I call John Swinney to speak to and move the motion up to nine minutes, cabinet secretary. I welcome this opportunity to open the debate on the general principles of the coronavirus recovery and reform Scotland bill and thank committees of parliament for their careful consideration of the provisions of the bill. With the benefit of hindsight, I think that we can all agree that our statute book was not sufficient to deal with the circumstances that we faced in March 2020. Members will recall that we required two pieces of emergency legislation in a matter of days to provide the legislative ability to handle the pandemic. This bill, if passed, will put in place legislation that we consider to be necessary, proportionate and appropriate to ensure that we can respond in future where circumstances require it. The measures in the bill fall into three broad categories. Powers to counter future public health threats, the embedding of practical public service reforms that have demonstrated their value irrespective of the public health position, and extended temporary measures to help to manage the impact of Covid specifically on the Scottish justice system. The latter two categories have largely been endorsed in the scrutiny to date, but the first has generated significant difference of opinion and my speech will focus mostly on that issue this afternoon. For the most part, the measures in the bill across all categories already exist in temporary legislation, but will expire in September. They update and equip the statute book in sensible and appropriate ways based on learning lessons from the pandemic. The measures were consulted on as a coherent package in a full 12-week public consultation that took place between August and November last year, and the measures in the bill collectively support the Government's recovery strategy from Covid and the recently updated Covid strategic framework. I'm pleased that the lead committee has, having regard to the other scrutiny committee's reports, endorsed the general principles of the bill, and has recognised that it is appropriate to equip the statute book with powers to counter future public health threats. Alex Cole-Hamilton. I'm very grateful to the Deputy First Minister for giving away. This pandemic caught us by surprise. That's in their nature. The next pandemic will catch us by surprise as well. We can't legislate for that now. For sure, we can have our civil servants draft up contingencies, but is it really necessary to legislate now to retain the draconian powers that the Government handed at the start of this one? I would encourage Alex Cole-Hamilton to listen to the arguments that I'm going to develop during my opening speech, but I don't accept the point that there is material that we do not need to legislate for to enable us to prepare for future pandemics so that we can foresee a lot of what will emerge in that respect. I'm a ministerial colleagues who have read with interest the recommendations contained in the various committee's stage 1 reports. While there are some recommendations that we are not persuaded are necessary, there are places where we can agree change may be needed and are now actively considering appropriate amendments at stage 2. The Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee report recommended that an explanation of urgency requirement be added where the made affirmative procedure is used for powers taken in the bill. I agree that that is appropriate to explain why regulations require to be made urgently, and therefore the Government will bring forward an amendment at stage 2 to this effect. I can also confirm that my officials are working with parliamentary counterparts to develop a protocol for an expedited draft affirmative procedure in appropriate cases. In relation to the proposed powers to modify primary legislation through future public health protection regulations, the so-called Henry VIII powers, I remain of the view that this power is appropriate and is already subject to significant safeguards. However, having considered the views of members, we will bring forward amendments at stage 2 to add the further restriction that that power will only be available where ministers make regulations under the draft affirmative procedure. That would mean that parliamentary approval must be in place before any modification to primary legislation takes place. I am grateful to the member for the concessions that he has announced on the Henry VIII powers, which the committee identifies as one of the key areas of concern. The cabinet secretary has consistently said that what the Government is trying to do here is to reflect the legislation site for the border that already exists. However, would he accept that the Henry VIII powers do not exist in the equivalent legislation in England and Wales? My view is that they do, but they require to be put in place with the necessary safeguards, which is what I am addressing today. If Mr Fraser thinks that there has been ground-given already, I encourage him to be patient for what more is to come. I want to take some time to address the proposal that has developed in stage 1 scrutiny that some key powers be taken out of the bill and held in reserve or kept on the shelf for emergency enactment at a future point. I acknowledge the concerns that are behind this proposal, and I accept that the bill provisions as introduced did not strike the right balance between having the legislative framework we need and the necessary level of parliamentary oversight. There are three points that need to be considered in this respect. The first is that I believe that there remains a clear and compelling argument to have the public health protection and educational continuity powers that are placed in parts 1 and 2 of the bill. The statute book is currently not complete, and that requires legislative action now. The public health protections would allow ministers not only to make regulations in a time of emergency, such as in the most extreme circumstances, to impose a national lockdown as we had to do to combat Covid, but also to make regulations in peacetime to prepare for future threats, which is my point to Mr Cole-Hamilton. I am thinking here of standing-prepared dismeasures, such as those that have been put in place in England and Wales since 2010. If Mr Green would forgive me, I have quite a lot of material to get on the record. The second point that I recognise is the need for future action by ministers to be grounded in evidence. Throughout the Covid pandemic, decision making was guided by the advice of the medical officer and other advisers. Members saw that most recently when key scientific evidence concerning the potential impacts of the Omicron variant was provided to Parliament in December. Thirdly, I have acknowledged that there is a need to involve Parliament more effectively than originally proposed in decision making. The need for swift and effective action in the event of a future public health threat needs to be balanced by proper parliamentary scrutiny. Drawing those three points together, I consider that the most appropriate approach is to enact the necessary legislative framework now, but to insert a mechanism that requires Parliament to authorise the use of such powers in a specific circumstance. We need the ability to co-ordinate a national public health response which could supplement local action which was already possible under existing public health legislation, and we need adequate parliamentary oversight. To ensure that necessary parliamentary oversight is in place, the Government will bring forward amendments to introduce a gateway vote mechanism, which would mean that key aspects of the public health protection and education or continuity powers would only have effect if a parliamentary vote on a formal Government declaration is held and approved. That would allow the Parliament to enact those powers with the confidence that lockdown, school closure and other emergency response measures could only be imposed in the event of a future public health threat in an emergency situation if the Parliament has so authorised. I do not consider that the standing preparedness measures would be subject to the gateway control. Those would be resilience preparations that would be the subject of regulations under the draft affirmative procedure and would be approved by Parliament before they are enacted. They cannot objectively be described as emergency measures. That capability is an important measure to our response toolkit. The powers to make such measures have not been available in Scotland as they have been in England and Wales, and the bill already sets out sufficient safeguards for their use, including parliamentary approval under the draft affirmative procedure. Consideration will also need to be given to exceptional circumstances where Parliament cannot meet, for example, when it has been dissolved in the pre-election period. I will provide more details to members at stage 2 for scrutiny at that point. Building on the practices with which we have become familiar through the Covid pandemic and the need that I have identified for an appropriate evidence base, the Government declaration underpinning those issues would rely upon the advice of the chief medical officer. In conclusion, I hope that the amendments that I have announced this afternoon, together with the further points that were made in the stage 1 report in relation to the Henry VIII powers and the introduction of a gateway provision, demonstrate the willingness of the Government to listen to Parliament as we bring forward necessary measures that are required to ensure that we have adequate protection in place for a future pandemic, but which crucially pay respect and observe the importance of parliamentary accountability. I move that Parliament endorses the general principles of the coronavirus recovery and reform Scotland Bill. I now call on Siobhan Brown to speak on behalf of the Covid-19 Recovery Committee. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I am pleased to speak in this debate on behalf of the Covid-19 Recovery Committee. Firstly, I would like to put on the record the committee's thanks for the hard work and the support of our clerking team. I will start by providing an overview on how the Bill has been scrutinised at stage 1 before outlining the committee's key findings in its stage 1 report. The wide-ranging policy areas engaged by this Bill arguably reflects a profound impact that Covid-19 has had on our society and our economy. As we enter the recovery phase of the pandemic and much of the temporary coronavirus legislation expires, this Bill invites us to consider what lessons we have learned since 2020 and what measures should be retained to ensure we can respond to future public health threats effectively and proportionately in the future. We worked with relevant subject committees to ensure that this Bill received thorough and informed scrutiny to answer this question, and I am grateful to the Education, Children and Young People Committee, the Criminal Justice Committee and the Local Government Housing and Planning Committee for working jointly with our committee to scrutinise this Bill. I am pleased that the conveners of these committees will take part in the debate today, and I will therefore focus my contribution on the provisions that our committee scrutinised in part 1 and part 3 of the Bill. Part 1 contains powers to co-ordinate a national response to a public health threat. These powers form the backbone of the Covid-19 response and we have broadened by this Bill to enable Scottish ministers to respond to any infectious disease or biological or chemical contamination in the future. We do not often consider legislation that has had such a profound and direct impact on all our constituents and I think this is reflected in the high response rate we received in our consultation. We received over 3,900 responses to our survey and nearly 100 submissions. A clear majority of the responses to the short survey were opposed to the Bill. For the provisions in part 1, for example, more than 80% of responses argued against making these permanent. Whilst the responses to our survey do not reflect a representative sample of the population's views, they do highlight that there is a significant public interest in the Bill. The committee was therefore keen to reflect on how the powers were used in response to Covid-19 to provide the right framework for dealing with a future threat. I thought it was interesting that one expert in public health drew an analogy with preparations for war, noting that military planners are always planning for the previous war and not the next war. So when we looked into the legislative template that was being used we found that these provisions implement the World Health Organization's international standards for public health legislation. That is an important point. This framework was developed internationally in response to the experience of SARS and similar powers have been in place in England and Wales since 2008. Part 1 largely mirrors the English and Welsh legislation, but includes some substantive differences. The key difference we focused on was the inclusion of the Henry VIII powers, which were found in Part 1 and in Part 6. These powers would enable the Scottish Ministers to amend any legislation for the purpose related to the scope of the bill. The committee noted that there were alternative approaches to the inclusion of the Henry VIII powers in the bill. These provisions could be to remove it entirely and brought forward an emergency legislation in the future if required. Another approach would be to delay the commencement of these provisions until a public health emergency arises and to give Parliament a role in scrutinising the decision to commence the powers in those circumstances. The committee did not come to consensus on this matter, but I welcome that the Scottish Government have considered this, and I welcome the update from the Deputy First Minister in the opening speech. Overall, some members of the committee agreed with the general purpose of the provisions in Part 1, Chapter 1, which is to enable Scottish Ministers to co-ordinate a national response to future health threats. Other members of the committee considered that the Scottish Government had not made a sufficient case on why the powers should be made permanent. Instead, those members considered that these powers could be brought forward quickly under primary legislation if required in the future. But there are many aspects of the bill where the committee were in agreement. We all agreed that the role of Parliament in a public health emergency is paramount notwithstanding the challenges faced by Government in responding to these kinds of threats. This is why we have argued that the other bill could be strengthened, including in relation to the use of the made affirmative procedure. On this, we are in agreement with the DPLR committee, and my colleague Mr McMillan is contributing in this debate, so I'll leave it to him to explain these recommendations in more detail during his contribution. The COVID-19 Recovery Committee would also like to see some of the best practice to develop between Parliament and Government reflected in this bill, such as the reporting requirements for legislation and a requirement that the reviews of the use of the legislation be reported to Parliament. We've also asked the Government to consider amending the bill to require that an appeals process is created if the requirement to use the powers in part one is triggered in the future. I know that the Government has indicated that it does not support these recommendations and we may return to the reasons for and against these recommendations in this debate. I will conclude by commenting on part three of the bill. The non-justice-related measures in part three are largely aimed at ensuring our public services can be delivered remotely. This is intended to ensure that our public services are more resilient to any disruption in the delivery of in-person services. The committee agreed with the general principles of these provisions but we have argued that the bill should also include a requirement for local authorities to provide remote and in-person services. We've also asked the Scottish Government to give further consideration to how it's going to work with local authorities and the third sector to ensure that there is sufficient and appropriate support available to users of online services particularly those who are digitally excluded. I welcome the Scottish Government's agreement in its response to our report that we cannot disadvantage those who do not or cannot access public services online. The bill also does deal with the nomination of a named person under the Mental Health Act. We consider that the bill could be strengthened by requiring a nominated person to confirm they have read and understood the guidance about their role when they take it on. We've also recommended that more needs to be done to ensure that the people take up this important safeguard and I know that the Scottish Government intends to take forward some of our recommendations in conclusion the committee recommends that the Parliament approves the general principles of this bill and this decision did come to by a vote. I look forward to hearing more detail on the Scottish Government's response to our report in this debate. Thank you. I now call on Audrey Nicholl to speak on behalf of the criminal justice committee. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I'm very pleased to open in this afternoon's debate on behalf of the criminal justice committee. The criminal justice committee has been a secondary committee on the bill and has considered its justice provisions. At the outset, I want to thank the witnesses who took the time to give evidence on the bill. Their views have helped shape our views on the proposal and I also want to thank our committee clerking team for their support in leading us through the stage 1 process and producing our stage 1 report. The justice provisions in the bill can be divided into two types of measures, permanent and temporary. The permanent changes are ones put in place during the pandemic but which the Scottish Government has decided are worthy of retaining on a permanent basis. Generally speaking, they attracted limited comments and were fairly non-contentious. For example, the bill proposes the establishment of a permanent system whereby interim payments can be made to lawyers for legal aid work. However, the temporary justice measures in the bill attracted more interest. The bill sets out what temporary means in practice. All the temporary justice measures will expire on 30 November 2023 unless an extension is agreed by statutory instrument and the temporary measures cannot be extended beyond 30 November 2025. I want to briefly highlight four of those temporary justice measures. First, the bill proposes to extend the current temporary measures that supported electronic court business during the pandemic. Sometimes this has been referred to as virtual courts or virtual trials. The committee heard from some in the justice sector who see the advantages of virtual working. However, the committee heard other more skeptical views including fundamental concerns about how this impacts on the solemnity of justice and practical concerns such as digital exclusion. The committee's view was that more virtual trials need to take place in the criminal courts before a properly informed view can be taken about making them permanent. In particular, we were concerned that only a limited number of virtual summary trials had gone ahead. In effect, there needs to be an expansion of the pilot so more evidence can be gathered as to their effectiveness. If the Scottish Government was to seek to extend the temporary provisions beyond 2023, the committee would expect to see robust evidence to justify that. The committee notes in the Scottish Government's response their intention to consult more broadly on virtual proceedings including improving victims' experiences in the justice system, for example virtual trials in summary proceedings. A second temporary measure in the bill relates to fiscal fines. The bill temporarily increases the maximum level of fiscal fines available to prosecutors from £300 to £500. On balance, a majority of the committee supported those temporary provisions. However, the committee is of the view that there should be more transparency and involved reporting on the use of fiscal fines. Importantly, that may help victims to understand the process. We would also question any moves to extend the fiscal fine provisions to include more types of crime. The committee noted the Scottish Government response highlighting existing reporting on fiscal fines and the reassurance provided around the temporary nature of this measure. The bill proposes a relaxation on a temporary basis of the statutory time limits which criminal proceedings are subject to. Some witnesses describe those provisions as a necessary evil given the need to ensure the delivery of justice. The committee's view is that the further extension of time limits is concerning. Our view is that there are good reasons for returning to normal time limits as soon as feasible. The committee seeks reassurance that the use of extended time limits will be monitored and used proportionately. The committee notes the Scottish Government's response agreeing that extended time limits should not be the new normal. Finally, there is also a temporary power in the bill to allow Scottish ministers to make regulations to release certain people from prisons and young offenders' institutions early. Various safeguards around the use of these powers are included in the bill. The committee's view is that a balance must be struck between the risks associated with early release of prisoners and the risks associated with a Covid outbreak in prison. We consider that these powers should be used only in the case of a significant deterioration in the Covid-19 position in Scotland where an outbreak cannot be managed through any other measure except reducing the prison population. The cabinet secretary has provided reassurance that he has no current plans to use these powers. Any regulation on early release of prisoners would be subject to close parliamentary scrutiny by the committee. I want to conclude by saying that in the time available to it the criminal justice committee has given careful consideration to the justice provisions in the bill. If the bill passes at stage 1 we stand ready to consider these justice provisions on a line-by-line basis at stage 2. I now call Arian Burgess to speak on behalf of the local government housing and planning committee up to four minutes. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. The bill covered many areas of policy as we have heard beyond the scope of any single committee with the local government housing and planning committee clear remit for housing issues and our keen interest in homelessness and ensuring that everyone is able to have somewhere secure that they can call home we welcome the opportunity to consider part 4 of the legislation. The bill will continue some but not all of the mitigations for tenants introduced during the pandemic. It makes all grounds for evictions, discretionary and provides for landlords to undertake certain actions to support tenants when rent arrears start to build. Making the grounds for evictions discretionary ensures that the tier 1 tribunal can consider all sides and perspectives when eviction is sought. The provision ensures that there is more yes. I read the local government housing planning committee report with its interest but it did not include all types of housing providers. From the Scottish Property Federation we believe that the overall impact of the provisions could be to weaken the PRS by fueling a perception of regulation and risk for investors that will undermine efforts to attract capital investment to the sector. Can I ask that the committee in the future reflects further on the impact of all stakeholders and all housing providers in making an assessment as we go through the stages? I thank the member for the comment and I will take on board and if you allow me to continue you will hear that we are aware of those things. The provision ensures that there is more security for tenants breathing space for both parties to consider what is the best outcome. It reduces the likelihood of a family potentially becoming homeless. The tribunal will have the opportunity to balance tenants with the rights and needs of landlords. We heard loud and clear from the organisation supporting and advising tenants that they support these changes in the emergency legislation becoming permanent. The actions of landlords such as discussing ways in which any debt can be repaid or in signposting tenants to support when a tenant starts falling behind in their rent will also be considered by the tribunal when eviction is sought. This is what happens in the social housing sector and presents a humane way to respond to a family struggling to remain in their home. Witnesses representing landlords made their case clearly and thoughtfully and allowed us to understand the risks landlords could face and their concerns about the bill creating uncertainty for landlords. We understand that properties might have been purchased to fund retirement or be required for landlords' own housing needs. The tribunal can consider these factors fully in its deliberations. Witnesses representing landlords also highlighted the potential unintended consequences of these perceived risks that landlords would exit the long-term private rented market so worsening the situation for those seeking to rent privately. We were made aware that the vast majority of landlords in Scotland have only one rental property and were reliant on it as an investment that they could realise when they needed to. Finally, we heard that the relationship between local authorities with the responsibility for homelessness and the private rented sector needs to improve. Good mutual understanding is required as it is an understanding of the nature of the sector across local authorities to allow better collaboration to prevent homelessness. While we hear the concerns of landlords, a tribunal will still be able to grant an eviction and use its discretion to decide what is a reasonable and fair outcome for both landlords and tenants. To conclude, the committee supports that these provisions are made permanent with the understanding that a comprehensive housing bill will be introduced in the next parliamentary year. We believe that these provisions will provide continuity and security for tenants in the short to medium term. Government must closely monitor the effects both intended and unintended of this legislation in front of us now. Will evictions reduce? Will the sector shrink and landlords leave the market, worsening homelessness in the longer term? We hope yes to the first and no to the second. In any event, we ask that evidence is made available ahead of any future housing legislation. Landlords should be reassured that we will look closely at the effects of this change during our scrutiny of any future legislation in this area. We also urge the Government to work closely with the private rented sector and local authorities. We must recognise the invaluable contribution made by the private sector in offering a healthy mixed economy of long-term housing options and all levels of government need to work in a constructive way to prevent homelessness. A place that is safe to call home provides the most fundamental base for families to thrive. I now call on Stephen Kerr to speak on behalf of the Education, Children and Young People Committee on our work at stage 1 for the coronavirus recovery and reform Scotland bill. Our committee considered the provisions in part 2 of the bill, which are designed to ensure that Scottish ministers have powers to enable educational establishments to take action