the vote on amendment 11, in the name of Jamie Greene, is yes, 33, no, 88. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. Members, I intend to call a short suspension at this moment a five-minute comfort break. Thank you members. We are about to resume, and I would be grateful if you could please take your seats. We now move on to the next group, A Demission of Public to Meetings, and I call amendment 12, in the name of Graham Simpson, grouped with amendment 13. Graham Simpson, to move amendment 12 and speak to both amendments in the group. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. As you have just said, there are two amendments in this group. My amendment 12 relates to licensing boards. Amendment 13, in the name of Alex Cole-Hamilton, which relates to meetings of councils, and I am supporting his amendment, and I will move my own. Yesterday, the First Minister gave an unusually upbeat statement to Parliament, albeit with her usual caveats, but if we were to take her out of her word, then life should be returning to something like normal in the next few weeks. Social distancing should be coming to an end by August. We will be able to go to the theatre, return to watching football in numbers, next to our mates, office staff will get back to work with colleagues and not just chat to them using Teams. You never know that MSPs in this Parliament might be able to occupy all the seats in this Parliament by September, and that would be a good thing. If all that happens by September, which it should, if we were to believe the First Minister and if we were to judge by the figures that she has already announced, then there is simply no reason left at all why licensing boards and councils should be able to exclude the public from meetings. The public health reasons for having those restrictions were good. It has allowed licensing boards and councils to continue, but those reasons do not exist. By the end of September, physical distancing will not be a thing, so licensing boards and councils should be meeting in public in my submission and not virtually by that point. Having public access to those meetings is an essential part of our democracy. If we are to allow it to go on any longer and it could be, as we know, up to a year longer when public would not be allowed into these meetings, is beyond the pale. There is simply no reason to allow it, so for that reason I move the amendment in my name and I am supportive of Alex Cole-Hamilton's. Thank you, Alex Cole-Hamilton, to speak to amendment 13 and other amendments in the group. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer, and I am grateful to the comments from Graham Simpson. I rise to speak to amendment 13, which I move in my name, and I also offer support to Graham's amendment 12. Schedule 6, paragraph 13 of the Coronavirus Scotland Act 2020 modifies section 50A of the local government Scotland Act 1973, to read that the public are to be excluded from a meeting of a local authority whenever it is likely that, if members of the public were present, there would be a real and substantial risk to public health due to infection or contamination with coronavirus. There remained a requirement on authorities to publish an agenda and minutes of all meetings, but that was the reach of the requirement of publication. When we passed that original act in the spring of last year, we were in the first wave of the pandemic. Those weeks of high infection required the Parliament to second-guess both the causes and the mitigation of community transmission. As it stood then, paragraph 13 made absolute sense. We had banned all public gatherings and closed all hospitality. We prevented from people being together in enclosed spaces and asked them to stay at home. It was manifestly self-evident that, should people attend in person meetings of a local authority, they would propose a substantial risk to public health and infection. Paragraph 13 gave local authorities the option to exclude the public from in-person meetings on a subjective assessment. It was the best that we could do at the time, but those times have changed. By the end of September, we will see cinemas and theatres very likely operating almost normally. We may even have dispensed any form of social distancing and face coverings. Why? Because our citizens no longer represent the real and substantial risk to public health that they did in March last year. It is also crucial to remember that, at the end of September, that would just come six months before the start of the local authority election campaign. To allow this provision to continue, it could allow authorities to proceed with unpopular decisions away from the scrutiny of the electorate by whom they will be held accountable in just a few months' time. I understand that we are not clear of the pandemic and new surges and variants might once again create a heightened risk to health. However, the act empowers ministers or continues to give them the power with measures sufficient to mitigate the risk of any activity up to and including a stay at home order. In short, paragraph 13 is no longer needed. It is used in such close proximity to a local authority election that undermines the democratic accountability of our councils and our councillors. Removing it does not compel local authorities who are sitting still meeting virtually to broadcast their proceedings if they do not have the tech or resources so to do, but it is our hope and expectation that, when the original act expires and falls away, our local authorities will be able to meet in person once again. Some of the biggest decisions that affect my constituents and your constituents take place in our local councils, whether that is on planning or on education or even on the local recovery from this pandemic. People at the business end of those decisions need a line of sight to see how they came to be. Paragraph 13, as well-intentioned as it was at the time, no longer has a place in the pages of the legislation or, indeed, in our democracy. Amendment 12 will expire the provisions relating to the ability of licensing boards to exercise their discretion as to whether or not to hold other meetings in public due to coronavirus. We are making good progress in terms of the vaccine roll-out, but as the recent rise in cases indicates, there may be new variants, such as the delta variant, which come to the fore and create further challenges and difficulties. Although Mr Simpson is quite right to characterise that our assessment is more optimistic than it has been for some time, licensing stakeholders have welcomed the flexibility provided by the provision since its introduction in the first coronavirus act. I am broadly content for the provision to be extended beyond 30 September on the grounds that we cannot say with any certainty that new variants may not arise. Licensing stakeholders support the holding of meetings in person, but we and they agree that this added flexibility is important to ensure that the alcohol licensing regime can function should there be a requirement to re-impose restrictions throughout Scotland