 I will take this opportunity to remind members that social distancing measures are in place in the chamber and across the Holyrood campus, and I ask that members take care to observe these measures, including when entering and exiting the chamber. Please only use the aisles and walkways to access your seat, and we are moving around the chamber. The next item of business is stage 3 proceedings on the coronavirus extension and expiry Scotland bill. In dealing with the amendments, members should have the bill as amended at stage 2, that is SP Bill 1A, 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 off stage 3. The period of voting for each division will be up to one minute, and members who wish to speak in the debate on any group of amendments should press their request-to-speak buttons as soon as possible after I call the group. Members should now refer to the marshaled list of amendments. Group 1 is public admittance to licensing board meetings. I call amendment 1, in the name of Graham Simpson, in a group of its own. I call Graham Simpson to move and speak to amendment 1. I thank you for accepting the amendment. It is the same amendment that I spoke to yesterday when it was in a group of two amendments, essentially dealing with the same thing. It is not my practice to bring back amendments that have already been debated, but I think that we ended up yesterday in a pretty strange situation. My amendment deals with licensing boards. The other amendment yesterday from Alex Cole-Hamilton dealt with councils, and they both sought to do essentially the same thing. That was to expire the provision that allowed both groups, both bodies, to bar members of the public from their meetings. My argument was then, and it is now, that by the time we get to September, licensing boards and councils should be allowing members of the public into their meetings. There is simply no justification for continuing not to do so. We ended up in a situation in which the amendment that dealt with councils was accepted and the amendment in my name that dealt with licensing boards was not accepted. That, to me, was a completely illogical situation. I went home rather perplexed by that, but I did think that the Deputy First Minister would realise the inconsistency of that situation. I thought that it was probably worth resubmitting the amendment. I thought that he would realise that we are in a pretty daff situation. He would reflect on that. I am hoping that he has, because he is normally a reasonable man. I look forward to hearing his comments. I move the amendment. Alex Cole-Hamilton Just to briefly return the favour that Graham Simpson did me yesterday, I support this amendment for the same reasons I moved my own amendment, number 13, in respect of the public scrutiny. It really matters, particularly as it will come just months before a local authority election. People want to know how decisions are made, particularly around things that are important to them. I am happy to support Graham Simpson's amendment again. I find myself in an absolutely terrible position this afternoon that I fear that Graham Simpson is able to interpret my mind, which is a truly awful situation to think that I might find myself in. I did go home last night and reflect on the comments that Mr Simpson made in his closing remarks in yesterday's debate and believed that—not for the first time, I have to say, but not on all occasions—Mr Simpson had a reasonable point to advance in his closing remarks. I hope that those on the selection panel in the Conservative Party now notice that his career chance is destroyed after that commendation from me. I do think that there is a fair and reasonable point that Mr Simpson makes. The Government will support the amendment that Mr Simpson has brought forward today. However, there is one issue that I need to put on the record about the composition of the amendment, which raises a bit of trickiness, if I am allowed to put that on to the parliamentary record. In licensing legislation, there is a distinction between a meeting of a licensing board and a hearing of a licensing board. The amendment would require meetings of licensing boards to be held in public. Further analysis suggests that the acceptance of the amendment will still leave some discretion with licensing boards. Boards would continue to have discretion to determine that a hearing cannot be held in person for a reason relating to coronavirus. In such case, the board must offer alternative means for the participants to be heard remotely. That would mean that boards could continue to conduct hearings via remote means rather than person if there was a justifiable reason for doing so. However, a licensing board would not do that lightly nor should it. However, if a hearing, which is the forum in which certain decisions under licensing legislation are made, needs to be conducted in this manner and done separately from a licensing board meeting due to coronavirus, then those arrangements will take their course. What the amendment would do is ensure that meetings of licensing boards would be held in public. Having listened carefully to the points that Mr Simpson has made, the Scottish Government is content to support amendment 1 in light of the analysis that I have placed on the record. I call Graeme Simpson to wind up and to press or withdraw amendment 1. I will certainly press it, and I can assure the Deputy First Minister that my career chances were over some time ago. Colleagues will no doubt testify to that. I am not a mind reader, but I was trying to delve into his mind from afar. It looks like I have it right, so I welcome his comments and once again move the amendment. The question is that amendment 1 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed and we move on to group 2 care homes. I call amendment 2 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary, grouped with amendment 3. The Cabinet Secretary to move amendment 2 and speak to both amendments in the group. Yesterday, Jackie Baillie withdrew her amendment, which would have had the effect of extending the reporting provisions in relation to care homes beyond 30 September 2021 for the further temporary period of time. I listened to the views of members and made a commitment to reflect on how best to provide assurances for Parliament about this important matter. Those issues were also raised by Gillian Mackay in the debate. I would like to suggest that we have brought forward a proposal that, hopefully, can be supported across the chamber. Together, those amendments remove the provision in the bill that seeks to expire part 9 of schedule 1 to the Coronavirus Scotland No. 2 Act 2020 and provides a deliverable solution that will have the effect of suspending at the end of 30 September the temporary reporting duties placed on care homes and the care inspectorate. In making those amendments, we can safeguard the ability of the care inspectorate to discharge their statutory duties without hindering or diverting resources from wider scrutiny activity, including support to those care home services that fall short of the expected quality of care and ease the burden of weekly reporting on care home staff. By suspending but not expiring those provisions, we are also able to provide reassurance that, if there is a significant rise in Covid-19 cases in the future and subsequently an adverse impact on care homes, ministers retain the power under section 8 of the Coronavirus Scotland No. 2 Act 2020 to bring forward regulations to revive the original provisions at part 9 of schedule 1 of the No. 2 Act 2020. If there was clear evidence that that was necessary, I hope that those amendments, which the care inspectorate has been consulted on and assure me are practicable, reassures members that a flexible and deliverable process can be put in place, which not only supports the business of the care inspectorate and eases the burden on care homes but provides assurance to the public and to Parliament of the mechanism to revive fortnightly reports on the inspectorate. I hope that Parliament will endorse those recommendations and weekly deaths and care home reports if they are needed again at any stage during the pandemic during the lifetime of the legislation, which I hope Parliament will endorse this afternoon. I hope that Parliament has assured that we have tried to construct the proposition that addresses the issues that were raised yesterday by Gillian Mackay and Jackie Baillie and, accordingly, I would move amendment 2 in my name. I am content to support the suspension of this duty on the care inspectorate, but I am reassured that there is another wave of coronavirus that the cabinet secretary will move quickly to reinstate monitoring of care homes across Scotland. On that basis, I will support amendments 2 and 3. I am grateful to Jackie Baillie for her support for those provisions. I think that what we have successfully managed to do is to put in place an approach that allows the care inspectorate to focus on the essential work of assurance about the quality of the care home environment but then retains the ability for us to exercise a power of oversight should that be required at a further stage in the pandemic. I am grateful to Jackie Baillie for her support for those provisions and I would invite Parliament to support them. The question is that amendment 2 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. Amendment 3, in the name of the cabinet secretary, is already debated with amendment 2. Cabinet secretary, to move formally. Move, Presiding Officer. The question is that amendment 3 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We move on to group 3, notice to Parliament. I call amendment 4 in the name of Jackie Baillie in a group on its own, Jackie Baillie, to move and speak to amendment 4. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I wish to move and speak to amendment 4 in my name. Following yesterday's stage 2 debate, I had discussions with the Scottish Government late into the night and in the early hours of this morning. I should, of course, point out that it was not just about this amendment. This was agreed quite quickly. I am pleased to say that the amendment before the chamber today is agreed by both parties. In essence, I want to ensure that there is the best opportunity possible for parliamentary scrutiny. I think that the Government benefits from that scrutiny and challenge and we as parliamentarians have a duty to the people we represent to understand their concerns and reflect their views in this chamber. The amendment helps to ensure that that happens in the future. Bringing a statement to Parliament at least 24 hours before making changes to Covid-19 measures gives the Government the right amount of flexibility and speed to respond to emerging situations and the Parliament the ability to scrutinise it. My original amendment had a timescale of 14 days, which I acknowledged yesterday was far too long in an emergency. On the basis that we have agreement, I am pleased to have worked with the Government on this and I would hope and urge the chamber to support the amendment. I will make a very brief contribution. Yesterday I was very happy to support Jackie Baillie's amendments looking for 14 days advance notice on the principle that as much parliamentary scrutiny as possible should be encouraged. I recognise that she did not, to progress these and has taken this back with a much more modest period of 24 hours. I hope that she has not sold herself short in her negotiations with the Deputy First Minister. I was not able to secure a longer period, however it is an improvement on what is in the bill and on that basis we will support this amendment. I am pleased that we have reached agreement on this important provision. I think that the point of principle that Jackie Baillie has advanced here is the importance of parliamentary notice. The Government does not in any way dispute that. The question becomes then about the practicality. I am delighted that I was able to negotiate Jackie Baillie down from 14 days to 24 hours. I think that that is a triumph for my persistence over Jackie Baillie's unreasonableness, but we have got to a happy outcome at the conclusion of this process. I think that the amendment that is advanced by Jackie Baillie, the Government is happy to support. Jackie Baillie to wind up and to press or withdraw amendment 4. I was not intending to say anything in closing, but I cannot resist the temptation. For the record, I think that the chamber should know that I never once spoke to the Deputy First Minister last night. Other people did it for him. The question is that amendment 4 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed and move on to group 4, reporting to Parliament. I call amendment 5 in the name of the cabinet secretary, grouped with amendments 5A, 5B, 6, 7, 11, 12, 13 and 14, the cabinet secretary to move amendment 5 and speak to all amendments in the group. The group of amendments deals with the issue of reporting, which we discussed at some length yesterday. I want to make clear at the outset that the Government recognises that when Parliament grants extraordinary measures of the type contained in the Scottish Covid Act, it is essential that there is transparency and openness about how those measures are being used and whether they remain necessary and appropriate. The first Scottish Covid Acts put in place a robust reporting regime to deliver that transparency and continual review, and the Government recently published its 7th by monthly report. Those by monthly reports will continue to be published for as long as the measures in the Scottish Covid Acts are in use, and I can offer my assurance to Parliament that we will aim to make those reports as helpful as we can to Parliament and to other observers. In considering the reporting amendments that were lodged yesterday at stage 2, my principal concern has always been how they fit around that existing reporting structure that has worked well up until now. My aim is to provide the enhanced transparency that the Parliament is seeking whilst avoiding unnecessary duplication and ensuring that reporting requirements are proportionate and workable. The result of that consideration is the amendments that the Government has lodged today. I am keen that we have a very clear reporting structure agreed today and that we do not end up with a series of requirements that duplicate or conflict with each other, which would be the case if a number of the amendments in this group were passed. I believe that the Government's amendments can deliver on the creation of a clear reporting structure and will avoid any confusion in the reporting structure for Parliament, Government and, of course, stakeholders and the public. Amendment 5, in my name, deals with yesterday's amendments, which sought one-off reports on specific topics. I have consolidated the intentions of yesterday's stage 2 amendments 25 to 30 into a single omnibus amendment. This will cover the information that Parliament sought on wedding and civil partnership ceremonies, support to help business, social security, support to carers, support to persons who are self-isolating, social care services and fiscal fines. I know that there are some specific issues that members would like to see addressed in those amendments. Paul Sweeney has expressed an interest in reports covering conditions for trade union recognition in large firms. Pauline McNeill has a particular interest in live music at weddings. I am minded to accept Pauline