to protect public health and ensure the continuity of educational provision in the future. The temporary closure or conditions on the functioning of educational establishments or student accommodation and how local authorities would need to undertake consultations about proposals in relation to schools. The committee is grateful to all those who provided evidence which informed our report. The majority of the committee members were content with the regulation making powers, conferred on ministers in part 2 of the bill, although the committee was not unanimous in its support. The recommendations that we set out in our report are intended to be constructive and seek to improve the bill. I do not have a lot of time this afternoon, we have been only allocated four minutes, so I am going to focus on our recommendations which call for greater clarity in some of the part 2 provisions, including those relating to the closure of schools, colleges and universities. In their evidence, both the EIS and COSLA stated that local authorities do not have the power to unilaterally close the school on public health grounds. In such circumstances a school must obtain permission from the local public health authority. In their evidence, University Scotland and Colleges Scotland stated that the Scottish Government would not have the detailed local knowledge to exercise its powers to make decisions on which departments, buildings or research projects should close in a public health emergency as provided for in the legislation. The cabinet secretary acknowledged that such practical issues would require to be managed flexibly and that some exceptions may have to be applied. The committee agreed that local authorities and other stakeholders should have a clear and unambiguous understanding of where responsibility lies to close schools quickly in any future public health emergency. The committee also agreed that it is essential for clarity in how exceptions to closure in university and college settings will be managed. We have therefore called on the Scottish Government to provide further detail on how it intends to consult with institutions to identify those facilities whose closure may not be possible or may have to be limited for practical safety or welfare reasons and how such issues would be addressed in the development and application of the regulations under this part of the bill. When the cabinet secretary for education and skills gave evidence to the committee, she expressed the Scottish Government's willingness to engage further with key stakeholders to discuss any concerns. The committee welcomed that intent and looked forward to hearing more on the results of this engagement at some point this afternoon. First of all, I'm delighted to be speaking in this stage 1 debate on behalf of the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee. As has already been touched upon by others the bill includes very significant powers that can be exercised using the made affirmative procedure. Given that the made affirmative procedure was until recently relatively unusual, I want to take a few moments just to highlight the committee's recent inquiry on its use during the pandemic. This work actually helped inform and shaped the committee's findings for the coronavirus bill in front of us now. The made affirmative procedure, which allows the Scottish Government to change aspects of the law straight away, was usually only seen by the Parliament once or twice a year. Yet, since March 2020, the procedure was used more than 150 times. In scrutinising those changes to the law, the committee understood that it was necessary to use emergency powers to respond to the public health emergency. However, our inquiry raised concerns around how clear and accessible the laws created with these powers actually were, particularly when they came into law prior to being scrutinised here in the Scottish Parliament. We're highlighted in our inquiry report a set of principles that might provide the basis for parliamentary scrutiny where legislation includes such provisions and that this bill is a prime example of that. Our stage 1 report reflecting what we found in our inquiry recommended that the Scottish Government bring forward amendments for each power which can be exercised subject to the made affirmative procedure. Those statutory requirements would be threefold. Firstly, each SSI is accompanied by a written statement explaining and providing evidence for why the regulations need to be made urgently. Secondly, that the Government include an assessment of the impact of the instrument and all those likely to be affected. Thirdly, that such SSIs are subject to a sunset provision so that the changes to the law don't continue to be enforced indefinitely. From the response to our stage 1 report and also the comments from the Deputy First Minister earlier, the Scottish Government is intending to bring forward an amendment to provide an explanation of urgency and also considering adding a sunset provision to the powers at stage 2 and I'm sure that colleagues in the committee will welcome those. Turning briefly to each of the five powers which can be exercised subject to the made affirmative procedure. There wasn't the same consensus among committee members. Those are the five points of the Public Health Protection Regulations in section 1, the continuing operation of educational establishments in section 8, school boarding accommodation in section 9, student accommodation in section 10 and the early release from prison or a Young Offenders Institution in paragraph 24 at 1 of the schedule. Some members of the committee considered that the Scottish Government did not make a sufficient case for why those powers should be delegated and such changes to the law could instead be brought forward quickly under primary legislation. However, the majority of the committee that is three of the five members were content with the delegation of each of the powers in principle. Nevertheless, on school boarding and in student accommodation the committee considered by a majority that should only be capable of being exercised subject to the affirmative procedure. I also note that the Covid-19 recovery committee's recommendations around the Henry VIII powers our call for a statement of urgency when making such regulations in an emergency might provide additional limitations to the potential use of the made affirmative procedure when exercising such Henry VIII powers. Very briefly, the committee also is working with the Scottish Government on a protocol for what we have called an expedited affirmative procedure on the deputy First Minister touched upon that earlier on today. This is work that it certainly could have followed on from previous protocols that have been established between the Delegate Affairs Law Reform Committee and also the Scottish Government in the past. We certainly believe that this particular protocol could be used in place of the made affirmative procedure. So in closing our estate the committee's consistent and strong help position that the Scottish Government should use on the affirmative procedure in all but exceptional and urgent circumstances. I note that what the cabinet secretary said earlier in the debate and the committee does look forward to seeing the fruits of that when Minox consider the bill following amendment stage 2. Thank you, Ms McMillan. I now call on Murdo Fraser to speak on behalf of the Scottish Conservatives up to seven minutes please, Mr Fraser. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Can I start by reminding members of my register of interests of the Royal Society of Scotland and I derive some income from rental properties. I'm also a member of the Church of Scotland to which I'll mention later. Can I start by joining with the convener of the Covid Recovery Committee and indeed other committee conveners and thanking all those who gave our committee and the other committee's evidence at stage 1 and thank our committee clerks for their support. The Covid Recovery Committee produced a very detailed and thorough report on this bill which I would commend to all members. The Covid Recovery and Reform Bill seeks to make permanent emergency powers which were taken to the Scottish Government in order to deal with the coronavirus pandemic. Some of what is in this bill is very sensible in terms of providing long-term reform. For example, we would have no hesitation in supporting measures to allow nurses to administer vaccinations on an on-going basis and we would agree with some of the proposals to move to digital and online services that currently have to be provided face-to-face. Too much of this bill is simply not necessary at this stage. To make permanent what were emergency and extraordinary powers passes control from Parliament to the Government. It represents a power grab on the part of SNP ministers and that is not something that we can support. The depth of concern about what was proposed was illustrated by the consultation run by the Covid Recovery Committee that the convener referred to earlier. Nearly 4,000 respondents completed the committee's survey. I cannot remember a response as large as that with as many as 90 per cent expressing concern at what is being proposed. There were also many stakeholders who detailed their opposition to the powers in this bill. Yes, I will. I know what