or on a local authority basis. The effect of this amendment could be that users of the alcohol licensing system could be unable to receive effective service from licensing boards, including being unable to sell alcohol. That would be unfortunate and counterproductive at a time when we are all keen to do all that we can to support the hospitality sector. My officials engage regularly with licensing stakeholders and have been made aware of good examples of good practice that enabled members of the public to view proceedings online. Of course, any member who was participating formally during procedures as an objector necessarily arrangements are put in place by the licensing board to ensure their participation in meetings. For those reasons, I am opposing amendment 12 and would ask members to oppose. I now turn to amendment 13 in the name of Alex Cole-Hamilton. Scotland's local authorities have responded extremely well to keep essential services available during the pandemic. Crucial to ensuring that this has been possible is allowing governance structures and councils to continue to operate so that decisions about these services can continue to be scrutinised and made. This provision was never about university excluding the public from local authority meetings. It was only ever to be applied at physical meetings where there was a risk of transmitting Covid. At all times, the Scottish Government, in the interests of openness, democracy and transparency, strongly encouraged councils to make every effort for their meetings to be live-streamed to the public. We believe that this provision has enabled local authorities to continue to function and conduct committee business while simultaneously taking action to reduce and suppress the spread of the virus. However, councils have reacted well to the changing environment and have acted quickly to implement new governance arrangements that are safe and flexible. For example, all 32 councils now have arrangements in place to support remote meetings. In light of that, and recognising that this provision has only been used in limited situations by some councils, we would recommend that Parliament supports amendment 13 and accepts the amendment that was put forward by Alex Cole-Hamilton. Thank you, Graham Simpson, to wind up and press or withdraw amendment 12. I will be pressing it. I am slightly confused by the Deputy First Minister's response there. Encouraged on the one hand that he agrees with Alex Cole-Hamilton's amendment 13, but utterly baffled as to why he would agree that councils should meet in public, but not licensing boards. Licensing boards are made up by councillors. It is essentially the same thing. It is essentially a meeting of councillors. They are just dealing with different matters. I cannot say if there is actually no logic to what the Deputy First Minister has said, not whatsoever. I would simply encourage the chamber to back both amendments in this group, because they are doing the same thing. It is about democratic accountability. The licensing matters, as I know I used to be on a licensing board, can be contentious, and it is important that the public are allowed to sit in these meetings. I have accepted, in my earlier comments, that those restrictions were necessary at the time and that they have allowed licensing boards to continue, but there is no reason for those restrictions to persist. I would simply encourage the chamber to back both amendments in this group, and I will move amendment 12. The question is that amendment 12 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Parliament is not agreed. Members should cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment 12, in the name of Graham Simpson, is yes, 54, no 66, there were no abstentions, the amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 13, in the name of Alex Cole-Hamilton, already debated with amendment 12. Alex Cole-Hamilton, to move or not move. The question is that amendment 13 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We now move on to the next group, business support, and I call amendment 14, in the name of the cabinet secretary, grouped with amendment 26. The cabinet secretary to move amendment 14 and speak to both amendments in the group. In relation to amendment 14 on irritancy measures in the Coronavirus Scotland Act 2020, the Government has listened to the views of stakeholders and is bringing forward this amendment to provide that those provisions will be extended beyond 30 September 2021. While initial discussions with stakeholders indicated general support for the expiry of those measures from 30 September, we have listened since to further representations, including the Federation of Small Businesses. Given the uncertainty that exists regarding when coronavirus restrictions in Scotland can be removed completely, we have considered expiring the provisions. With other Government support initiatives beginning to wind down such as the furlough scheme, it is likely that some viable small businesses may face short-term cash flow difficulties over the summer into the autumn and beyond. In those circumstances, we want landlords to grant their tenants some further flexibility. We believe that retaining the increased notice pay beyond 30 September makes this more likely. The extensions that are afforded under this provision to date have helped landlords and tenants in giving them time to come to revise rental arrangements on an agreed basis without the need to seek eviction. As eviction has always been possible under the Scottish provisions, it is considered that those provisions would largely have taken place already in the 18 months from the commencement of the Coronavirus Scotland Act 2020. That proportionate response will now continue, hopefully without the need for evictions, as our aim is to keep businesses afloat and retain employment. The Scottish Government is therefore happy to listen to the views of stakeholders and proposes that change to the bill. I urge members to support amendment 14 in my name. I now turn to amendment 26. Since March last year, business support has been offered through existing powers belonging to local authorities, the enterprise networks and a range of other public bodies, rather than under specific provisions of the coronavirus legislation. Further decisions on business support have been taken in response to emerging pressures, and there is no allocated budget for future financial support. Future funding options will be contingent to a large extent on funding decisions made by the United Kingdom Government. As restrictions are brought to an end, decisions on any further support will be to support recovery and economic transformation in the longer term. That may continue to change substantially on a longer timescale than the two months in which this amendment would require a report to Parliament. The Transport Act 2019 includes a range of improved tools for local transport authorities to improve bus services in their area, which recognises that buses are a local service and should be tailored to meet the needs of local communities. However, I