McNeill's amendment 5A, which would add live music and live music venues to amendment 5 on the basis that it fits with the general reporting structure that we are aiming to create. I am not minded to accept Pauline McNeill's amendment 5B, which I believe is already covered by amendment 5A, and it introduces a level of detail that is not proportionate and consistent with the general reporting structure that has been proposed. Having accepted Pauline McNeill's amendment 5A, I would urge her not to press amendment 7, which I do not consider to be necessary. For the same reasons, I am not minded to accept Paul Sweeney's amendment 11 and Pam Duncan Glancy's amendments 12 to 14. Those amendments take the reporting structure to a level of detail that I consider to be beyond the structure and the design of the legislation that we have in place. For amendment 12, I understand Pam Duncan Glancy is concerned that amendment 12 did not pick up the reporting requirement in relation to the Scottish child payment. That is because it is not relevant to the expiry of the social security provisions in the Scottish Covid acts. I share the same ambitions as the member on addressing poverty for low-income families, and she will know that one of our six priority family groups is those with a disabled adult or child. We have reached over 70,000 families with the Scottish child payment and intend to reach many more when it is rolled out to under 16s by the end of next year. In the meantime, we are introducing bridging payments to reach all families in receipt of free school meals. We are making tackling child poverty and national mission has been set out in this Parliament and reiterated by the Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice just yesterday. What I have tried to do with my amendments is to create a general reporting structure that is flexible and works within the scope of the bill. I believe that this is the best approach to take, but I am happy to undertake to consider how the points raised by members might be addressed in the report that the Government will produce, and I would be happy to discuss that further with members if they would find that helpful. My amendment 6 addresses the additional information that Parliament sought on evictions from dwelling houses. This reporting requirement will be embedded within the existing bi-monthly reporting requirement that the Government discharges. I also want to mention Pauline McNeill's amendment 4 from stage 2. I undertook that the Government would write to Pauline McNeill to provide her with the information that she sought on the welfare of prisoners, and I can confirm that this letter is being prepared. I hope that the amendments that the Government has lodged today on reporting will address the principal concerns of Parliament that we discussed yesterday at stage 2. I move amendment 5 and urge others not to press their amendments. I call Pauline McNeill to move amendment 5A and speak to all amendments in the group. I speak to amendments 5A, 5B and 7 in my name. 5A is an amendment that includes live music and live music venues, as the cabinet secretary spoke to. 5B is the permissibility of live music indoors and outdoor venues and the impact of limitations on indoor and household gatherings. Amendment 7 is a duty to report on the effect of an act of live music. I laid the three amendments in order to approach them in different ways so that the Government can consider what they might be prepared to accept. I am going to go on to say that I welcome what John Swinney said a few more things that I would like to see. I cannot really give up on this battle for clarity on behalf of huge numbers of people. I could have said that I brought these amendments totally for the amusement of John Swinney when I wasn't meaning anyone particularly yesterday when we discussed the question of cringe dancing at weddings, as quoted by my constituent, Brian Reardon, who I'd like to wish well for his wedding on 31 July. I could be wrong, but I did think that the First Minister, when she addressed the question of talking to the wedding sector that there might be some more scope, if not, I would like to plead with the Government that, in all honesty, there should be more relaxation on dancing restrictions for reasons that outlined yesterday. I sincerely thank the cabinet secretary for the exchange that we had yesterday, clarifying the easing of restrictions as it affects live music outwith weddings. Every part of that helps people to understand the decisions that the Government is making. Alex Hutchinson, who runs Cubic Festival in Sutherland, who had an event cancelled, said, I think that people forget that there are millions of people behind these closed industries either directly or in the supply chain. Transmit, which hopes to run this September, and many other promoters, such as regular music, also highlight that the Government's research shows that even minimal restrictions will have quite a damaging effect on the live music sector, which I know the Government is only too aware of. There are literally thousands of young bands and musicians who not only make a living from music, but suffer because they can't perform. It's what they love, and of course, unfortunately, as in many cases, brings mental health issues with it. Unlike other cities, we did not run a pilot or a test event, which we could have done, including for the download festival MusicPilot Festival, which was a pilot between 4 and 6 June. I hope that the cabinet secretary appreciates that there are tens of thousands of musicians who perform publicans and music venues. The whole sector would be delighted if the Government continued to acknowledge that we require clarity and easing of restrictions and the mitigation that was talked about yesterday. I'm grateful to Pauline McNeill for giving me a week. Can I give Pauline McNeill the assurance that the Government will engage actively with the sector, particularly between now and early August, so that we can work with the sector on the various elements of guidance that are required to be put in place? As I mentioned yesterday in the debate, there will still be some requirements around questions on ventilation, hygiene and other questions, where it would be better if the Government understands clearly the practical issues within the live music environment and the venues sector, so that we can formulate a position that is practical and helpful to the sector. It might not be everything that they would like, but at least we will be engaged in a practical discussion about those provisions. I know that many people that I speak for will welcome that intervention, because they wouldn't like to think that the discussion will be simply end because the Parliament ends today, and that these discussions will be on-going, as the cabinet secretary outlines. The sector has a lot of ideas to offer the Government, but it fully understands that there will still be issues of mitigation. I think that everyone understands that we have to do this in a safe way, so that is very much appreciated. I said yesterday that Scotland did not make any mention of the night-time economy, which, of course, has live music at the centre of Northern Ireland, England and Wales. I was hoping that, in the reporting processes, the night-time economy would not be missed out because of that interest. I think that, in the interests of working with the Government and compromising, there will be happy not to move amendment 5B and amendment 7 in my name. Last night, I just wanted to acknowledge what the cabinet secretary said on amendment 4, which I moved yesterday. The cabinet secretary said that there will be a letter to me on the issue of welfare of prisoners, and I would just like to welcome that. I call Paul Sweeney to speak to amendment 11 and other amendments in the group. I rise to speak to amendment 11 in my name. I have to say that I have disappointed in what the Government has presented at stage 3 today, following the amendment in my name yesterday. I took their commitments in good faith, so to not even mention trade unions or bus operator reform on the face of the bill is simply not good enough. The way that this legislation has been brought forward in the past week, before summer recess, has been extremely rushed, making scrutiny and the chance of affecting meaningful change near impossible. We have opportunities to harness the allocation of vast state support for the private sector as a means of achieving better social and economic outcomes, yet, shamefully, it seems like the Government is willing to miss out on those opportunities. In the case of private bus companies across Scotland, they receive an average of £314 million every year in public subsidy. That is 45 per cent of their annual revenues. The Scottish Government has given private bus companies an additional £200 million of grants in the last year alone. That is an obscene amount of cash from the public sector in return for a disproportionately priced and inadequate service. My amendment meets with the established mission of this Parliament. I am happy to take an intervention. I have to rise to defend my constituency border's buses, who have done their utmost to deliver a service in these times and giving free transport to those working in the care and health service. Public sector is good, but private sector is not all bad. Please take that into account. Paul Sweeney? If only it were always the case, I have to say in Glasgow that that is not the experience. We would be able to level up to coin a phrase if we had proper franchising measures in place. I think that it is fair to say in response to that intervention that my amendment meets with the established mission of this Parliament, both in terms of Government policy and legislation already on the statute books. There are no grounds for ministers to reject it on this basis. In 2018, the then transport minister, Humza Yousaf, said that the Government will not stand by as bus passenger numbers decline. If that was the case, why has the amount of bus journeys in Scotland continued to decrease by 12 per cent over the last five years, while bus passengers have experienced a 9 per cent increase in fare prices over and above inflation between 2015 and 2019? Greater Manchester's new approach means that fares, timetables and routes will be set by the regional transport authority instead of private companies, but private operators may still be able to continue running those services under a franchising system. I have recognised that it is important not to make the perfect the enemy of the good and to benchmark against best practice regions like Greater Manchester. In the spirit of maximising the chance for us to move forward in this area, I have adjusted my amendment from yesterday to ask ministers to consult private bus companies and local authorities on the potential of regional franchising as a condition of future financial support from the state. Scotland has the powers to follow this example. We secured amendments in the 2019 Transport Act to do so. However, a Scottish Government FOI from 2 June this year clarified that no discussion or communication had taken place between Transport Scotland and local authorities in relation to funding for franchising. Indeed, the minister was reported as saying, I can confirm no discussion or communication has taken place between Transport Scotland and local authorities in relation to funding for franchising public ownership of bus service improvement partnerships. Instead of giving no strings grant-based funds to private bus providers and facilitating a bus service that is ever more overpriced and fragmented, the Government has an opportunity in my amendment to use these massive allocations of public subsidies to drive forward what this Parliament is all about. I have already agreed in the 2019 Transport Act to deliver a franchising system in every region of Scotland that will underpin a public bus service that is fit for purpose. My amendment allows us to take this basic step forward. Surely there is no reasonable basis to reject initiating consultation with local authorities, bus companies and regional transport authorities to prepare the ground on this very important issue. Especially with such vast sums of public money being pumped into private bus companies, we cannot continue to socialise losses and privatise profits. On the point raised about trade unions, the First Minister herself said in her speech to the Scottish Trade Union Congress in 2019 that the Scottish Government recognises the value of everything the trade union movement does for Scotland. You are fundamental to the fair of Scotland that we all want to see. Increasing collective bargaining in Scotland is not just a trade union objective, it is a national objective. So if the Scottish Government holds the rights of workers and the role of trade unions in such high regard, surely supporting my amendment to consult with businesses in receipt of support from the state about increasing trade union recognition is a common sense step to take. The Welsh Labour Government has already taken this step. It is not unreasonable to ask the Scottish Government to do so too. Even the Pope has said that effects to rebuild economies after Covid-19 must aim at a future with decent and dignified working conditions by giving workers the right to organise in trade unions. On pain of excommunication, people might consider supporting it in the chamber today. My point in summation is that instead of allocating funds on an ad hoc basis, we should consider how we can condition the support to achieve better social and economic outcomes, not just over the next six months under the pandemic but in the long term. That is approaches that we have taken before in the face of national crises. We have used it as an opportunity to underpin major reform. I am happy to give Liam a final point. I listened carefully to yesterday's debate on the issue. I know that the member feels very strongly about trade unions, but is he seriously suggesting that the Government should not support businesses or individuals who are not affiliated to trade unions? That is an utterly bonkers suggestion. I have to say that any business of a large size, more than 250 employees, is reasonable to expect that they ought to permit trade union organisation if the work is so desired. I would not necessarily make it conditional at this point because, as I have indicated in my revised amendment, I have not applied conditionality in my proposal. I have merely asked that the Government consult with the relevant businesses and receipt of support to encourage them in that discussion to accept trade union organisation, which is a very reasonable step forward. I feel that that adjustment from yesterday might meet greater support in the chamber today. I feel all too often that we hear empty words from the Government on the advancement of public transport on trade union rights, but when it comes to the crunch they do not come up with the goods. I would like them to seek to support my amendment. I would certainly invite support from across the house and, for once, I would hope that the Government would put those empty sentiments into action. Pam Duncan-Glancy, to speak to amendment 12 and other amendments in the group. Yesterday, we were clear that, had the scope of the bill been wider, we would have sought to do much more with it to ensure that protections given to people during the pandemic are available for a while longer and sought to add further