the member says but would he accept now that the quite major concessions by the First Minister do allay those concerns? I think that remains to be seen to the member. I recognise that some concessions have been made but nevertheless this bill will still be on the statute book. It still represents a shift of power away from Parliament to Government and the trigger mechanism proposed by the Cabinet Secretary would still not give Parliament the opportunity to amend this legislation if it came before Parliament as and when required. When it came to the general principles the committee only agreed to support the bill on the casting vote of the convener. There is no consensus that this bill is required and that is why we will be opposing it at decision time this evening. The Scottish Government argues that the measures in this bill simply reflect the legislation elsewhere in the United Kingdom but the fact is that this bill's provisions go well beyond what is permitted elsewhere. There are no time limits on the amount of time that can be removed of a prisoner's release unlike the situation south of the border. One of the most controversial aspects of this bill, the use of Henry VIII powers is not reflected in the equivalent legislation south of the border. Mr Fairlie is very kind. I am grateful to Mr Fazer for giving way. Does not Mr Fazer accept the argument that I have put forward and put forward to committee that there are deficiencies in the legislation that Scotland has on the statute book? The way to solve that is to legislate to put us in a position to address some of the issues in the England and Wales position which enables the authorities in England and Wales to better prepare for pandemics in the future. Surely that is an important issue to consider with open minds in this legislative process. There was an alternative approach that the Government could have pursued. It was an alternative approach proposed to the committee by Professor Fiona De Laundras of Birmingham University whereby Parliament could agree draft legislation which would deal with the issues in this bill and draft legislation that could be left on the shelf to be introduced as and when required. Because this Parliament demonstrated two years ago in an emergency situation we have already proved that it can be done and that is the way we could have approached this bill and crucially that would put Parliament in control of the process and not the Government and allow legislation to be amended. I have given away several times that I need to make some progress sorry Mr Fairlie. Turning out to some of the specific measures in the bill my colleague Jamie Greene will comment in more detail on the reasons. I want to mention the measures on housing and tenancies where we have had a great deal of concern expressed by stakeholders that temporary measures brought in in response to the pandemic are now to be made permanent restricting the right of landlords to recover possession at the end of a tenancy period. The National Farmers Union of Scotland Scottish Land and the States and the Scottish Association of Landlords have combined in a joint submission to state that these proposals will deeply damage the rental sector and lead to a situation where many landlords could simply withdraw from the sector thus restricting the supply of property for rent. At a time when rents are already rising Yes, briefly. Thank you very much and first can I put on the record that I have an interest in bi-to-let property but not institutional investors last time at an earlier point. I would simply note that is he aware of the national landlords association 2021 that showed 28 per cent of landlords in England and Wales seeking to exit as a direct consequence of section 24 an unfair tax change introduced by the Westminster Government and that is having a significant effect. I recognise that there are a number of issues for private landlord and the answer to that is not to bring in even more legislation that is going to impact on them as this bill seeks to do in the joint submission by NFUS, Scottish Land and the States and the Scottish Association of Landlords is striking saying that the Government's suggestion that stopping the emergency provisions would cause confusion is in their words at best furious and at worst deliberately dishonest so the Scottish Government really need to listen to these sectors and it's not just those representing landlords who have raised these concerns we've also heard from churches including the Church of Scotland whose concern is they will no longer get out church properties such as Manses which might be temporarily vacant without the security of knowing if they can recover possession for when they are needed for a new minister so the consequence of this is likely to be that these properties will simply lie empty rather than be made available for housing and that must be contrary to public policy and yet it's an unintended consequence of what the Government are proposing I'm very happy to take a further intervention if I have time I appreciate your generosity in that regard My apologies Mr Harvey Elsewhere in the bell there are concerns over the powers to close educational establishments Mr Kerr referred to these concerns over the impact on universities and colleges the Education Secretary went to the Education Committee to say that the power to shut down universities was necessary in the case of defiance by right wing university principles now if there are right wing university principles in Scotland Deputy Presiding Officer I really would like to meet them but I fear that that is a bogus argument and there are very serious concerns that I don't have time to cover about the Henry VIII powers which are in the bill before us so we cannot accept this transfer of power from Parliament to government it is unjustified and inappropriate and for these reasons we will be opposing the bill at stage 1 on the coronavirus recovery and reform bill it could have been an opportunity to pass legislation that supports Scotland's recovery and introduces some sensible and much needed change but this bill is unfortunately more about legacy legislation than looking forward it does react to past challenges whilst failing to learn lessons from the pandemic and the Scottish government is wanting to drive through legislation before the independent public inquiry has had a chance to examine the performance handling of the pandemic the SNP are pushing through a bill that as it stands would have serious and long-term consequences for this country and for our democracy and I think it's fair to say that throughout their 15 years in office the SNP have been very effective in centralising power to St Andrew's house this bill is another step on that trajectory this would grant ministers far reaching powers to bring forward a mend without advance parliamentary scrutiny and therefore the bill as it stands must in our view be opposed I will however examine the detail of the Deputy First Minister's proposal about his amendment and we will come back to that but we know of course I'm grateful to Jackie Baillie for giving way but you know I've explained with care to parliament that the government is substantively amending in response to exactly the feedback that Jackie Baillie has put to me the necessity of ensuring greater parliamentary oversight and prior decision making and I hope that that makes a substantial difference to the thinking of the Labour Party in approaching with an open mind the legislation that's now before Parliament and let me repeat the point that I made before the Deputy First Minister stood up is that we will examine the detail of his proposal when it comes to stage 2 but you know we know that as well as the SNP being a centralising government that sucks power up is also a government that is completely lacking in transparency and takes pride in a culture of secrecy at its very heart well you know I can only call what I see and what the people of Scotland see each and every day now had this bill being in place at the start the SNP would have succeeded in their attempt to suspend freedom of information law an important tool to hold any government to account which the SNP resists at every turn would have been suspended for an indefinite period that would undoubtedly have harmed our democracy these so-called Henry VIII powers amount to a power grab and must be opposed in their entirety and I think we can all acknowledge that the Scottish Government's response to the pandemic was flawed in part when it came to PPE the withdrawal of many social care services the transfer of patients from hospital untested and other measures besides the Government didn't always get it right this bill would have the effect of enabling the Scottish Government to double down on those errors with no checks and balances in place to stop them ministers would have the ability to do all sorts of things such as the closing from local government or Parliament those proposals don't just lack transparency they're simply not necessary the Parliament has shown time and time again that it can respond quickly to events as they unfold allowing MSPs from all constituencies and across all parties to scrutinise debate and perfect legislation in a robust way in fact the Parliament's first ever piece of legislation was passed in just a week the mental health public safety