am sympathetic to what Mr Sweeney is proposing, and therefore the Government will bring back an amendment at stage 3 tomorrow to reflect some of the issues that are raised in his proposal. I look forward to hearing his contribution this afternoon. I call Paul Sweeney to speak to amendment 26 and the other amendment in the group. I rise to speak to amendment 26 in my name. Although Covid-19 is still continuing to disrupt livelihoods, we must have measures in place to support people and adequately protect them from the fallout of the pandemic. Businesses have required financial support from the Government, which has been paid in its millions to mitigate the adverse impacts of Covid-19. However, it is possible that we could be doing more to conditionalise business support with a view to achieving better economic and social outcomes, for example, fairer work obligations and to enhance our public transport system. Therefore, I have tabled this amendment to propose that the Scottish ministers lay before the Parliament as soon as reasonably practical and within two months of royal assent a report on the implications for business support of the extension or expired provisions in this act, and the report must include in particular consideration of further support that businesses require, because the key thing is whether business support has been adequate over that period, as we know it often hasn't. The Government should pay particular consideration to whether those who have felt the impacts of the pandemic disproportionately, for example, wedding businesses, entertainment establishments, nightlife, taxi drivers and self-employed, have been adequately supported. We should also consider any limitations that should be placed on providing further support and conditionality, including consideration of whether conditions can be placed on businesses of a certain size receiving support in terms of fair work practices as the Welsh Government has been seeking to explore. In particular, I would like to explore the idea of further support being granted to large businesses with at least 250 employees if they do not recognise a trade union. That should be an element of compulsion, because in fair work terms, all large companies should be open to trade union organisations in their workplaces. We have seen a rise in precarious work since the financial crisis in 2008 compounded by the pandemic. 35 per cent of Scottish workers say that they often get less than a week's notice of shifts. Pre-pandemic, four in 10 of those working in retail and wholesale were paid less than the living wage according to the Resolution Foundation, so fair work practices are even more pertinent than before, especially as we look towards the longer term and recovery. I also want the ministers to consider the suitability of taking equity shares in private bus companies instead of simply providing grant-based support with few strings attached. In the year of COP26, we should be investing in a green public transport system, but last year, the Government gave £191 million of no-string subsidies to private bus company owners and underspent the transport budget by £343 million. Since the start of the pandemic until this October, a total allocated budget for bus firms is £288 million, we can be doing so much more to effect meaningful change and reforms in our public transport system with that investment. The grant terms currently, as they are conditionalised, only obliged bus companies to continue to deliver around 30 per cent of bus service levels for the period of the scheme to maintain core services and to continue engagement with relevant local authorities and health boards to determine what bus services should be operated when and on what routes. I would like to see the benefit of this money used to buy shares in those companies with a long-term view to increasing public ownership. Single fares on a privatised first Glasgow service are now £2.50, compared to £1.80 on Edinburgh's publicly-owned Lothian buses. We need, in Glasgow's case, our regional transport authority, SPT, to use those powers in the Transport Scotland Act of 2019 to re-regulate our region's entire bus network through franchising. That will allow us to plan routes, cap fairs and ensure the same standards of accessibility, emissions, staff training and conditions and so much more across the whole region, so that everyone in Scotland can be entitled to a world-class integrated public transport service. I hope that those measures meet the agreement of the chamber. All that I would add to the debate is to say that the number of significant points that Mr Sweeney raises in his amendment and in his comments, I am very happy to consider how that and a variety of other requests for additional reporting requirements in the various amendments that we have heard today can be considered further in the discussions tomorrow. Amendments 4, 5, 18, 25, 27, 28, 29 and 30 have all requested additional reporting requirements. I would like the opportunity to reflect on those issues in the formulation of amendments to be brought forward for stage 3 to make sure that the legitimate request for further reporting can be integrated into the already significant reporting requirements that the Government fulfills and is very happy to fulfil to Parliament in that respect. I urge Mr Sweeney not to press his amendment but to give us the opportunity to formulate proposals that would enable us to consider those issues in the session tomorrow. I move amendment 14, in my name. Thank you. The question is that amendment 14 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? I call amendment 15, in the name of Jackie Baillie, already debated with amendment 2. Jackie Baillie, to move or not move. The question is that amendment 15 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? I call amendment 16, in the name of Mark Griffin, already debated with amendment 5. We now move on to the next group, Social Security. I call amendment 17, in the name of Pam Duncan-Glancy, grouped with amendments 28 and 29. Pam Duncan-Glancy, to move amendment 17 and speak to all amendments in the group. As the chamber may know, I am a bit new to this, so thank you to the chamber desk, my staff, the Labour support unit and colleagues across the chamber for all your help. I ask you to be patient with me as I talk to the amendments in an odd order, taking 17 and 29 together with a bit of explanation and later coming back to 28. Scottish Labour is very clear that had the scope of this bill been wider, we would have sought to do more to ensure that people are protected from for a while longer and sought to add further provisions needed to meet the challenges ahead. For example, had the scope of this bill been wider, I would have been here today moving an amendment to continue and extend the provisions put in place to support carers and disabled people. We would have wanted specifically to double the carers allowance supplement again this year, as was done in 2020, and to continue doing so until the end of the pandemic, making a huge difference to all thousands