provisions needed to meet the challenges ahead. In my short time in this Parliament, I have been asked to input to two bills that have been presented as limited in scope and in the ability to amend. Although I understand the reasons for relative speed, I would like to put it on record that I find that to be a way of working that is not as supportive of collegiate lawmaking or of harnessing the potential of all of Scotland's people, as I would hope. I am sure that the Government and others will share that hope, that that is not the way forward when we return. Scottish Labour was very clear yesterday that, although we have been able to amend the bill in the way that we wished, we had intended to move with a number of amendments at stage 2 that would replace duties on the Government to report to Parliament within a month of this bill receiving royal assent on the effect of expiry or otherwise of various current provisions, particularly as they relate to some of the people most impacted by the pandemic, for example disabled people, people on low incomes and carers. My amendments focused on provisions in place to protect those groups and the need to assess whether further measures, including those that we set out in the chamber yesterday, on adding a supplement to the Scottish child payment, making further double payments of the carer supplement and creating a self-isolation support grant. The chamber will be aware that I did not move my amendments yesterday. I did not do so on the basis of the commitment offered by the Cabinet Secretary that the Government would bring forward a wide-scale reporting requirement that would bind them to report to the Parliament on the impact of the extension or expiry of provisions. I do not expect that the Cabinet Secretary will be too surprised to hear me say that I was slightly disappointed when I saw the Government amendments earlier today and the limited provisions that it requires on reporting. I feel strongly that the amendment brought by the Government today, amendment 5, is not strong enough. It requires reporting on information and plans, but not on effect or impact. For this reason, I do not feel that amendment 5 offers even the limited protections that we were able to seek in our original amendments for reporting yesterday. By specifically asking the Government to consider the effect of both continuing or expiring such provisions, we sought to encourage not only an assessment of where we are now or where we are going and, thus, what future measures we need, but also to encourage some reflection on where we have been. I understand concerns about the detail that the cabinet secretary has just outlined, but it is the detail that we need to get that right. There are organisations across Scotland and people across Scotland who I am sure will be pleased to help you in that regard. In respect of amendment 12, I welcome the inclusion within amendment 5 to require a report on the social security support available to carers to cope with the additional pressures of the pandemic and what further support it will consider. However, I feel strongly that it does not capture the depth of the report amendment and the amendment suggested and in the way that I just described. It is important, as I said, to look at what support is available and what plans there are for the future and to understand the effect of measures in place to allow future consideration of what we should do in the future. Amendment 5 also misses the crucial ask to report on support for families with a disabled person in them and, specifically, whether a £5 supplement to the Scottish child payment is required to do this and whether that is sufficient. The omission of this group of people from the report is disappointing. Given the levels of child poverty that this chamber heard of yesterday and the impact that the pandemic has had on this group, I can see that this could be, as the cabinet secretary has said, outwith the reporting mechanisms of the bill, but that is largely because of the limited scope of the bill in the first place. All my amendment was trying to do was to ask for the Government to consider whether it will do this in the context of Covid. I will therefore continue to press that amendment. I do not doubt that, if there had been more time to engage with the Government on this issue, we could have resolved much of this through constructive engagement, which I am sure the Government would partake in, without bringing back the amendments. Unfortunately, instead, with time not on our sides, we will back amendment 5 but press with amendments 12 to try to ensure that the depth of consideration is given. On amendment 13, in the same vein, as I have set out, amendment 5 falls short. I will therefore be pressing this again today and I will be moving amendment 13. Lastly, the chamber will recognise amendment 14 as I brought it yesterday and did not press it. Unfortunately, I do not feel that amendment 5 goes far enough in setting out what it is that we want to look at and assess. Amendment 14 is clear on where we fail monitoring assessment must take place and I have set out in contributions throughout this week the importance of any report looking at the impact of reducing eligibility for social care packages and in contributions today, of the importance of looking back as well as forward. For that reason, amendment 5, in the name of the cabinet secretary, has, I am afraid, also fallen short of where we would have liked it to be. Presiding Officer, please be assured that I bring the amendments back today not to keep us here longer than needed, but to draw attention to the serious issues, apply as much scrutiny as we can in the time that we have, and encourage meaningful and impactful discussion and action from this chamber. I move the amendments in my name. I will comment briefly on the amendments in this group. I welcome amendments 5 and 6 put forward by the Deputy First Minister, which I think are some reasonable progress being made in relation to the points that were made in the chamber yesterday. We were happy yesterday to support the various amendments that came forward on improving reporting and those amendments from the Government go some way towards recognising some of those concerns. However, I would share the concerns that have been expressed by some members that they may not go far enough. In relation to the amendments from Pauline McNeill, I think that she makes fair points about support for live music venues. I know that this is an issue that she has pursued assiduously in this chamber over many years, and if she pursues her amendments we will support them. In relation to the amendments from Pam Duncan Glancy, again our view would be that these are reasonable in asking for reporting on issues such as social security support for carers and on social care. It would be our intention to support them. We cannot, however, support Paul Sweeney's amendment 11. Our concern is that it brings in what are quite significant issues of policy, which in our view are not appropriate to bring forward in an emergency bill. There has been no opportunity to debate those issues, no opportunity to take any external consultation on the matters that he raises. However, worthy they might be, an emergency bill that we are rushing through Parliament in the course of three days is not the vehicle to discuss those matters in any detail. For that reason, I am afraid, we will not be supporting Mr Sweeney, but we will be supporting the other amendments in this group. I am sorry, I am just finished. I am allowed to give way, I will give way. Paul Sweeney. I was just going to appeal to his better nature and ask that surely those matters were settled in the 2019 transport act, therefore we are merely giving effect to what Parliament has already debated in great detail. Murdo Fraser. I just don't believe that an emergency bill is the correct opportunity to discuss these matters that many other members are not of the opportunity to engage with in any detail. I believe that my colleague Graham Simpson may have more to say on this in a moment. Thank you. Stuart McMillan. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I want to touch upon Mr Sweeney's amendment, and I think that Mr Sweeney has an unintended consequence if his amendment is where to pass. There are 300 people in my constituency who are now working. If, going by Mr Sweeney's amendment, even if the most consult part of his amendment were to pass, and if Mr Sweeney indicated that it would not make a condition, but he suggested a better social and economic impact going forward, I quote him from earlier on. That particular amendment, if this were to pass, and if a similar situation that happened in my constituency in 2018 were to happen at some point going forward, then the 300 employees who are now working at diodes in Greenock, which they are now working, thanks to the cross-party efforts and also government and also local authority with a task force to actually save the jobs. Text sentiments were closing. It was a profitable business, but they were closing, and the Scottish Government and the Inverclyde Council and other public sector organisations worked tremendously hard to get the solution, and in February 2019 those jobs were saved. Mr Sweeney, I am not averse to the suggestion regarding trade union representation. I am genuinely not averse to that at all. However, even if the part of must consult where to go forward, I fear that if a similar situation were to happen, whether it is in my constituency or anywhere else in Scotland, potentially those jobs would be lost in the future. I would urge colleagues to reject that amendment when we get to the vote. I'd better say something, seeing as Murdo Fraser has teed me up. It's too late for that. I do want to comment on amendment 11 in the name of Paul Sweeney. I think that Mr Sweeney has got this completely wrong. It's classed as emergency legislation. We don't see it as that, but that's the way we're dealing with it. Mr Sweeney seems to want to introduce a wider transport debate. Of course, he rightly points to the Transport Act and the provisions in that, some of which have not been enacted yet. The time to deal with that is when those provisions come in and Parliament can debate them at that point. Now is not the time. I welcome the colossal sums that have been put into the bus industry and the rail services to keep public transport moving. That has been vital. What we cannot have is a situation as we move on that we make it a condition of support. Those are the words in Mr Sweeney's amendment that private bus companies, which he appears to hate and local authorities, would only receive support if they're going to move down a regional franchising route. Emergency support, I should point out, to Mr Sweeney. I think that he's got this completely wrong and will oppose it. I call Christine Grahame. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I didn't intend to take my people off and say that and then take part in the debate. I can't support Mr Sweeney's amendment. I appreciate that it's been ruled as competent, but I understood the bill and the policy memorandum is to update a range of existing legislative measures supporting various aspects of the on-going response to the public health emergency caused by the Covid pandemic. There are only two bills. This is an amending bill to existing legislation. It's not to introduce new provisions. There's a good debate to be had, but I can't see how your amendment fits into this bill in any shape or form. For me, it's a process matter. I think that I'm intervening. I forgot why I was intervening on you, but I'm not anymore. I think that the member recognises that I might not have been afforded the opportunity to shape those prior instruments of legislation and that it's not a portent conist of our constitution that a previous Parliament cannot bind another. If we are looking to deliver social outcomes that are positive in this country, which this Parliament has already agreed are favourable, then we should be looking at measures to drive that forward. Indeed, if we are looking at those future opportunities, surely if we are not going to endorse them now, it is a tacit acceptance that the current damaging status quo is acceptable. Christine Grahame, you should really listen to me, Mr Sweeney. I said that this is an amending bill to existing parts of legislation, not introducing something new. End of the debate. Not quite the end of the debate. I call on the cabinet secretary to wind up on amendment 5. Let me become the voice of calm in this debate. A fascinating debate and some interesting contributions that I will reflect on. First of all, Pauline McNeill's contribution. I think that members have quite rightly and properly commended Pauline McNeill for the assiduous way in which she has pursued the interests of the Parliament. From the perspective of the live music sector, she raises very important issues. In the passage of the legislation, she and I have had the opportunity to have exchanges that are on the record, which I hope provide reassurance to those that I know she listens to carefully and speaks on their behalf. I will make sure that we follow through on the dialogue that I have committed to in the discussions today. What I have tried to do—this is where I draw on the distinguished contribution of one of our long-serving members, Christine Grahame, in her legislative assessment—is to formulate proposals that are consistent with the framework of the bill. I know that not everybody agrees with the judgments that I have made about the framework of the bill. I know that the Labour Party would like me to go further. I know that the Conservative Party believes that I have gone far too far already, but that did not seem to stop Mr Simpson wanting me to go further in the debate earlier on. I simply say that I am trying to reach some forms of agreement in this debate, but what we have tried to do is to focus on legislation that the Parliament has already passed and to update it for the current circumstances that we face on Covid. We have not tried to use the bill, although members of Parliament would have liked us to have done that, to stretch much further. There are plenty of opportunities to stretch much further in terms of Covid recovery, in terms of the policy response to tackle fundamental inequalities, in terms of the steps that we need to take to support business that will all be part of the Covid recovery agenda that the Government brings forward and that Parliament considers. However, this is quite a tight bill updating existing legislation that Parliament has already passed. For those reasons, I have tried to extend the reporting requirements as broadly as I think it is reasonable to do so within the confines of this legislation, which is what makes it impossible for me to support the amendments from Pam Duncan Glancy, because I believe that they go much further than the scope of the bill. In particular, the amendments that are drafted run the risk of putting confusion into statute, because the Government—I am assuming from the discussions in the 10th of the debate today—amendment 5 will pass. That will provide a scope for reporting, and then there will be additional provisions that will broaden that scope. I think that that creates the sources of confusion. Pauline McNeill is on the question of broadening the scope, so I will not rehash all the arguments about how narrow the bill is. I am sorry to return to the issue of dancing, but a lot of people