bill Scotland is proof of how quickly Parliament can act and is evidence that making temporary powers permanent is unnecessary when Holyrood was formed 23 years ago key principles were adopted to ensure that the Parliament would serve the people of Scotland well those principles stated that the Scottish Parliament should embody and reflect the sharing of power between the people of Scotland the legislators and the Scottish Executive the Scottish Executive should be accountable to the Scottish Parliament and the Parliament and Executive should in turn be accountable to the people of Scotland the bill before us flies in the face of the very principles on which this Parliament was built to support this bill in its current form is therefore inappropriate and the SNP and Green should not use their majority in this Parliament to ram this through let me turn to other aspects of the bill there are many individual provisions that give a view as positive the proposals around vaccination for example ensuring that a wider group of healthcare staff are able to administer vaccines over the course of the pandemic ease the pressure on GP services allowing them to focus on primary care the continuation of this policy makes sense going forward the bill would also allow parents to register the birth of their children online rather than in person a move that is befitting of the 21st century further sections of the bill homelessness, bankruptcy provisions those are a step in the right direction it is a shame then that these proposals come wrapped together with handing sweeping powers to ministers the point has also been made that there are other perhaps better legislative opportunities to take these measures forward other proposals have caused concern on justice the bill states that it will extend the period in which proceedings must commence to nine months the committee believes that the proposed extension is too long the law society have even argued that that should be done on a case by case basis I am afraid that Scottish Labour will not be supporting the general principles of the bill at stage 1 because it is largely a power grab and undermines the role of the Parliament in scrutinising and shaping legislation but it doesn't just deny the Parliament that opportunity it denies the people of Scotland that opportunity if the Scottish Government want our support for this bill they must take the contentious powers off the table by stage 2 I now call on Alex Cole-Hamilton to open on behalf of the Scottish Liberal Democrats up to six minutes please Mr Cole-Hamilton thank you very much I rise for the Scottish Liberal Democrats to speak to stage 1 of this legislation when we were forced to lock down in March 2020 Scottish Liberal Democrats reluctantly agreed to the deep and wide raging powers granted to the Scottish Government that were necessary to get us through the worst of the pandemic we turned those bills around in just days but they were not meant to last forever they have undoubtedly been lessons learned from the pandemic and it is right that sensible reforms are made in response to that the situation forced public services to innovate and many found new ways of working and adaptations which should by rights be retained much of this bill falls into that category particularly those items which will allow the sensible use of technology when appropriate providing the necessary infrastructure is in place and the changes are given scrutiny however my party and I are clear that many aspects of this bill represent an unprecedented power grab by the Scottish Government and despite the concessions announced this afternoon by the Deputy First Minister still represent an unacceptable transfer of power between the legislature and the executive the parliament would never have countenance handing over many of these powers to ministers before the pandemic and we must not do so now this bill would represent a permanent transfer of some powers from the parliament to the executive undermining democracy and civil liberties in the process that is chilling it is made even more troubling by the fact that it is wholly unnecessary and perhaps even unhelpful on the 24th of March 2020 just as millions of people were put into lockdown and I quote her I am very clear that the emergency powers are necessary but that they should be used only if and when we deem it necessary and they should exist only for as long as they are needed she then went on to say at a time when we were taking emergency powers and asking the public to do things that restrict the liberty of all of us scrutiny is absolutely essential so what has changed well it seems that government has simply gone quite accustomed to having some of these unprecedented powers to feel the same sense of uneasiness or solemnity I will give way just like to ask thank you very much for giving away I just like to ask do you not agree that the Scottish Parliament Scottish government should have the same level of legislative authority to make these decisions as is held in England and Wales Alex Cole-Hamilton I would contend that this is not a mirror image of the legislation south of the border and the Liberal Democrats south of the border let's be honest this is a government that centralises power at its leisure it has taken every opportunity to transfer control from local authorities to St Andrew's house there can be absolutely no justification of the executive to permanently retain the ability to shut schools, release prisoners, impose lockdowns and the thought is still quite alarming Presiding Officer we couldn't have legislated for everything that we needed to respond to Covid-19 before we'd heard of it we couldn't have legislated for the next variant of Covid-19 or perhaps the next pandemic that may come down the track far better as others have said particularly Murdo Fraser to instruct civil servants now to prepare draft legislation a toolkit if you like to put on the shelf and to be ready for that eventuality the power to make changes to our justice or educational systems for example should come from the ground up to manage them and are able to monitor the impact of any changes made and if this bill was used in future without scrutiny and unanimous backing of this parliament then the public support for the necessary measures would be immediately undermined even with the concessions announced today this parliament would not be able to amend such structures if you won't and don't take my word for it then perhaps listen to Michael Russell who during the stage 3 debate on the coronavirus Scotland bill said it was important for the Scottish people to see the unanimous support of the Parliament for the action being taken that cannot be guaranteed with what is proposed it was as important then as it is now and ever shall be in the future this bill has been badly thought out and the government's argument forces paper thin the deputy First Minister said that it will allow the government to speed up the sufficient comprehensive action in the event of a future pandemic or public health emergency but in March 2020 faced with an unprecedented situation and without access to many of the facts this parliament was able to pass the necessary legislation in a matter of days and there isn't even a guarantee that the measures in this bill would even be helpful in the face of a future different virus far more appropriate as I have said to draft primary legislation ready to go at a moment's notice that way parliament would only need to decide which and whatever powers in the legislation that was drafted were necessary and proportionate without the need to write them from scratch that's not just my view the justice committee has also raised that as an alternative to be clear I am all for the government having a better plan for future pandemics their silver swan strategy planned for the wrong type of pandemic it overlooked care homes it didn't even mention testing we do not need something better but we do need something better I should say but this bill is not it let's not forget that during the recent pandemic the government needed the scrutiny of parliament to prevent them taking the gratuitous step of stopping jury trials for the first time in 800 years the scrutiny of this parliament really matters Nicola Sturgeon has said many times that she didn't want these powers for a moment longer than necessary and yet here we are the SNP talk a game about the importance of democracy when it suits them but this bill demonstrates system and humility to safeguard it the Liberal Democrats see it as one of our core duties to stand up for civil liberties and democracy the clue is in our name therefore we wholeheartedly reject this power grab and the cynical quite frankly chilling politics that it represents thank you Mr Cole-Hamilton we will now move to the open debate and the speeches are at 5 minutes there is no time in hand and therefore any interventions must be absorbed within the allocated time I call John Mason to be followed by Megan Gall Mr Mason thank you very much there is a lot in this bill that is welcomed by all members of the Covid committee not least the increase in the amount owed before a creditor can force a debtor into bankruptcy the remote registration of births and deaths and vaccinations not having to be under the control of a medical practitioner so much of this bill is not contentious