of unpaid carers in Scotland. Recognising that disabled people faced additional costs before the pandemic and that we have not begun to assess the impact that the pandemic has had on this group of people, we would have also sought to use the opportunity to discuss a Covid payment to disabled people and to implement a £5 uplift to the Scottish child payment for families with a disabled person in them. Introducing this supplement now and increasing it to £10 by 2022-23 would lift approximately 10,000 children out of poverty. As we heard earlier from the Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice, housing and local government, that we are on track to sadly miss our child poverty targets by 4%, making it even more frustrating that we have not been able to do that today. Navigating this bill and any bill, I imagine, will be tricky and for the first time also. The first thing that we needed to do, I believe, was to ensure that all our amendments were in scope. Had they been in scope, we would have needed to extend the powers in the act that provide for the double payment of the carers supplement rather than expire them, which is what amendment 17 sought to do. The amendment to extend was ruled in scope, amendment 17, but sadly the amendments to double the supplement and make the payments were ruled out of scope. As such, amendment 17 is somewhat null. However, I hope that the chamber will appreciate that that was perhaps an imperfect situation, but will understand and be patient with the first time or attempts to bring scrutiny and impactful change to an issue of this gravity with meaningful discussion in the chamber. I therefore do not intend to press with amendment 17. Here is where the other amendments do come in. As we are not able to call for these policies as we would have liked to in the bill, we are instead seeking a commitment in amendment 29 that within one month of this bill receiving royal assent, the Government will produce a report on the expiry of the current provisions intended to protect carers and families with disabled people in them and whether further measures, including those that we have set out and Covid payment for disabled people, are required. Had we been able to, Scottish Labour would also have sought to take the opportunity of this bill to introduce self-isolation payments for all adults who are forced to self-isolate. As it stands, the chamber will be aware that some self-isolation grants are available but are only available to specific people under very specific eligibility, yet as we know, Covid-19 does not pick and choose who it affects, which is why it is clear that we should do more to offer support to those who are not currently able to access it so that anyone who is asked to self-isolate does not see themselves out of pocket. As we have not been able to make this call directly, Scottish Labour is instead proposing in amendment 28 that the Government publish a report on the effect of the provisions on the bill on the support available to people forced to self-isolate. We would like to see that support again no more than one month after the bill has received royal assent. I thank the chamber and the Presiding Officer for their patience. The amendments that I have tabled seek to draw attention to those serious issues and apply as much scrutiny as we can in the time that we have and encourage meaningful and impactful discussion and decision making and action from the chamber at this time. I feel that there is absolutely no need for Pam Duncan-Glancy to apologise for detaining the chamber with the length of time that I have gone on my feet this afternoon, so I am sure that that has attracted wide support from the Labour Party as an observation despite the generosity of spirit that I have demonstrated this afternoon. The amendment 17 will prevent the expiry of the provisions relating to the carers allowance supplement in the coronavirus number 2, Scotland Act 2020. The majority of increased payments of carers allowance supplement were made in June 2020, and around 83,000 carers received an extra £230.10 to help them to deal with the unprecedented circumstances of coronavirus and the additional pressures brought by lockdown. The provision is being expired as it is no longer necessary as it relates only to the period from 1 April 2020 to 30 September 2020, and backdated payments in respect of that period can still be made notwithstanding expiring. We absolutely value the support provided by unpaired carers, and we have brought forward and introduced the carers allowance supplement Scotland Bill to support unpaired carers with an additional coronavirus carers allowance supplement payment. That will be paid with the December carers allowance supplement, as we did in June 2020. We have proposed to do that through a stand-alone bill, as that has allowed us to bring forward proposals for greater flexibility to make future payments to carers in receipt of carers allowance supplements should they be required. For those reasons that Pam Duncan Glancy has indicated, she will not be pressing amendment 17, and I hope that that provides a necessary reassurance to her of the Government's intent in this area of activity. I acknowledge the significance of the points that she raises in relation to the support for carers. The purpose of amendment 28 is to require ministers to produce a report assessing the effect that the expiry of the provisions by this act is likely to have on the social security support available for carers. The report must consider whether, due to coronavirus, further measures are required to support carers and whether a further coronavirus carers allowance supplement should be paid. The report must also consider whether a Scottish child payment supplement of £5 should be made where the payment is made in respect of a dependent child who has a disability. Where no further support is being provided, the report must set out the reasons for that. The Government absolutely values the role of unpaid carers, and we have brought forward the bill to which I referred, to support unpaid carers with an additional coronavirus carers allowance supplement payment. The bill also seeks to enable powers to allow greater flexibility in making any future increases to the carers allowance supplement. I reassure Parliament that there will be no impact on the support for unpaid carers through the expiry of the provisions in relation to the matter. I have placed on the record the Government's commitment in that respect. The reporting requirements in the proposed amendment fall into the category of the reporting requirements that I referred to in my earlier contribution. The Government will reflect on those issues as a consequence of the debate today, and I ask Pam Duncan-Glancy not to press this amendment, as the Government will bring back enhanced reporting requirements as a stage 3 amendment for tomorrow. On amendment 29, the Government is resisting this amendment, which will mandate the publication of a report on the effect that the extension expiry of the provisions of this act on support available for