in the wedding sector are saying that, for the sake of nine days—did I hear the First Minister correctly when she said that she is engaged with the sector? For the sake of nine days, and in all seriousness, that means that couples, if they are engaged with the sector, will not be able to do that. My question is this. Can you ask Jason Leitch or Gregor Smith what is the clinical reason that people cannot have dancing at their weddings? I cannot say it. As luck would have it, I was involved in a conversation this morning involving the two gentlemen that Pauline McNeill refers to, in which I was raising those very issues. Those issues are being considered as part of the work— Excuse me, cabinet secretary. Can we have quiet at the rear of the chamber? Thank you. It sounds almost as if there is some dancing going on at the back of the chamber, but who am I to interrupt the fun of my colleagues at the back? The issues that Pauline McNeill raises are being explored. The First Minister said that at First Minister's question time today. We are trying to be as helpful as we possibly can do if there is any way in which we can exercise some degree of— Jackie Baillie was talking yesterday about the relaxation of requirements around some of the arrangements when people are in pubs for some of the football games that might go to penalties. We have taken pragmatic action about that to avoid situations that could be disruptive, so we are able to take pragmatic action and those issues are being actively explored. If I could then come to the controversial part of the debate, which is Mr Sweeney's contribution, he raises absolutely legitimate issues of debate. They are completely legitimate issues, so I do not dismiss them whatsoever, but the amendment should not pass for a number of reasons. The first is that a number of the issues that Mr Sweeney raised are already provided for an existing statute and go back to my argument about not causing confusion in statute. If there is already provision in the Transport Scotland Act 2019, then in a bill of this character, which has got a narrow scope, I do not see the necessity for us to expand that provision if it is already provided for. Secondly, I want to counter this view—Mr Sweeney used those words—that funds have been allocated on an ad hoc basis to transportation companies. Funds have been allocated in a fashion to try to sustain public transport services in Scotland. If the Government had not expended the money in the way that it had, we would not have public transport services available to us for the post-pandemic situation. It is as simple as that. Those have been emergency distributions of funds to try to sustain a sector that, through the impact of the pandemic, were unable to take in any fares because of the situation that they face. Paul Sweeney, I thank the cabinet secretary for giving way. It makes a fair point that I accept that it is essential to maintain those services because they are critical to our communities across Scotland. My point about being ad hoc is simply that it is not thinking strategically. It is a reactionary measure to maintain existing services as they are. However inadequate they might be, we have already seen other parts of the UK evolve that position, such as Greater Manchester, to see how we can develop franchising as the best practice model across public transport in the UK. That was merely a means of evolving our position in Scotland to use that extensive state support more efficiently in the interests of the public good. I am not close to all the details about the Greater Manchester transport system, but I would hazard a guess that a lot of that work was done pre-Covid. That is where there is a legitimate point that Mr Sweeney raises, which is addressed in the Transport Scotland 2019 act, which is that those options can be pursued. My point would be that the funding that was available during the pandemic has quite literally been survivability funding, upon which, if we had not dispersed it, we would not have public transport services able to be used today. Those are issues that I think that Parliament can come back to and consider, and indeed they form part of the policy agenda of the Government. Lastly, the Government is entirely committed to the fair work agenda. I was involved in an extensive discussion this morning with representatives of a broad cross-section of opinion in Scottish society, business people, third sector representatives, public sector representatives. At the heart of that was a discussion on how we can use the fair work agenda to structure our recovery from Covid. I assure Parliament of the Government's intention to be absolutely focused on using every instrument at our disposal to advance some of those arguments. On the basis of those points, I would urge Parliament to support amendment 5 in my name and amendment 5A in the name of Pauline McNeill, and I would encourage Parliament to resist all the other amendments in the group. I call on Pauline McNeill to wind up on amendment 5A and to press a withdrawal. On the basis that the Government is supporting, I will press amendment 5A. The question is that amendment 5A be agreed to. Are we all agreed? I call amendment 5B in the name of Pauline McNeill, already debated with amendment 5. Pauline McNeill to move or not move? I would press amendment 5A. The question is that amendment 5A be agreed to. Are we all agreed? I call amendment 6A in the name of Pauline McNeill, already debated with amendment 5A. The question is that amendment 6A be agreed to. Are we all agreed? I call amendment 7B in the name of Pauline McNeill, already debated with amendment 5A. Pauline McNeill to move or not move? Not moved. We move on to group 5A. I call amendment 8B in the name of the Cabinet Secretary for members. Grouped with amendments 9, 10, 15, 16 and 17, the Cabinet Secretary for members to move amendment 8A. to move amendment 8 and speak to all amendments in the group. The final group relates to minor and consequential amendments, resulting from yesterday's stage 2 discussions, as indicated yesterday when I was speaking in support of Jackie Baillie's amendment 15. Today's amendments 8, 10, 15 and 17 are technical consequential amendments to tidy up the statute book. Currently, the Scottish ministers are required by the Scottish Coronavirus Act to lay statements in parliament, alongside any regulations under acts being progressed under the made affirmative procedure. However, the ability to progress regulations under the made affirmative procedure, rather than the draft affirmative procedure, is being expired on 30 September 2021. Therefore, amendments 8, 10, 15 and 17 ensure that the requirement to lay accompanying statements is repealed at the same time. Similarly, amendments 9 and 16 are technical amendments to tidy up the statute book as a consequence of Alec Cole-Hamilton's amendment 13 being agreed by Parliament yesterday at stage 2. Those ensure all provision in the Coronavirus Scotland Act 2020 relating to local authorities being able to physically exclude the public from local authority meetings is repealed on 30 September 2021 when that measure is expired. Therefore, I ask members to support amendments 8, 9, 10, 15, 16 and 17 in my name. The question is that amendment 8 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? I call amendment 9 in the name of the cabinet secretary already debated with amendment 8, cabinet secretary, to move formally. The question is that amendment 9 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? I call amendment 10 in the name of the cabinet secretary already debated with amendment 8, cabinet secretary, to move formally. The question is that amendment 10 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? I call amendment 11 in the name of Paul Sweeney already debated with amendment 5. Paul Sweeney to move or not move. The question is that amendment 11 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Parliament is not agreed. Therefore, there will be a division. As this is the first division of this stage, Parliament is suspended for five minutes. The question is that amendment 11 be agreed to and members should cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment 11 in the name of Paul Sweeney is yes, 30, no, 90. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 12 in the name of Pam Duncan Glancy already debated with amendment 5. Pam Duncan Glancy to move or not move. The question is that amendment 12 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Parliament is not agreed and members should cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment 12 in the name of Pam Duncan Glancy is yes, 59, no, 61. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 13 in the name of Pam Duncan Glancy already debated with amendment 5. Pam Duncan Glancy to move or not move. The question is that amendment 13 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Parliament is not agreed and members should cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment 13 in the name of Pam Duncan Glancy is yes, 59, no, 61. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 14 in the name of Pam Duncan Glancy already debated with amendment 5. Pam Duncan Glancy to move or not move. The question is that amendment 14 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Parliament is not agreed and members should cast their votes now. I call Shirley-Anne Somerville for a point of order. Thank you, Presiding Officer. My voting up froze, but I would have voted no. Thank you, Ms Somerville. We'll be back with you in a moment. Thank you, Ms Somerville. We have recorded that. I have a point of order from Bill Kidd. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I may have made a mistake, but I was sure that I voted no, so it should be no. Thank you. Your comment is on the record, Mr Kidd, but I regret that we cannot correct the vote at this point. The result of the vote on amendment 14 in the name of Pam Duncan Glancy is yes, 61, no, 60. There were no abstentions and the amendment is therefore agreed. I call amendments 15, 16 and 17. I call amendments 15, 16 and 17 all in the name of the cabinet secretary and all previously debated with amendment 8. I invite the cabinet secretary to move amendments 15 to 17 on block. Thank you. Does any member object to a single question being put on amendments 15 to 17? No member objects, and the question is that amendments 15 to 17 are agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed, and that ends consideration of amendments. As members will be aware at this point in proceedings, I am required understanding orders to decide whether or not, in my view, any provision of the bill relates to a protected subject matter, that is, whether it modifies the electoral system and franchise for Scottish parliamentary elections. In the case of this bill, in my view, no provision of the coronavirus extension and expiry Scotland Bill relates to a protected subject matter. Therefore, the bill does not require a supermajority to be passed at stage 3. There will be a brief pause before we move on to the stage 3 debate. Colleagues, can I remind members that social distancing measures are in place in the chamber and around the Holyrood campus? I ask members to take care and observe the measures, including when exiting and entering the chamber. Please only use the aisles on what ways to access your seat and when moving around the chamber. Can I also suggest or advise that, as we are running quite a bit ahead of schedule, I intend closing the debate an hour after we start, as opposed to the scheduled time? I am sure that that will meet with approval—widespread approval—except from the Deputy First Minister, by the looks of things. I now ask members who want to participate in the stage 3 debate to press their request-to-speak buttons now or put an R in the chat function if they are joining us online, and I call on the Deputy First Minister to speak to and move the motion around seven minutes. Thank you, Presiding Officer, for the purposes of rule 9.11 of the Standing Order. I advise Parliament that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the coronavirus extension and expiry Scotland Bill, has consented to place her prerogative and interests in so far as they are affected by the Bill at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill. I am pleased to present the coronavirus extension and expiry Scotland Bill to Parliament for debate at stage 3, and I invite members to agree to pass the Bill. Presiding Officer, as we have been conducting our proceedings this afternoon and during the course of the last 40 minutes, the funeral has been taking place in a broth of my dear friend and colleague Andrew Welsh, who was the member of the Scottish Parliament for Angus and my neighbouring member of Parliament for the Angus East constituency when I was a member of the House of Commons. Andrew and I have shared a political journey over the past 40 years that I have had the privilege to know him and experience his support, loyalty and commitment. It is a matter of enormous personal regret to me that I am not able to be at his funeral this afternoon, although the First Minister is there and is addressing the funeral on our behalf. Andrew Welsh is, in my view, one of the finest individuals that I have ever had the privilege to know in my life, a man of deep integrity, loyalty, faithfulness and commitment, who served the people that we both represented in the county of Angus with devotion for so many years. He was rightly accorded an honour that he cherished enormously, which was to be made a freeman of Angus. It was in recognition of the devoted service that he gave to the people of his beloved county. I am grateful to have the opportunity to place on the record my own tribute to one of the finest individuals that I have ever met and to extend my love and sympathy to Sheena and to Jane at this heartbreaking time for them both and their family. It is against the backdrop of on-going uncertainty and continued necessary restrictions and changes to the way of working and living that we can see why this bill is vital to our continuing response to Covid-19. I am grateful to the many members from across the chamber who approached this bill in a constructive way to ensure that necessary adjustments can remain in place beyond 30 September. The debate over the last couple of days has been characterised by a debate that the Conservatives, I think, entirely reasonably have argued. It was a debate that was taking place in an accelerated timescale, and the Labour Party, who have argued that this bill should have been more extensive and more expansive. However, what I have tried to set out to Parliament is a genuine practical observation that I wanted to make sure that public authorities, businesses and others were clear of what will be expected of them at 30 September when the current legislative framework would be due to elaps and allow them to plan for the circumstances that will arise. I will give way to Sarah Boyack. Thank you, Deputy First Minister, for taking an intervention. It is to ask a question about the impact of the legislation and the reporting framework on theatres and cultural venues, because the impact of the restrictions now is a critical issue for them because they are planning ahead to Christmas performances and they have issues about how the restrictions will operate over the next few weeks. Is there potential of giving further clarity on the limits on the numbers of people that are able to access