at all where there has been a bit of disagreement has concerned what legislation should be put in place now so that a future government would be better placed to act quickly in comparison to the rushed primary legislation we needed in early 2020 it is true that we did rush legislation through at that point and on the whole it has worked however again most of us would agree it was not perfect and could have been better if it had not been so rushed of course the next problem is that we do not know what the next pandemic or other crisis might be that could be an argument for doing nothing just now and waiting to see what happens but it would seem unfortunate if we are not at least a bit better prepared next time compared to this time there certainly would be a problem let me finish this line there certainly would be a problem next time round if say half the MSPs caught the virus right at the start and Parliament itself was more disrupted than it was last time round Mr Whittle very grateful Mr Mason for giving me given that he suggested that we do not know the nature of what is coming down the line wouldn't it be better to have the legislation waiting at the site to be enacted so that we can amend that legislation to recognise the pandemic or whatever emergency comes down the line John Mason I do accept that as one option but I still think that having the legislation in place ready and I think that the cabinet secretary has given a reassurance that that legislation will not come into effect until Parliament agrees and obviously there will be a need for further legislation at that time which Parliament can be involved in so no I do not accept that point but I do wonder if there's not room for compromising all this and that's what we're hearing this afternoon from the Government and that is very positive we took a fair amount of evidence on the question of what is a proportionate response that is serious or imminent some witnesses in the committee tended to feel that we did need a bit more explanation on this the policy memorandum does outline the kinds of factors which might be considered but the bill itself does not at paragraph 42 the committee was inclined to seek some of this detail appearing on the face of the bill itself I know that the Government is not convinced about this and I do accept that there are risks with being overly prescriptive the Government's response refers to providing definitions although I do not think that the committee was going quite as far as that in actually asking for definitions more a non-exhaustive list of factors to be considered again I think there might be room for a bit of compromise on this concerning the made affirmative procedure I know that the DPLR committee had serious concerns about the frequency with which this procedure was being used and we previously had a debate on the subject I agree that there is a need for parliamentary oversight on this and so I do welcome the Government's agreement to bring forward amendments at stage 2 specifically to require an explanation of urgency when the MAP is used moving on to the Henry VIII powers and committee's recommendation at paragraph 57 the committee invited the Government to consider this point therefore I do welcome the fact that the Government is proposing amendments we are seeking to get a balance here between necessary powers to act in an emergency and Parliament having a role and duty to hold Government to account I think we have to remember here too that although we currently have a nice Government headed by Nicola Sturgeon and John Swinney there is always the remote chance of a nasty Government headed up by Douglas Ross or someone like him in the future so we do not want that type of Government to have unlimited powers as I said at the beginning there was a general welcome for the option of registering births and deaths online and for some licensing meetings to take place remotely or in a hybrid format however this comes with the provider that some people are unable to take part in a digital way and also that some situations are better handled in person for example sensitive discussions with a vulnerable person about what exactly should go on the birth certificate might be best done in person therefore there was some concern at committee that there might be a conscious or unconscious drift towards more and more services being provided digitally and fewer and fewer being available in person Local authorities are obviously also aware of the need for balance in this but it was felt the Government should at least consider if stronger protection for in-person services should be made in the bill I'm obviously running out of time but I would say I'm happy to support this bill at stage 1, the committee has made clear it would like to see some amendments so I look forward to that at stage 2 but this bill will help us to be better prepared for the next pandemic, thank you Thank you Mr Mason I now call Megan Gallacher to be followed by Colcab Stewart up to 5 minutes please Ms Gallacher Thank you Presiding Officer In 2020 the UK Government passed the Coronavirus Act that gave Scottish ministers the ability to create regulations to protect members of the public against the spread of coronavirus in Scotland At the time the act was necessary is it allowed governments to have the freedom of access during the peak of the pandemic Fast forward two years and I'm relieved that governments are now focusing their attention on economic recovery across the United Kingdom It was reassuring to see figures released today that show the UK economy for the first quarter of 2022 had faster growth in the USA, France, Germany, Italy, Spain and EU This outlines the UK Government's commitment to get our country back on track However it is concerning that following the Scottish Government's introduction of the Coronavirus Act 2020 the SNP intends to make these powers permanent Although the Deputy First Minister announced measures regarding safeguards the unpopular coronavirus bill would allow the SNP to impose lockdowns release prisoners early and close schools without the appropriate parliamentary scrutiny or vote At this stage MSPs even though we've heard the announcement today still do not know the wording of the amendment that the Government seeks to make it face value when voting this evening Given that we do not know at this stage or if or when the next pandemic will emerge here in Scotland a point that Alex Cole-Hamilton made earlier it is my view that we should not be passing a blanket law especially before a public inquiry has been completed My colleague Burtle Fraser highlighted within his contribution that there are some aspects of the bill that provide much needed longer term reforms such as measures that would allow authorities to administer vaccinations and the ability to move digital online services I agree that these are sensible proposals however there are still concerns following the announcement today that will require further consideration by MSPs in this Parliament As Burtle Fraser stated although safeguards have been announced there are serious questions yet to be addressed such as future amendments on this piece of legislation From an education perspective there are flaws with this bill and it could have a detrimental impact on facilities During the peak of the pandemic the Scottish Government had the power to close schools in response to outbreaks of the virus that of course was to keep pupils and teachers safe However part 2 of the coronavirus bill as it stands will allow Scottish ministers to shut down schools and change term and exam dates without a vote taking place in this chamber The EIS said that the Scottish Government could use emergency power to close schools for other purposes and that is of course of concern for the concerns of power between local authorities and the Scottish Government We know that the SNP are obsessed with power and that would be a step too far even for them When it comes to education ministers do not need additional powers that will hinder our young people's ability to learn in the classroom the need to utilise the powers they already have to increase teacher numbers reduce the attainment gap and to improve school standards Overreach of Scottish ministers speak to a lack of trust in the university and college sector as well as local government The NASUWT has also expressed serious concerns about making permanent some of the powers within the 2020 act The union raised concerns over the Government's contempt for scrutiny and the ability for opposition MSPs to carry out their role by holding this Government to account Collegies have also stated that the bill's provisions are not necessary and their written submission to the education children and young people committee On the basis of this experience we would advise that the intended provisions which have been proposed within the bill are not required The Scottish Government could use other methods outwith the bill to implement measures in the event of another crisis and I believe that on this point further consideration should be made by the Scottish Government as preparation for an emergency could take place without the need to legislate With many educational institutions speaking out against the bill the Scottish Government must listen to their concerns because there are explanations such as needing the power