people self-isolating. The same issues apply, and we will consider that the reporting requirements here and bring forward a consolidated proposition that Parliament can consider tomorrow. I therefore ask Parliament not to agree to any of the amendments in this group on the understanding that the Government will bring forward enhancements to the reporting arrangements in the stage 3 amendments tomorrow. On the point of the carers supplement bill that has come to committee, I think that we have missed an opportunity to not be able to do some of that in this bill today, and therefore the bill that has gone to committee could have been in less of a tight timescale allowing us to consider issues such as bereavement payments and so on. However, I understand that, specifically on amendment 17, the reason to have the amendment is no longer required because the amendment that we had that needed it was considered out of scope, and so on that basis I will not press amendment 17. Pam Duncan-Glancy seeks to withdraw amendment number 17. Does it any member object? No, amendment 17 is withdrawn. Before we move on to the next group, members may wish to note that we are a little behind time, perhaps on five to ten minutes. The next group is social care support, and I call amendment 18 in the name of Jackie Baillie, grouped with amendment 30. Jackie Baillie, to move amendment 18 and speak to both amendments in the group. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. In the interest of time, I will move amendment 18 and speak to just that one and do so briefly. Care homes were at the epicentre of the pandemic. 3,774 people died in our care homes of Covid-19. This affected their families, this affected staff and many more suffered from the virus but thankfully pulled through. At the start of the pandemic, we know that there were issues about PPE, lack of testing, inconsistent and ever-changing guidance. Care homes across all sectors were crying out for support. Having the overview of what is happening in our care homes across Scotland is essential while the virus remains. I appreciate that the care inspectorate has resumed reporting on individual care homes, but that does not provide the overview of what is happening in homes across Scotland. We are debating the extension of emergency powers because we think that there is a continuing issue or potential problems in the future. Let me say to the cabinet secretary that, if vulnerable people in care homes were the worst affected during the pandemic, then anything that monitors what is going on in care homes across Scotland is critical and therefore should be kept. I call Craig Hoy. Can I just draw attention to my register of interests in relation to, I think, interrupt you briefly? That was my error. I should have called Pam Duncan Clancy, of course, to speak to amendment 30 and other amendments in the group. Thank you, Presiding Officer, and I was pleased to have a moment or two to consider what I was saying in the next amendment, so nonetheless I'll move on. I'm sure that we've made it clear now that Scottish Labour would have looked to have done a bit more with this bill where we able, including to call on local authorities to recommend care packages and respect care. Again, we've opted to lay a reporting amendment to place a duty on Scottish ministers to lay a report before Parliament no more than one month after this bill receives royal assent so that we can understand the impact that ending or extending provisions in this act will have on social care services. Presiding Officer, a report by the Scottish Human Rights Commission shows that the removal of care packages during the pandemic has had a direct and detrimental effect on disabled people's human rights and recommended that social care be reinstated to at least pre-pandemic levels. The stories many of us will have heard over the past year of individual people going through the pandemic being left in degrading and inhumane situations as a result of losing their care, and that's why we need to have a clear focus on this area. Testimony gathered for the report was incredibly distressing reading. Disabled people unable to wash, get out of bed, left to sleep in their wheelchairs, having to leave their homes and move in with family. None of that is ever okay. The protection of social care services is vital and it is an investment that we need to make. By ensuring that disabled people get the care that they need, we provide essential care and support for them to participate in society and lead an ordinary life. That has not been the case in the last year due to the pandemic. It was incredibly important that we continue to consider the impact that it has had on that group of people, which is why we were hoping to bring the amendment for the Government to report on that. Thank you, Presiding Officer. For a second time, can I just draw attention to the register of interests in relation to rental properties in my name? Can I briefly address the elements of the bill and the proposed amendments in relation to social care? I welcome the Government's intention to allow provisions relating to the report by the Care Inspectorate contained within paragraph 22 on schedule 1 of the act to expire on September 31. I recognise that during the eye of the Covid storm there was a huge focus on the activities within care homes and, rightly so, families, residents and care homes staff were literally living in fear, and those regular reports addressed those legitimate concerns. However, we must remember that the root cause of the problem of transmission and deaths in our care homes often related to Covid positive patients being discharged from a hospital setting into a social care setting. With vaccines now providing extensive safeguards and care homes having put in place advanced infection control mechanisms, those reporting rules can now be relaxed. The system of fortnightly reporting by the Care Inspectorate to Parliament has put undue pressure on the Care Inspectorate to deliver those reports, removing them from much-needed inspection and improvement work. It has stopped the normal relationships from being restored, and it does not give care homes the time to reflect on and to respond to the reports before they are released publicly. Jackie Baillie's amendment has the effect of extending the provision for fortnightly reporting. If that is the case, and as a result, the Scottish Conservatives will therefore not support amendment 18. However, we welcome amendment 30 from Pam Duncan Glancy. While I have spoken out against the fortnightly reporting regime, the amendment seeks a one-off report by ministers to Parliament on issues that include exploring the effect of the extension and the expiry of the act's provisions as the effect social and respite care and identifies further measures that may be required to restore social care support packages and respite services to pre-pandemic levels. I believe that such a report, especially if it comes forward within one month of royal assent, will provide Parliament and our care providers with timely information that will