our theatres and cultural venues in the summer period and then, after the end of September, would that be possible to clarify? I would certainly hope that the announcements that were made on Tuesday by the First Minister, particularly around physical distancing, which is one of the principal factors that affects the issues of capacity around artistic venues, would have provided the necessary clarity for the theatre and cultural sector. We are optimistic that the control of the pandemic will enable us to sustain the commitments that the First Minister made on Tuesday. Obviously, the culture ministers, Angus Robertson and Jenny Gilruth, will be engaging actively with the sector to make sure that they have sufficient clarity. I am very happy to make sure that that remains the case. First, my apologies for not clarifying. It is an issue about whether there is a limit on the cap on the number of people in venues in addition to the restrictions on the one-metre distancing. Thank you for letting me come in on that issue. The issue about caps on particular venues, any detail on that is specified in the strategic framework on the contents of level 1 and 2. Currently, in some parts of the country, level 1 and then level 0. Obviously, beyond level 0, there are no caps because we are then without physical distancing. I hope that that provides the clarity that Sarah Boyack was looking for. The provisions of the legislation that I hope the Parliament will pass shortly will ensure that there is no gap between the Scottish Acts expiring and the new provisions taking effect, which would only add confusion to the confusion caused by coronavirus. I am also grateful to members for their amendments to the bill. I think that we have had a constructive process. The Government has engaged substantively on those issues to try to ensure that we responded positively to the suggestions that were made. I want to make it clear at the outset that the Government recognises that when Parliament grants extraordinary measures of the type contained in the Scottish Covid Acts, it is essential that there is transparency about how those measures are being used and whether they remain necessary and appropriate. I welcome members' contributions to strengthen further the extensive system of reporting that is already in place. The first Scottish Covid Acts put in place a robust reporting regime to deliver that transparency and continue review, and the Government recently published the Seventh by-monthly report and published the next report in August. Those by-monthly reports will continue to be published, now covering reporting on measures in respect of tenants' rights, for as long as the measures in the Scottish Covid Acts are in use. I can offer my assurance to Parliament that we will aim to make those reports as helpful as we can to Parliament and other observers. The amendments agreed today will also ensure that there is a single omnibus one-off report that will cover the information that Parliament sought on wedding and civil partnership ceremonies, support to help business, fiscal fines, live music, social security support to carers and social care services. I recognise that members would have liked to have gone further in introducing new measures beyond the limited scope of the bill, but the limited scope was entirely necessary to assist with parliamentary scrutiny within the time that is available. Having the bill agreed today by the Parliament allows appropriate time for the bill to receive royal assent early in August, and my officials will use that time to make sure all necessary guidance is updated and made available to stakeholders and the public more widely so that it is clear to all which provisions Parliament has decided should remain available beyond the end of September and which ones will be expiring at that time and what that means for those who are impacted. I believe that the bill makes an important contribution to our national response against the pandemic. I am very grateful for Parliament's swift action in addressing this. Accordingly, I move that the Parliament agrees that the coronavirus extension and expiring Scotland bill be passed into law. Deputy First Minister, can I echo your comments in relation to Andrew Welsh, who is the convener of the First Committee that I sat on? He certainly commanded respect across the chamber for very good reason. I now call on Murdo Fraser to speak for around six minutes. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Can I just start by associating myself with the comments that you just made and the comments from the Deputy First Minister about Andrew Welsh? Andrew Welsh and I served on a number of committees together in the Parliament. Although we were political opponents, he was always a very decent and courteous man with a strong Christian faith, and he will be sadly missed by all in this chamber and everyone who knew him. Presiding Officer, this has been a very short bill process, but I would like to thank members of the legislation team here in the Parliament for their assistance in relation to the preparation of amendments put forward by my colleagues and myself. With very tight timescales, there was a great deal of pressure put upon them, having to work late into the night, and we certainly appreciate the extra lengths they had to go to. We set out on Tuesday in the stage 1 debate our concerns about the pace with which the legislation had been introduced. I do not intend to rehearse all the arguments today as they are on the record, but I think that the manner in which we dealt with amendments yesterday tells its own story. We were trying to deal with significant issues in a very short space of time, and there was very limited opportunity for any detailed parliamentary scrutiny or, indeed, external input from stakeholders. We nevertheless did our best to engage with the bill and put forward a number of amendments for discussion. I noted at the time Jackie Baillie's attempt to widen the scope of the bill, and although I understand her reasons for doing that, I do not believe that that would have been a helpful move when already we were trying to rush through too many measures without sufficient time for scrutiny. At the heart of the bill, the process lies in essential contradiction. On the one hand, we had the First Minister telling the chamber on Tuesday that things were getting better, that restrictions were on track to being eased, and by mid-August we should be back to some degree of normality, all being well. In contrast, we have had the Deputy First Minister saying that extraordinary and unprecedented powers for ministers must be extended for at least another… Yes, something way. I think the member would be in fairness to the First Minister that her statements were heavily caveated with the progress of the vaccine programme and also whether we have further mutations of the virus. None of us can ignore that. Mordo Fraser. Yes, I accept that they were caveated. Indeed, I have already conceded to that point, but the powers that we are being asked to pass today will extend for at least another six months after the end of September. Potentially, for another six months after that. We are looking at having those measures in place for some eight months after the point that the First Minister is telling us that we should be getting back to normal. In the worst-case scenario, they could be in place for a year and two months. That is quite extraordinary. The confusion and the lack of consistency cuts right across the Government approach to Covid. I know from communications from constituents how concerned they are about it. People simply cannot understand why they are unable to attend graduation ceremonies for children leaving nursery or stand in a field socially distanced to watch their children's sports day when the Scottish Government has sanctioned 3,000 fans gathering together in the fan zone in Glasgow where, if our TV screens are to be believed, very little social distancing has been enforced. Similarly, people cannot understand why a travel ban has been introduced for Manchester when we have seen a very similar case rate in the city of Dundee, but no sense of being taken to restrict travel in and out of that city when we have the ban affecting Manchester. When we saw some weeks ago large numbers of Rangers fans gathering in George Square to celebrate their club's historic 55th league victory, again with very little sign of social distancing, there was strident condemnation from the First Minister and the Justice Secretary. They were right to condemn those breaches of the rules. When we see perhaps as many as 30,000 Scotland fans travelling to London last week, again with little sign of social distancing, we have not heard a peep from either of those individuals in condemnation. What we have seen this week is a spike in the number of Covid cases in Scotland, particularly among younger males, which may well be attributable to people gathering to watch the football. I have certainly been told of at least one bus load of Scotland supporters who have travelled back at the weekend where every single person on the bus subsequently tested positive for Covid. What people struggle to understand is why there should be one rule for one and another rule for others. It is this lack of consistency and clear messaging that is undermining confidence in the public health communications. We even saw confusion during the passage of the bill. We discussed that point earlier, because my colleague Graham Simpson brought forward an amendment yesterday seeking to remove the restriction on the public attending meetings of licensing boards after 30 September. A parallel amendment was brought forward by Alex Cole-Hamilton to do the same for local council meetings. Yesterday, the Deputy First Minister accepted Mr Cole-Hamilton's amendment, but rejected Mr Simpson's. That was utterly illogical. There was no basis for taking a different view on licensing board meetings as against local council meetings—again, a lack of consistency and confusion. The little matter was cleared up this afternoon and rectified when the Government agreed to support Mr Simpson bringing back his amendment. The small episode illustrates my point for me about the rushed nature in which the bill has been brought forward with little time for consultation and not enough time for scrutiny or detailed consideration. I set out on Tuesday why we cannot support the bill as it stands and our position has not changed. There are some measures that we will support and others with which we have serious concerns about, but, overall, those measures should not have been railroaded through Parliament in the course of three days without detailed scrutiny and consultation. There was ample time to have the matter considered in September, when we would be much clearer about the Covid situation in the autumn. For all those reasons, we will maintain our opposition to the bill. I associate the Scottish Labour Party with the remarks made by the Deputy First Minister about the sad death of Andrew Welsh and offer condolences to his family. I always recall Andrew as being a very gentlemanly person—always very kind—but, nevertheless, he is quite determined as a former chief whip for the SNP. I suspect that he would have been in pursuit of Bill Kidd as we speak to have his card marked. We reached stage 3 debate at breakneck speed, having only started stage 1 two days ago on Tuesday. I therefore record my thanks to the Parliament, the legislation team in particular, for the drafting of amendments that are incredibly short noticed. The cabinet secretary, who was occasionally there, his civil servants and, in particular, his special adviser, whom I was negotiating with last night and this morning. Of course, the Scottish Labour team, who have worked hard to improve the legislation, for many colleagues across the chamber, this is the first legislation that they have engaged with in this Parliament. Boy, oh boy, did they make an impression. Unlike me, I hope that they think that the effort overall has been worth it. Changes to reporting on live music, pubs and weddings pursued by Pauline MacNeill, changes to reporting on social care and the extension of the act will have on social care and indeed the need to restore care packages and respite to pre-pandemic levels pursued by Pam Duncan Glancy with a little help from Bill Kidd. Changes to monitoring and reporting, changes to providing information to the Parliament in advance of decisions being made, all of those helping to improve the legislation. Aside from the specifics of the bill, we genuinely cannot return to Parliament debating and voting on issues weeks after they have been decided. If the UK Government and Parliament can ensure that there is scrutiny and members can vote on changes within days, then there is no reason that this Parliament cannot do likewise. That will help with the issue of consistency raised by Murdo Fraser because there is real concern that if there is no logic to the decisions and no consistency that compliance will diminish as a consequence. I still remain to be convinced that we need emergency legislation in place beyond April 2022. There appears to be more hope that containing the virus in the future due to the roll-out of the vaccination programme is there. I understand that case numbers are going up, but unsurprisingly, that is amongst younger men. Some have noted that the causal effect may be because of the association with football and the euros. Secondly, Parliament is sitting, its committees are constituted. As we have demonstrated this week, we can deal with emergency legislation quickly. I would therefore caution the Government about extending emergency legislation any longer than necessary. The cabinet secretary knows that I believe that the bill has been too tightly drafted, preventing members from adding in areas of policy where they feel that there is a gap. We have nevertheless found creative ways, at least about having the debate and placing reporting requirements on ministers so that those issues are still in the spotlight. Nowhere is this more clear than in the debate about evictions and continuing the ban for levels or levels of restrictions due to Covid. Let me make clear again that the only area of concern is with housing arrears that have arisen for tenants due to Covid. If a tenant is responsible for antisocial behaviour or criminality, that should not be included in a ban on evictions. Our concern stems from the fact that the economic impact of the pandemic has still not been fully experienced. Some people have lost their jobs at the very start, others are back at work but underemployed, others again are still on furlough and might not have a job to go to when the scheme finishes, so there are considerable financial uncertainties ahead. We know that eviction orders are currently appearing in sheriff courts across Scotland and people are in danger of losing the roof over their heads. If it is for Covid-related reasons, we really should not allow that to happen. I therefore welcome the new tenant hardship grant fund. The cabinet secretary has acknowledged that the previous loan fund simply did not work and Scottish Labour has been raising it for some time and I am very glad that he has listened. I did however ask him about converting loans into grants, about deferring payments to avoid getting people into more debt. I am not sure that I have got a response so I am trying again. I would welcome any response that he could offer together with information on when the fund will be open, who is eligible, how they apply for it and when the funding will be dispensed because there is not a moment to lose. I said at the start of stage 1 that we have lived through an extraordinary 15 months. No one could have anticipated the length or depth of the pandemic or the tragic loss of life for far too many people. Emergency legislation was required to cope with the scale of the response that we needed, but the key message for the Government is that, in exercising those powers, the Scottish Government must understand that it should co-operate with the scrutiny required of it by this Parliament. Scottish Labour will support the bill at stage 3. I would like to associate the Scottish Green party with the Deputy First Minister's comments on Andrew Welsh. He sounds like someone I would have liked to have met and worked with. I would like to put on record the thanks of my party, colleagues and I, to the wonderful team of clerks and the wider Parliament staff who have worked hard to make the process of this emergency bill as smooth as possible, particularly in such a short time frame. For us newbies, this emergency legislation process has been a frantic and fascinating learning opportunity. Unfortunately, this legislation is still necessary. The pandemic is not over. New cases continue to rise. We heard that some may wish to simply see how Covid develops over the summer, but if the past 18 months have taught us anything, that is simply short-sighted. There can be no doubt that the vaccination programme is our best route out of this pandemic, but we would be failing the people of Scotland if we chose not to prepare. We should hope for the best and plan for the worst. That means maintaining both the public health measures and the social protections that people need. At stage 1, my colleague Lorna Slater set out our disappointment that the bill did not provide greater protections for tenants, many of whom are still facing the threat of looming redundancy as the furlough scheme ends. We also regret that it was not possible to extend the eviction ban to all until the coronavirus restrictions are lifted. I welcome the provision agreed into the bill to report on the status of eviction provisions. That will provide valuable data for the chamber to see the extent of the problem, but Scotland lags behind much of Europe in how we protect those who rent their homes. I hope that the chamber will get the opportunity to properly tackle the deep-set problems that are faced by those who rent their homes. The Scottish Greens are pleased to see amendment 3 included in the bill as we believe that it balances the need for transparency and accountability with the need for the care inspectorate to directly support care providers. It recognises that, while it is not currently necessary for the care inspectorate to report to Parliament, circumstances may change and, if a new more dangerous strain was to enter the country, it may be required months more. I am glad that the concerns expressed by Scottish Care were listened to. I am grateful to Jackie Baillie and the Deputy First Minister for taking on board my colleague Gillian Mackay's suggestion. Next, and perhaps more importantly, there is the need to look forward. The Government has already indicated that some aspects of the changes that came in as a response to Covid will have longer-term value and will be made permanent. It has already said that there will be a permanent bill to do this, but that will be a long-term piece of work. Some of that might be uncontroversial, like measures to make online and remote working more routine, but other aspects will be contested. From protecting tenants' rights to protecting people from exploitative working conditions and precarious incomes, there will be questions of economic justice where parties will have different views. We should not shy away from that debate. That should be seen as a historic opportunity to reshape the economy in fair, ethical and sustainable ways. We must take care not to pursue a shallow understanding of recovery and race back to business as usual, with a sole focus on anything that increases GDP, regardless of the social and environmental consequences. Nobody likes the fact that emergency legislation has been needed, and nobody should pretend that the process is ideal. In fact, it is far from ideal, as we have heard from my colleagues already. However, it is necessary to ensure that we put the right protections in place for the people of Scotland in the coming months. The Scottish Green Party will support the bill. I now call Alex Cole-Hamilton, Mr Cole-Hamilton. Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. I start by offering the condolences of the Liberal Democrats to everyone who knew Andrew Welsh, a fine figure of a man. I also thank the work that has gone into this bill for the legislation and clerking teams. This has been no small feat, and they have our thanks. I rise on behalf of the Liberal Democrats to explain why, after careful consideration, we will not be supporting this bill at decision time tonight, not because we do not think that we need some kind of legislation, but we just want to see a better bill, a more considered bill, and one that does not extend power to this extent or for this length of time. The coronavirus acts are ones that, as Liberals, we have always been instinctively uncomfortable with, because despite the security that they have offered some groups within our society and the protections that they have thought to give them the most vulnerable, the bill offers powers to the Government for far longer than we believe that they will require. It gives the Government unprecedented rights to introduce legislation without the level of scrutiny that we should expect in any healthy democracy. Thanks to the vaccines, Deputy Presiding Officer, this nation is far healthier than it was when the acts were first passed. As I said yesterday, the fundamental principles of the bill is that it creates emergency powers that should exist in the context of an emergency. We are not persuaded in my party that the trajectory of this emergency in which we find ourselves will last for the length of time that the legislation might empower ministers for. However, Liberal Democrats do not believe that it was necessary to bring forward such a bill in such short order for one that lasts so long. The Government's answer to concerns over the duration of the powers that are extended in the bill, as it is voiced by my party and by the Conservatives and others, is the threat of new variants. Presiding Officer, the threat of new variants may never expire. That threat may evade the vaccine, but just as real for the next decade as they are next week. However, throughout the pandemic, ministers have shown that they are willing to and are able to legislate quickly. If the Government can find time to push through a bill as important as this one in just three days, then at any time, should the vaccines fail us, it can bring forward new legislation that we can pass just as quickly. The Government has stretched, and I believe that time is broken with, the tolerance and good faith of members when it comes to making announcements to this Parliament. I am very grateful for the agreement reached with Jackie Baillie from the Deputy First Minister's office on the future conduct of such announcements. This was a difficult decision for the Liberal Democrats. We do not have a cavalier attitude towards the virus or our route out of it, but we also value the importance of scrutiny in parliamentary democracy. The bill as it stands is an overreach of ministerial power that we just could not count in. It is not a considered piece of legislation. We have just had two hours, and it was barely more, to look at the amendments for the bill. It has so much potential to give the Government so much power for so long. We do not suggest that there should be nothing. I should say that the powers and protections of the original act should just fall away when saying nothing like that. Instead, we appeal to the Government to use the summer to bring to Parliament after our return a better bill, one that is informed by the landscape of the virus as we find it in the late summer, one that safeguards the supremacy of this chamber and that shortens to the bare minimum the amount of time that ministers have to exercise those powers, because we need something. There are protections in the bill that Liberal Democrats really support, particularly around the protection of tenants for eviction and other rights to renters. We want to continue those, and that should form the central precept of any future bill. A new bill would also need to supply the extension to time limits on criminal proceedings, because, as I have said before, that is delaying criminal justice and leading to the increase of the population or a man. That is an important piece of legislation. Of that, there is no doubt, but it is because of that importance that we ask this Government to think again. Thank you, Mr Cole-Hamilton. We now move to the brief open debate, and, first, I call Christine Graham, who will be followed by Jamie Greene. Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. With your leave, I can add my comments about Colleague and 99er Andrew Welsh, a serious politician and a gentle politician, but, with a fun side, he did not know that he could play all the Buddy Holly playlist faultlessly on his guitar. I think that is a tribute. To the policy memorandum of the bill, this updates a range of existing legislation measures that support various aspects of coronavirus regulation. That was all going to fall at the end of September. That is my understanding. Now that we have something that is to take its place, not something to introduce new measures but to take place and to allow those regulations that we do not need any more to fall and those that need to be extended to be extended. It is not introducing anything new, and I will come to Mr Sweeney in a minute, though I commend Ms Duncan Glancy on her persistence. I will come to her as well. The question is, in broad terms, is this legislation proportionate to the challenge and are the regulations continuing lasting only as long as is necessary? I have to say that I believe so. I sat through yesterday's amendments and I sat through today's. I want to commend Graham Simpson, lovely man Graham Simpson, and that is finished, and for persisting on what was really the right thing to do, that licensing committees should be sitting in public if councils and housing were going to sit in public. I think that it is good when the front bench sees that there is something amiss and immediately remedies it, and that should be subject to applause rather than condemnation. To Jackie Baillie again—well, look at where she's gone— Jackie Baillie, similarly, on care homes, I always think that she's formidable, she remains formidable, and she's got the right result. On reporting to Parliament, I was interested to see the list—this isn't a prop, you know, that the Deputy Presiding Officer is not happy with props— but this is the list of the omnibus reporting. I think that that was the right way to go about it. Again, I commend Pauline McNeill on persisting with live music. I have great sympathy for her. We've all got events in our constituency, so reporting on the progress to live music where it's pipe bands, silver bands, discos, whatever your taste is, that's again a good move. She's good at pursuing it. I like her style, Mr Sweeney. I think that we'll tangle again on occasion. I'm looking forward to it. It was a very strange amendment, but she gave me a wonderful opportunity to fatten the back of my local bus service, which I'm going to do again. It doesn't mean that I get free transport because I've got a concessory bus pass anyway. Borders buses have done a whole lot. They're a family-run business. This is important. They're not a big commercial company. They're a family-run business on their third generation. What a difference they've made to First Bus East, who were there before and who were rubbish. They have brought in new fleet. They have delivered. I see you would agree with Ms Hamilton. They have brought in an app to help people. They've given free transport to care workers and health workers, so I won't have a word said against them unless they deserve it and they don't deserve it. Pamela Duncan-Glancy, third time lucky. Well, poor, poor bill. What can one say except, thank goodness, he's got recess coming up. I noticed that our chief whip is back. Believe me, you don't tangle with George Adam lightly, so his card is marked very heavily. Poor Bill. I hope you'll be listening. I'll help you out, Bill. I'm used to taking on the whips. In conclusion, emergencies will continue. I'm not the same. I'm a bit of a pessimist in this because every time I think we're getting through something, there's another variant. So I really don't have concerns about extending this for six months to March. Besides, you see, there's always a possibility that if we really do get through this, we take our vaccines run ahead of any variants and we're able to live with it, any legislation can be repealed. But I don't want to see us having legislation that is short-term and then having to come back and extend it. Everything that we see so far is not brilliant news about variants that's happening. So that's why I think that this legislation is necessary and I thank you for your support, which I hope to get. Thank you, Ms Graham. I will not reprimand you for referring to Bill Kidd by his first name as it was clearly an attempt to protect his anonymity. I now call on Jamie Greene, who will be followed by Paul Sweeney. Mr Greene, four minutes. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. It's been a far more interesting afternoon than I expected it to be, I think. I thank the legislation team for all their help and my own parliamentary team for slogging it for the past couple of days. I don't really want to rerun all the arguments of the debate because I think, as Murdo Fraser put it, all of that is already on the record. I think it's fair to say though that concerns were raised right across the chamber over the last few days, not just on the nature of emergency powers that we're extending but the entire process through which they are being extended. That didn't just come from those benches that came from all over. Labour probed the Government rightly on a number of issues on wedding restrictions, live music, as we heard a lot of today, but also on more sombra issues, the emergency powers that the Government wishes to extend, the effect they're having on disabled people, for example, and the right to probe those issues. The Liberal Democrats sought to allow the public to participate more fully in local council meetings, and Graham Simpson tried to do the same with alcohol licensing boards. On one, the Government conceded yesterday, but on the other, curiously, it did not. Of course, it's always good to see Mr Swinney see sense. I know he always does in the end, and today we saw that rightly. Thank you, Mr Swinney. The Greens participated in the debate this week by expressing concern about the care inspectorate's ability to carry out its functions and provide care services during the pandemic, all addressed at stage 3. I tried and earnest to raise awareness of some very live issues that were raised by stakeholders, those who had the very limited opportunity to engage with us as lawmakers. I tried to remove provisions in the powers that would allow ministers to grant prisoners early release and write off community orders, both of which I believe are completely unnecessary in the current climate. Of course, the only apparent success yesterday was the amendment on hearsay evidence, which I think the whole chamber felt strongly about. It was a sensible issue and a sensible outcome. In my view, it wasn't the only sensible issue that merited success, because clearly the blunt instrument that was available to us was simply to either revoke or expire powers within the bill. I understand why that was unpalatable to many members. I don't blame them, because the whole process was far from ideal. Instead, what we wanted to do was meaningfully add to the bill. We could have added additional checks and balances. We could have made those extensions subject to further enhanced legislative scrutiny, either by the Parliament or by our committees, which is the whole point of them. All of those sort of helped curb what I think in our eyes was an unnecessary and overtly long extension of what initially remembered were emergency powers. Emergency powers granted in the time of an emergency. Those are complex policy issues, and we debated them in just a few short hours, with little or no consultation. The stage 2 debate yesterday threw open a whole pandora's box on a range of those complex issues. I don't buy the argument, I'm afraid, that we would not have been able to achieve royal assent on this bill had we passed stage 3 in September after a robust consultation right throughout the summer. I know that this is not the most contentious of bills in the world, nor are all the powers that the Government is seeking the most contentious, but that's not the point, because the next bill might be. I think that that's what worries me the most, the precedent that we've set this week by rushing bills through Parliament. Just because there might be a political majority either on the bureau or on the chamber through the process of simple majority, that doesn't make it right. There must be checks and balances on all of this. It raises a conundrum for us all, Presiding Officer, and it's a process one, not a political one. Who decides what constitutes an emergency and how is that decided? What is this Parliament's last defence to stopping us making errors of judgment? Our legislation must be watertight, and it must be subject to the highest, the very highest levels of scrutiny wherever possible. That should never be compromised in my view, because we all have a duty to respect and protect the robustness of our lawmaking, and that's why so many of us are irked this week. Let me say in closing, rushed law is never good law, and I'm afraid history vindicates that. So regretfully, I too will oppose this bill at decision time. Thank you, Mr Greene. We now move to Paul Sweeney. We will move to the closing speeches, Mr Sweeney, in about four minutes. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. It's certainly been a brief but intense apprenticeship in the ways of legislating in the Scottish Parliament, but it's been certainly interesting and enlightening. Although the Labour Party will support the bill because it's essential to the functioning of the country in this crisis, there are important lessons that we can take away from today's proceedings. Placing such an intense burden on the parliamentarians hasn't been an effective way to legislate. Given the amount of time that we had available to us over this month, we could have spent much more time deliberating this, and indeed expanding the scope of what will, I'm sure, become the act, to allow for greater scope for delivering better policy outcomes for Scotland. That's what we all would share a common objective on. It's been great that, given the constraints, we have been able to work so effectively together, in large part, although not in my amendment's case, to achieve meaningful changes. That's been a worthwhile exercise. Whether it was Jackie Baillie's efforts to improve scrutiny and government reporting to the Parliament to show the respect that it deserves is worthwhile, whether it's Pauli McNeill's efforts to look at supporting sectors that have been overlooked, particularly hospitality and entertainment venues. Of course, Pam's rather unexpected breakthrough with regard to social care reporting, which has been a worthwhile exercise. Maybe the Government could learn that accepting Opposition amendments is not such a bad thing. Maybe it's a worthwhile thing to have brought forward and achieved in the face of the bill. I know that there has been a certain controversy about my proposals. I think that I was wanting to test that effort because it's something that's not going to go away. That's something that we are going to have to get to grips with sooner or later. I think that that's pointed to a number of policies that we need to rise to the challenge on. Whenever this country has been confronted with a crisis, it's been used as a great opportunity to reform and massively improve public policy. We need to rise to a similar challenge going forward into the autumn. I would hope that the cabinet secretary will take a nice sense of that point and hopefully speak to it in his closing remarks. The evictions time bomb is just one example. That isn't going to go away. The arrears that people are facing, the pressure that housing associations and other landlords are facing, isn't going to go away. We will have to have a point of correction as a country. I would like to see us move to a more socialised system of tenure and the extension of state support for those who are facing arrears. I think that we expressed those desires and our proposed amendments and I think that the space should be given by the Government to consider that in more detail with more patience. Similarly, there are other public policy improvements that we can achieve. Parliament has already agreed, as I made clear, that we believe in greater co-ordination, integration and regulation of public transportation in this country, to meet our climate emergency objectives and, indeed, to improve our society. That was what I was trying to probe in the proposed amendment, which was sadly unsuccessful. I feel that there are a bit of non-secure tours floating around the chamber about hammering family-owned bus companies. I must say that I have no quarrel with that bus company. I have a quarrel with First Glasgow, primarily, who is an atrocious operator and I put it on record that they are failing the people of Glasgow and have for years. I do not want to see the spectacle of ministers going to that company and begging them to keep routes going when there are sufficient provisions in legislation to effect the change. That is not what we send MSPs to this Parliament to do and it is not what we elect a Government to do. They may elect them to govern, not beg private companies for mercy to deliver a basic public service and we need to rise to the challenge on that front. Similarly, with the fair work agenda, I know that Mr McMillan made an interesting point. I was not quite sure I followed the logic of it, but about Texas Instruments has been one example of a company that might have been somehow stymied by a trade union organisation in the efforts to save that plant from closure. The examples that we just heard at First Minister's Questions and previous campaigns, such as the Calais and Springburn, were essential to ensuring that the effort was at least put in to saving those facilities, plants, jobs, skills and the lifeblood of the Scottish economy. Trade unions are not an enemy of enterprise. The state should be more entrepreneurial and we need to work together in a spirit of collaboration to achieve better public policy outcomes for Scotland. Although the bill might not be giving it the scope that it needs, it is not going to go away and we need to create the space on the autumn to discuss it in more detail. Thank you very much, Mr Sweeney. We now move to the closing. Speech is in a call on Gillian Mackay. Around four minutes, Ms Mackay. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I am grateful to have the opportunity to speak in today's debate. Scotland currently has the highest rate among all of the UK nations and, yesterday, we recorded the highest daily number of cases since the start of mass testing. Despite the incredible success of the vaccination programme and the very welcome lifting of restrictions, it is clear that the pandemic is not over and that, unfortunately, emergency legislation is still very much needed. According to the latest data, only a quarter of those aged 30 to 39 have received both doses of the vaccine and less than a fifth of those aged 18 to 29. Our young people are still vulnerable and there is significant evidence that people in those age groups are now driving infection. The Delta variant is moderately resistant to vaccines, particularly in people who have received a single dose, and people infected with Delta are about twice as likely to end up in hospital compared to those infected with the Alpha strain. We need to continue to support people to isolate when they are infected and encourage them to engage in regular testing. We are not out of the woods yet. I am pleased to see that Jackie Baillie's amendment agreed to, and I hope that it addresses the concerns of those in the care home sector. As we all know, the pandemic has been an extremely difficult time for care services and it is vital that they have the support that they need to recover from Covid-19. Given that the care inspectorate has responsibilities for regulation and inspection of care services, they will play a vital role in supporting care homes to deliver the best standard of care possible. Like others in the chamber, I regret that the scope of the bill could not be widened so that we could assist those who will undoubtedly be affected by the on-going pandemic but who are not protected by the provisions that are currently contained within the coronavirus legislation. I agree wholeheartedly with Pam Duncan-Glancy's comments yesterday that a provision that instructed local authorities to recommence care packages and respite care would have been a welcome inclusion in the bill. In addition, the Scottish Greens have long called for self-isolation payments to be made universal so that everyone is supported to isolate and no one is forced to choose between isolating and paying their bills. I note that Pam Duncan-Glancy mentioned yesterday her desire to include that provision in the bill, and I am pleased to see Labour's support for that. I look forward to continuing to engage with parliamentary colleagues and the Scottish Government regarding those issues after the bill has passed. There are some provisions within the coronavirus bills that I would like to see continue after the pandemic has ended. For example, those provisions that relate to student residential tenancies and the restriction on giving grants to businesses connected to tax havens. Students now have the same rights as other tenants, and that should continue after the legislation expires. Likewise, ensuring that there were no coronavirus bail-outs for firms that used tax havens was a welcome step during the pandemic, but I believe that we should push further on the issue and end legal tax avoidance permanently. To conclude, Presiding Officer, before I completely lose my voice, although I know that all of us in the chamber would prefer that emergency legislation was not necessary, the state of the pandemic in Scotland today necessitates that the bill has passed. I am grateful to all those members who have engaged with the Scottish Greens during this process, and I look forward to continuing to work to ensure that the people of Scotland are protected from the effects of this terrible virus. Presiding Officer, I draw members' attention to my register of interests as an owner of a rental property in North Lanarkshire. For those of us who have been involved in the various stages of the legislation, it has been a fairly hectic week, and it has highlighted why emergency legislation procedures should be used sparingly. In the midst of a global pandemic, there is obviously a solid reason for using that process, but it has not been without its difficulty. There is no formal government or committee consultation and scrutiny, little more than 12 hours after stage 1 and stage 2 to consider, discuss and lodge amendments, and it stifles that opportunity for meaningful discussion between backbench MSPs and ministers. The drafting of the legislation in such anaraway has also limited the way that members could amend the bill to best reflect how we feel we should respond to the pandemic. In my mind, that is no clearer than when we are talking about protection of tenancies. I am starting to feel like a bit of a broken record having basically said the same thing in the chamber for three days in a row now, but it does bear repeating, Presiding Officer. The ability to isolate at home is the most important response that we have to breaking the transmission of Covid-19. Vaccines are obviously a huge part too, but the evidence on impact on transmissibility is not yet clear. The most effective way to avoid passing the disease to another person is isolating at home, and to do that, you clearly need to have a home. On the same basis as the Government's arguments that furlough and the £20 uplift in universal credit should be extended, which I support, the ban on evictions should have been extended to level 1 and 2 areas, and the fact that there is no provision or ability to amend to reflect that is a failing of this piece of legislation. The Government has made the case to the UK Government on furlough and universal credit because we are still living with restrictions, because entire sections of the economy are still severely impacted or not functioning at all. Surely Scottish ministers must accept that the same arguments apply to the extension of the eviction ban. Many households have been affected by unemployment, reduced employment, reduced earnings or surviving on furlough. Lots of people have accumulated debts and rent arrears through no fault of their own because of a global pandemic. The response from Government to that should be a combined effort to halt evictions and to deal with the source of the problem, those arrears built up as a result of the pandemic. The Government has announced a new grant fund to tackle arrears that is very welcome, but we desperately need to see the qualifying criteria, a stronger commitment to convert any loans from the current scheme to grants and an assessment of whether the £10 million mentioned will be sufficient to halt the predicted tidal wave of eviction notices from organisations in the housing sector. We will support the legislation at decision time, but we are looking for those concrete commitments from Government that are the issue of entitlement and adequacy of the grant fund and that the volume of eviction proceedings will be closely monitored and urgent action taken to protect tenants if required. Can I start by thanking the Parliament's legislation team for the power of work that they have put in over the course of this week. As Mark Griffin stated, this is not how the Scottish Parliament should function. MSPs should have the full opportunity to consult and properly consider and amend bills. Indeed, Mr Sweeney should have had the same right as Mr Sweeney to influence this legislation. This week has just gone to demonstrate the key point