assist in the restoration of vital social care services. Therefore, the Scottish Conservatives support the objective and are content to support Pam Duncan Glancy on amendment 30. In relation to amendment 18, I have engaged with Scottish Care who have serious concerns about the impact of the continuation of those provisions on the care inspector's ability to carry out its other obligations and provide support to care services. I absolutely agree with Jackie Baillie that, given the situation that we have had during the pandemic, we have to have some form of overarching reporting and accountability. I would be grateful if the cabinet secretary could commit to working with the care inspectorate and perhaps other colleagues in the chamber to bring something back at stage 3 that would reflect both sides of that but ensure that the care inspectorate has the ability to discharge its duties effectively and continue to improve standards of care. In relation to Pam Duncan Glancy's amendment, we will be supporting that. The history of Scotland's pandemic is written. I have said this before. There will be no more tragic a story than what occurred in our care homes. They were missed out of pandemic exercise planning and then received more than 3,000 untested patients from hospital. Many families did not learn for months and months what really happened in the homes of their loved ones. They deserve to have all the facts all along. The repercussions of the failure to protect care homes and their residents will continue to be sorely felt. That is why we need a public inquiry to start without delay. I am very grateful to Jackie Baillie for bringing forward this amendment. Scottish Liberal Democrats also considered whether to retain the additional care home reporting around inspections and deaths that were introduced at the start of the pandemic. The policy memorandum discusses this in some detail. Before that measure is expired, I would like to hear further assurances from the Deputy First Minister and his Government that this will not have an impact on the quality of reporting around care homes. The policy memorandum says that inspection reports are published usually within 10 days of the inspection. I want to understand what proportion takes longer than that. Is that a hard time limit for the publication of those reports? How will the Government ensure that there is still timely access to those care home inspection reports? Are there any parts of the weekly reporting of deaths under the emergency powers that are not now covered by the national records of Scotland? Before those powers are expired, I would like to hear the Deputy First Minister guarantee that this will not have a negative impact on the quality of reporting around care homes, because it has been quite hard or hard enough over the past 15 months for families to acquire that important information. The issues that are raised by Jackie Baillie in amendment 18 are very difficult issues, because the fundamental point that Jackie Baillie raises of concern to ensure that the appropriate arrangements are in place within care homes and that they are being applied effectively is an absolutely legitimate source of inquiry. The question here is not whether there should be scrutiny, reporting and the gathering of information about performance within care homes. The question is about how that can best be undertaken. I think that Gillian Mackay raises legitimate points equally about the choice that exists between, which is at the heart of the arguments here, about whether that is best served by enabling the care inspector to carry out the long-standing previously agreed legislation for scrutiny of individual care homes, or whether some of that resource is distracted by the provision of the overarching type of report and analysis that was envisaged in the circumstance. The fortnightly reports on inspections, the 28th of which is published this week, have been helpful in getting information into the public domain and to provide assurance to Parliament and the public at a time when levels of anxiety about the safety and wellbeing of care home residents and staff has been understandably high. However, preparing the fortnightly reports has reduced the care inspector's capacity to carry out wider scrutiny activity, as it is inspectors who are involved in the preparation of additional reports. It is important that, as we move into recovery and remobilisation, inspectors can refocus their attention on scrutinising and supporting all-care services and not only care homes at highest risk from Covid-19. There is an unnecessary duplication of effort. There has been a return to a near-normal pre-Covid process where full inspection reports are published by the care inspectorate, usually within 10 days of an inspection. The result of that is that, in many cases, full reports are being published around the same time as the associated and less detailed parliamentary report. Gillian Mackay asked me to consider, should Parliament not agree to amendment 18, whether there is some wider synchronisation of reporting that could be undertaken. I will undertake to do that in advance of stage 3 tomorrow. In relation to Mr Cole-Hamilton's point, on weekly reporting of deaths in care homes, this has been heavily reliant on accurate reporting by care homes. The official statistics published by National Records of Scotland are now well-established, which includes data on care homes. I therefore urge members not to support amendment 18, but I give the assurance that I will explore the point that Gillian Mackay has raised. In relation to amendment 30, this is one of the amendments that I would like Parliament not to proceed with, so that the Government can reflect on that to include wider scrutiny of the reporting requirements that can be put on the face of the bill to enhance the existing reporting arrangements that we have in place. There have been a number of requests for us to enhance reporting requirements. I would like the opportunity to consolidate those requests and to ensure that the reporting requirements can be put into the bill at stage 3 to ensure that Parliament is properly updated and advised of performance against the requirements of the legislation. I therefore urge Pam Duncan-Glancy not to press amendment 30 on the basis that I will bring forward reporting requirements in stage 3 tomorrow. I call Jackie Baillie to wind up and to press or withdraw amendment 18. Craig Hoy's contribution suggested, and I am sure that he did not mean to do this, a degree of complacency, because there is nothing normal about the pandemic. Care homes suffered the very worst of deaths, and Parliament put in place reporting mechanisms because we believed that they were needed. There is the possibility of new surges and new variants, and care homes are vulnerable in that context. However, I understand that there may be capacity issues. I find favour with Gillian Mackay's suggestion. On the basis that the cabinet secretary does, I am happy not to press amendment 18. I hope that he will be able to consider that and bring something back tomorrow. Jackie Baillie seeks to withdraw amendment 18. Does any member object that amendment 18 is withdrawn? The question is that section 2 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? I call amendment 19, in the name of Jackie Baillie, already debated with amendment 2. Jackie Baillie, to move or not move. I think that I am withdrawing this and bringing this back at stage 3. I call amendment 20, in the name of Murdo Fraser, already debated with amendment 2. Murdo Fraser, to move or not move. The question is that amendment 20 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Parliament is not agreed. Members should cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment 20, in the name of Murdo Fraser, is, yes, 55, no, 67. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 21, in the name of Murdo Fraser, already debated with amendment 2. Murdo Fraser, to move or not move. I call amendment 22, in the name of Jamie Greene, already debated with amendment 4. Jamie Greene, to move or not move. The question is that amendment 22 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Parliament is not agreed. Members should cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment 22, in the name of Jamie Greene, is, yes, 33, no, 88. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 23, in the name of Jamie Greene, already debated with amendment 4. Jamie Greene, to move or not move. The question is that section 3 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The question is that section 4 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? I call amendment 24, in the name of Mark Griffin, already debated with amendment 5. Mark Griffin, to move or not move. Thank you. We now move on to the next group, which is marriages and civil partnerships. I call amendment 25, in the name of Pauline McNeill, in a group on its own. Pauline McNeill, to move and speak to amendment 25. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. Amendment 25, in my name, is another reporting procedure around the report on social distancing requirements that remain in place and the permissibility of live music, limitations on indoor and household gatherings. I mean, today there was a Government-inspired question already referred to by Jackie Baillie, which extended opening times for hospitality in Euro 2020, and this has caused the stress from the hospitality sector who are not able to benefit from these provisions. Amendment 25 asks for a report detailing the progress made towards ending restrictions at weddings, permissibility of live music and limitations on indoor gatherings. The Scottish Wedding Industry Alliance said yesterday's announcement will not be the guidance that everyone wanted. We are also disappointed regarding dancing, something that we campaigned for. We are continuing conversations to ask for the new guidance to go live on the Friday dates and will carry on fighting for everyone. Only yesterday, a constituent wrote to me—not the first one—who is due to get married very soon said that some leeway on the restrictions would certainly make some sense. All things considered, especially as most of the wedding party at this wedding will be fully vaccinated, ensuring that that should count for something. This couple have hired a DJI, which is costing almost £3,000 and a large deposit already paid. When we thought that at the end of June we would have the easing of restrictions, the constituent said that it is not as if it is going to be a rave with some cringy dancing for a couple of hours. I am only quoting here. We are all thinking of the weddings that we have been at, where there has been some cringy dancing. However, a lot of enjoyment. Also, with indoor social distancing being reduced to one meter, you would be closer to a stranger on the bus than you would having a dance. Anyway, he knows that I was going to read that out to give you all a laugh, so he is perfectly okay with that. It is a serious question that has been asked by many couples and people in the wedding sector and events. What is the reason that people cannot dance until the 19th of July? Is it really going to be such a high risk? I hope that the cabinet secretary would give us some indication of what the clinician is saying that the risk is. For the sake of nine days in this case, there simply may be a big difference to this couple's weddings. I am asking the Government to be focused on that. That is why I am asking for the age-reporting procedures. There is also a lack of clarity about some of the issues. I think that a report before the Parliament might clarify that. We had some announcements yesterday. Those announcements are very welcome. For example, the lifting of restrictions on bands from the 28th of June is very welcome by the sector, but there seems to be some need for clarity around some of it. Today, Hyra Band told me that it reported that a cancellation of a Cailey band is obviously because she cannot dance, and that is the purpose of a Cailey band, but it is causing some confusion because bands do not know whether or not to simply take the cancellation fee or take another date, and it seems a little bit arbitrary. Wedding receptions, of course, are the main thing, but, of course, those pubs and clubs that rely on live entertainment are also keen to have that back. I think that a reporting mechanism after the 9th of August would give some clarity because I think that the Government in its reporting would be required to see what restrictions, if any, are left in place. Lastly, there is nothing said about what it means for nightclubs after the 9th of August. I hope that it could be included in the reporting procedure. England, Northern Ireland and Wales mentioned nightclubs in the statement, but Scotland did not. What does it mean for live music venues and promoters? I believe that reporting on those restrictions will give some clarity to the sector that they really need. It would also focus the Government's minds on some of the things that perhaps they have not thought about, which is important to the live music sector. I rise briefly to offer support to Pauline McNeill's amendment. It offers some hope to the sector and a signal that this Parliament finally has the wedding industry at the centre of its attention. There are thousands of couples across Scotland who have had the best day of their lives deferred or cancelled. In some cases, more than once, often to the cost of tens of thousands of pounds because of the decisions of this chamber and this Government. It is only fair that, if we adopt a reporting duty, as Pauline McNeill's amendment prescribes, we will actually send a very important signal, but we will concentrate the minds of the ministers responsible for coming to those decisions so that when we get situations, like we had last week, much of Scotland expected to go down to level 1, but it was kept in level 2 and we, at a stroke, had to halve the number of wedding guests at many weddings around the country. That will be considered and the reporting will happen to this Parliament, so we are happy to support Pauline McNeill's