that Scottish Conservatives have made throughout the stages of this bill that rushed legislation can often be bad legislation. What the bill does today is leave Scotland in a landing pattern. Those unprecedented powers will remain in SNP ministers' hands for at least another six months until the end of September and potentially for another six months beyond that into 2022. Deputy Presiding Officer, it is critical that we see the Scottish Government and this Parliament focus 100 per cent on the economic recovery from this pandemic. Small businesses across the country are crying out for help. Yesterday, we saw employees from the travel and tourism sector demonstrate outside Parliament. More recently, the soft play businesses and their staff were also forced to protest outside Parliament. The bill will continue to give ministers the powers to further restrict and keep those businesses closed and potentially shut them again at any point in the future. Deputy Presiding Officer, the soft play sector in Scotland feels totally abandoned by SNP ministers. Those popular local businesses have been legally unable to open for over 470 days, some 15 months, while soft play centres across the rest of the UK have operated safely between lockdowns and with no negative impact on public health. The soft play sector, with the same public demographic and material environment, cannot understand why they have not been selected—why they have been selected by the Scottish Government for such severe closure restrictions and a total lack of financial support. At the same time, as trampoline parks, play cafes, play groups and other children in door activities have not been open for months. As Pauline McNeill stated, many businesses have asked for but have never been provided with the evidence that SNP ministers state inform their decision making. As one soft play operator said to me, there is no data to support the Scottish Government's action against soft play, no data to warrant. I will, if I get the time back. I am not sure where Mr Briggs attended the briefing from Jason Leitch for all MSPs, where he dealt with soft play areas. Where are you at that meeting? I am not sure which meeting you are talking about for the last year. Throughout the pandemic, I have been engaging with the soft play sector. The quotes that I am reading out are specifically from them. That is why they have said that they need to get access to the data from the Government as well. They are desperately seeking the action from ministers as they have throughout the pandemic. As one soft play operator who I mentioned before the protest outside wrote to me saying, unfortunately, our numbers are considerably diminished from our first time protesting outside Parliament in September 2020. That is mainly due to a number of their peers whose businesses have been destroyed by the Scottish Government experiment on our industry, and the others whose mental health is so awful now that they freely admit that they do not have any fight left in them. The Scottish Government is a minority Government. However, ministers have acted this week like they have a majority railroading the bill through Parliament. The economic pain from the pandemic is still truly to be realised, Deputy First Minister. What is increasingly concerning is that the First Minister and SNP ministers' decisions could lead to further economic pain and job losses in Scotland. Perhaps, after the summer recess, we will see an SNP-green coalition announced, although, from what I read in today's newspaper, I am not sure whether the Deputy First Minister is part of the SNP's right wing. SNP-green members seem so concerned about working with it. However, Scottish Conservatives have tried to engage constructively with ministers throughout the process and to see whether the Scottish Government and Deputy First Minister would see the errors of their ways. Perhaps, after this afternoon, the Deputy First Minister may wish that he had listened. However, as the Deputy First Minister said earlier this week, you can lead a host of water but you cannot make it drink. Scottish Conservatives will oppose this bill at decision time. I now call on the Deputy First Minister to wind up the debate. You have around six minutes. Let me begin, first of all, by expressing my warmest thanks to the Parliament's legislation team, who I know have had to work extremely hard in difficult circumstances this week, to the bill team, who supported me splendidly in putting this legislation together and to the special adviser who supported me throughout the process, whose contact book has appalled me during the whole process. Thankfully, it has been of great assistance. About the only comment that Jamie Greene said this afternoon that I agreed with was that this afternoon had been more entertaining than expected. I really wish that Pauline McNeill was here for this moment, because she introduced the concept of cringe dancing to the debate yesterday. This afternoon, Christine Grahame tried, as only I could expect Christine Grahame to do, to crowbar the concept of discos into the live music venues. Even I feel sufficiently close enough to the real life—I am not all to go to your discos—to what they are called nowadays, Christine Grahame. Ms Grahame, I should say—excuse me, Presiding Officer—there is a momentary lapse there, but we will get some up-to-date advice on that from Pauline McNeill. If it is on Mr Kerr's contribution to cringe dancing, then, yes, I will give way. Mr Kerr, I am afraid that I cannot deliver on that particular comment, Presiding Officer. First of all, I associate myself with everything that the Deputy First Minister said about Andrew Welsh. He was my MP, and he was a very good MP, even though we disagreed politically. I think that his words of tribute were wholly appropriate. However, I ask the First Minister about Christine Grahame's contribution, which I thoroughly enjoyed as well. Does he agree with Christine Grahame that, at some point in the lifetime of this act, as it will become, the powers are no longer appropriate? Does he agree with her that this act should be repealed as soon as possible? I do not, because I would not bring the bill forward if I thought that. However, if the powers are not to be utilised, for example, the Government would not enact an extension from the initial six-month period if we judged it not to be required, because we would carry out that evaluation. Murdo Fraser had the brass neck to attack consistency of arguments within the Government. There was a lack of consistency in the Conservative benches, because Mr Simpson was entirely gracious about my support for his licensing amendment today when I did not get a word of thanks from Murdo Fraser in the process, so I encourage the Conservatives to get consistent on this. It is injured pride, Mr Fraser. You are, in that respect, absolutely correct. To move on to the substance of the debate, Ariane Burgess made a number of comments about the limited scope of the bill and the fact that there is a debate to be had about what is the nature and the character of our recovery from Covid. Indeed, Mr Sweeney and his latter contribution to the debate made the point about how, out of most moments of crisis, there is a substantial reform of public policy. I agree with that, and there has to be a substantial reform of public policy to make sure that many of the legitimate issues that he was raising—perhaps he was not using the right vehicle to advance the arguments today, although vehicles have been very much the subject of debate in the debate today—will be able to get on a Borders bus with a clear conscience from now on after his gallant response to Christine Grahame. However, there is a point of substance that we have to engage as a Parliament about the route to recovery, and that is very much what I look forward to doing in the Covid recovery committee, which will be chaired by Siobhan Brown and which brings representation from Parliament together. We must ensure that we have that substantive debate about how we recover from Covid, and it is beyond what I would consider to be the operational provisions of the bill, which have not charted new ground. They have simply been an extension of the provisions that Parliament has already legislated for. Although that has attracted some criticism, I think that it was the right judgment for the Government to make. Mr Griffin and Jackie Baillie raised issues about the 10th hardship fund. I indicated yesterday that that will be launched later on the year. We will consult extensively with stakeholders in the establishment of the details, the criteria and also on the question of conversion of any loans. However, I also want to put on the record the good work that has been done by a whole range of different stakeholders, such as redsor social landlords, local authorities and the housing association movement, in collaboration with the Government on trying to avoid evictions in the first place. Although it is right for us to focus on the 10th hardship fund, it is also right for me to put on the record the really good work that many stakeholders have undertaken to make sure that we support tenants through difficult times, given the fact that the coronavirus is disrupting, the economy is disrupting livelihoods and it may as a consequence disrupt tendencies, and we must try to avoid that being the case for individuals because they deserve our support. I thank members for their forbearance over the past three days. I do want to scorch the rumour that this was an early continuous professional development exercise for new members of Parliament to be given a crash course in legislation over a three-day period. That was not my intention, but I thank members of Parliament and members who have just joined Parliament for the way in which they have engaged in the process to enhance the legislation, to advance issues that were of importance to members and to ensure that we have the correct statutory framework in place to deal with what is a continuing ongoing threat that we face from coronavirus. We hope that we are moving into more optimistic times in relation to the management of the virus due to the success of the vaccination programme, but the data that we are experiencing this week demonstrates that this problem has not deserted us in any shape or form. Having the legislation in place, which I assure the Conservatives, will not be maintained for a moment longer than we think it is required, and we will faithfully engage in the reporting arrangements and accountability arrangements that Parliament has strengthened today. We followed them all since the legislation was put in place last spring. We will continue to do so, but we will cover some new ground as a consequence of the amendments that have been advanced today. I look forward to the midnight oil being burnt in producing the reports that will satisfy the requirements of statute. I encourage Parliament to support the bill at decision time. Today, the Scottish Government was forced through a freedom of information request to release the draft publication of the Food and Farming Future Farm Policy Group recommendations, which it did so on the final day of Parliament before recess. It has now been two and a half years that we have been waiting for this document, and it is still only in draft format. The document was promised by the Cabinet Secretary in August 2020 after pressure from colleagues, but it still was not published. The Scottish National Party has failed to offer policy clarity in a timely manner to the agricultural industry, and by withholding the promised document for so long, the Scottish Government is disrespecting this Parliament and disrespecting this sector. I seek guidance from the Scottish Government as to whether the Scottish Government should uphold its commitment to publish a document when it says that it will publish it, and ask what parliamentary procedures are in place to ensure that we have time to scrutinise such publications, given that we are heading into recess in a few minutes. I thank the member for advance notice, but it is not a matter for me to rule on. As the member knows, there are several avenues through which members can hold the Scottish Government to account, including during any periods when Parliament is in recess. If the member feels that a Government minister has failed in their duty somehow, she might wish to make a complaint under the relevant article of the ministerial code. At the risk of prolonging the agony that we all want, we are keen for recess to start, but I think that the point that we are making—it is not the only report that has come out. Another Government-initiated question today was around Dame Elish Angiolini's well-respected report into policing. Those are quite important matters for the Parliament to look at. However, the problem is the timing of them. That one was issued at 2 p.m. this afternoon. It was an hour after First Minister's questions. There is no opportunity for me or anyone to submit urgent or toppled questions on the matter, or to question the cabinet secretary to whom the topic is related. The question is whether, despite overt requests from the chair to the Government to make those announcements in a timely fashion, to allow scrutiny from right across the spectrum whether we will be afforded that respectful opportunity to grow the Government on those matters. I think that that is the point of orders that we are trying to make throughout this. I thank Mr Greene for his point of order. Again, it is not a matter for me to rule on his comments. However, I have been noted. I call Mercedes Villalba for a point of order. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I realise that it is not possible to amend previous votes, but I would like to put it on the record that, for amendment 11, my intention was to support not opposed. Thank you, Ms Villalba. Your comments have been noted. Now, where were we? I am pleased to note that we have concluded the stage the debate on coronavirus extension and expiry Scotland Bill. It is now time to move on to the next item of business, which is consideration of Scottish parliamentary corporate body motion 505 on appointments to the Scottish Commission for Public Audit. I ask Maggie Chapman on behalf of the Scottish parliamentary corporate body to speak to and move the motion. I am aware that people are keen to get out of this place, so I will just move formally. Thank you. The question on this motion will be put at decision time. The next item of business is consideration of parliamentary bureau motion 492 on designation of lead committee. I ask George Adam on behalf of the parliamentary bureau to move the motion. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer, and formally moved. Thank you. The question on this motion will be put at decision time. I am minded to accept a motion without notice under rule 11.2.4 of standing orders that decision time be brought forward to now, and I invite a member of the parliamentary bureau to move the motion. Once again, Presiding Officer, formally moved. Thank you very much, minister. The question is that decision time to be brought forward to now. Are we all agreed? There are three questions to be put as a result of today's business. The first is that motion 479 in the name of John Swinney. The question is that motion 479 in the name of John Swinney on coronavirus extension and expiry Scotland bill be agreed. Are we agreed? We will have a short suspension to allow members to access the digital voting system.