amendment. I am grateful to Pauline McNeill for bringing this amendment because it is a very challenging part of the debate. The issues that Pauline McNeill raises, whether they are about weddings or about the impact on the live music sector or on venues as a whole, are issues of significance that I accept. I had a very helpful conversation this morning with representatives of the city of Glasgow city centre task force, on which many live music venues were represented. A number of the points that Pauline McNeill has made were raised in that discussion. The idea that, somehow, those issues are not on the Government agenda, I want to reassure Pauline McNeill that that concern is not valid. The Government has wrestled with those questions because none of us wants to be in the situation of having to disrupt or delay the life plans of individuals at these really important moments in their lives. However, we have clinical advice and guidance that informs the decision-making that we have taken. The First Minister set out yesterday our hope, subject to the continued progress and the meeting of the caveats that we have set out, that the current physical distancing requirements for one metre physical distancing will end once the country goes into level zero. Beyond that, we will remove all restrictions. There is, I think, a very clear pathway for the sector to understand the changes that are now going to be made. We are allowing live entertainment at weddings from 28 June. If there are particular additional circumstances of the type that Pauline McNeill has raised quite specifically, if she would write to me about that, I would happily consider what can be done in some of those circumstances. I give way to Pauline McNeill. I appreciate, cabinet secretary, to give way. I am really trying to get as much clarity as I possibly can, and I do appreciate that there is a lot to consider. Does that mean that, after 9 August, live music can be played without restrictions in pub venues, for example, as well as weddings? It looks like to me that, if it can, I was thinking that we could get some clarity around that that we did not get yesterday. The short answer to Pauline McNeill is yes, but there will be other considerations in terms of mitigating measures, for example, around ventilation, for example, and wider hygiene requirements, which may well go with such an approach. I do not want to give a signal that we are going back to a pre-Covid situation where there is absolutely no wider considerations. There will be some conditions that have to be applied. Those were issues that I discussed at length with Glasgow city centre task force this morning. Over the course of the next few weeks, we have to go through some detailed dialogue with the live music sector and with the weddings industry to make sure that we cover off all the issues that need to be covered off. I give Pauline McNeill the assurance that that will be done in dialogue with the sector. On that basis, I would ask her not to press the amendment that is before Parliament today. I will again reflect on that. It is one of the reporting requirement amendments that I have agreed that I will reflect on. I do not think that the issues that Pauline McNeill wants to have answered needs a piece of legislation to enable that to be the case. It needs us to respond constructively to the legitimate issues that she has raised. I will undertake to do that in preparation for the stage 3 debate tomorrow. There will be on-going dialogue with the sector, which I confirm that the Government will engage in constructively in the weeks to come. Pauline McNeill, to wind up and press or withdraw amendment 25. I genuinely welcome what the cabinet secretary has said. That is what I am trying to do, is seek some clarity. I am sure that the cabinet secretary will note that, as she did meet with the wedding sector yesterday, the wider sector has felt that the engagement could be a lot better with the night-time economy and the hospitality sector. Perhaps we are making some important progress. On that basis, I would ask the cabinet secretary to reflect on what I was trying to achieve here. There would be no harm in allowing some reporting. The mitigation measures, for example, would make sense. It is what you would expect. I am grateful to Pauline McNeill for giving way. Let me reiterate the two points. The first is that the Government is actively engaging with the sector. My colleagues have done a lot of work over the course of the whole Covid period to engage with sectors, but in my new responsibilities, I give the absolute assurance that that will be the case across all those areas. The reporting requirements that I reflect on for preparation for the stage 3 debate are designed to ensure that Parliament receives proper and full reports on all aspects of the application of the legislation. That can be featured in those reporting requirements. I acknowledge what the cabinet secretary has said, but I again ask him to acknowledge that outwith his own responsibility, the sector has been critical. I am only asking going forward that the wider diverse sector, which hospitality is of course a diverse sector with live music and all the risks attached to that, I just want to push the Government to ensure that we have the closest engagement, the closest level of clarity as we move out and ease restrictions. On that basis, Presiding Officer, I am not going to press my amendment 25. Thank you. Pauline McNeill seeks to withdraw amendment 25. Does any member object? Amendment 25 is withdrawn. A question is that the schedule be agreed to, are we all agreed? The question is that section 5 be agreed to, are we all agreed? I call amendment 26 in the name of Paul Sweeney. Already debated with amendment 14, Paul Sweeney to move or not move. In light of the Government's commitments to bring forward amendments at stage 3, I won't move, but I reserve the right to bring back the amendment if it isn't sufficient. I call amendment 27 in the name of Pauline McNeill. Already debated with amendment 4, Pauline McNeill to move or not move. I call amendment 28 in the name of Pam Duncan Glancy. Already debated with amendment 17. Pam Duncan Glancy to move or not move. Thank you. On the basis of the commitment by the Cabinet Secretary to report, I will not move this amendment. I call amendment 29 in the name of Pam Duncan Glancy. Already debated with amendment 17. Pam Duncan Glancy to move or not move. Similarly, I won't move. Thank you. I call amendment 30 in the name of Pam Duncan Glancy. Already debated with amendment 18. Pam Duncan Glancy to move or not move. Again, I won't move and I'd like to thank the chamber for their support for that amendment. Thank you. The question is that section 6 and 7 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The question is that the long title be agreed to. Are we all agreed? That ends stage 2 consideration of the bill and concludes the meeting, this meeting of a committee of the whole Parliament. I close this meeting of the committee of the whole Parliament and there will now be a very short suspension.