to shut down universities in case of right wing defiance to justify their previous intentions The Scottish Conservatives believe that the Covid bill should be scrapped Ministers should be trying to empower our educational settings instead of trying to remove decision making from them as part of an SNP power grab To conclude the Scottish Conservatives have been clear in our position on Covid recovery and we have already seen some of our asks implemented There are still other measures that we would like to see introduced such as a national tutoring programme and a school catch up premium to ensure our young people are front and centre of this Government's priorities when it comes to Covid recovery I agree with the educational institutions that have spoken out against the bill I will be voting to ensure that Government ministers do not implement bills which are in its entirety not necessary and could create more problems than it resolves Thank you Michael Marra Up to five minutes please Thank you, Presiding Officer I would refer to my register of interests as a union member I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this debate on this important piece of legislation whose sole purpose is to empower Government to act swiftly in the interests of public health in order to prevent illness and death and to protect public services in the event of future outbreaks of this deadly virus I further welcome the Deputy First Minister's clarification that Parliament will always be required to approve the use of the powers included in the bill There are also clearly defined caveats included in the bill that I will refer to those later The impact of the current pandemic is fresh in our collective memory at this moment in time The effect on daily lives of the first and subsequent lockdowns will be felt in so many ways for years to come and we are enjoying some uplift of that and getting some kind of normality back but staff in schools and other educational institutions faced a hugely challenging situation both in terms of how they delivered education to their pupils and students and in terms of their duty of care As someone who worked in education throughout the first lockdown in March 2020 it was a complete shock to everyone involved when schools were closed overnight and we literally had to turn on a sixpence to adopt remote learning practices with little or no experience in my case and nevertheless we know that our schools and teachers were a real lifeline for children and families at that time By the second lockdown at the end of 2020 with action from the Scottish Government speeding up local delivery of technology and funding provided by Connecting Scotland to deliver tablets and wi-fi devices via various partners in schools pupils were much better prepared to teach and learn remotely and improvements are continuing to be made there The provisions of this bill underline that commitment of continuity to learning and there are repeated caveats included in the sections dealing with the powers to make provisions relating to continuing operation of an educational establishment for a specific period The bill confirms that this power is only to be used if this is necessary and proportionate action or in connection with protection of public health What this ultimately means is that remote learning nobody's preferred option not teachers, parents or children can be introduced quickly across the country and only if it is deemed necessary and proportionate in the interests of public health Having worked as a teacher before, during and after lockdowns I am fully aware of the challenges faced and understand the concerns of the teaching unions I thank the NSWT for their briefing sent to all members outlining their concerns that will have been addressed by the Deputy First Minister's updates on his amendments today The reason for this bill is clear the ability to act swiftly comprehensively to save lives and protect services is absolutely vital The commitment from the Deputy First Minister that the Scottish Parliament will always be consulted before the legislation is enacted is welcome and reassures me that the sole purpose of the legislation is to serve the public good in the event of a future and deadly strain of this virus Thank you I now call Michael Marra to be followed by Gillian Mackay Up to five minutes please Mr Marra In these days of spring in Scotland things are beginning to feel a little bit more normal we seem to be a society going about our business again but behind the doors we are a country that is significantly broken by parts of services and economic impacts and the grief that remains in our recovery is not really yet beginning but by most metrics the record of the whole of the UK in response to Covid-19 has been truly dreadful it is among the worst in the world for deaths, for infections and for the economic impact that we are only beginning to feel fully The full inquiry into the pandemic will unpick many of these issues it should help us to learn the lessons but nobody has been able to explain to me the parliamentary committee on which I sit or the chamber today or previous to this moment why this legislation is required ahead of the conclusions of that inquiry and this is not a question of parliamentary procedure or of putting process before people certainly Can I thank Michael Marra for giving way and of course elaborate on these points in the closing but neither he or I have the gift of knowing how long that public inquiry will take and therefore having the powers to prepare for the next pandemic is surely crucial those powers mirrored in English and Welsh legislation Michael Marra I think that happy I think it's fair to say that there's a couple of points of response to that we have legislation on the books at the moment that has been passed until last September and we have been able as a parliament to extend that legislation quite easily and at short notice and that option still remains for us I would say to the cabinet secretary he doesn't know what the preparations that are going to be required and it's not certain, far from certain fact that is in this act one of the principal reasons for our country's dreadful record in handling the pandemic is that we were acting to the wrong plan a plan for a flu pandemic instead of the pandemic we actually faced and the mistakes made from the outset have become ossified in public policy and we still appear at times to treat this as a disease spread in droplets on the airborne pathogen that we know and it has been proven to be that fatally undermines even our current consideration of preventative measures today such as ventilation far too routinely dismissed by this Government in spite of available and growing global evidence a large study carried out in Italy showed that six air changes in an hour in a classroom will reduce infections by 82% the findings of a recent major study from the University of Leeds show that HEPA filters is an effective backup for forming mechanical ventilation is unavailable there is a wealth of growing evidence at this Scottish Government has refused requests for roll-outs have no commission scientific trials of their own and seem to be locked in a mode of thinking from outdated guidance and plans droplets, not airborne, surfaces, not ventilation all of this is an illustration of a tendency common in all Governments and which we as an Opposition and as a Parliament was worked strongly against a tendency to fight the last war a tendency to fight the last pandemic rather than the one that you actually face it's been bad enough that we as a country failed to prepare failed to respond timidly to emerging evidence and lost many thousands of our fellow citizens as a result now we've been asked to set the response to the last pandemic in the laws of the country when we do not know the shape of what comes next and nobody has given a reasonable explanation what I'm attempting to illustrate here is that this is not a step without risk the next Government will reach for what is at hand and it's our responsibility to make sure the mistakes of this Government are not repeated the evidence presented to the education children young people's committee was overwhelmingly the view that the laws proposed a replete with risk we were invited by the Government to ignore 98 odd percent of the respondents but the evidence that followed was no less supportive of the Government's position our universities want to know why a Government Minister is better able to understand the consequences of closing a lab than a university to professor our colleges want to know why Government Minister better understands the physical proximities and the practical restraints on training than a lecturer or a technician these decisions, the consequences of them as well as the making of them are better done in discussion the Cabinet Secretary said as much in her evidence and was keen to emphasise how well such discussions had gone this time around seemingly this is a reason not to have them again when we might face a different pathogen with different behaviours the committee in conclusion also listened to significance concerns that this legislation may not be compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights very constructive proposals on other possible models of legislative framework bills which have been discussed already draft bills waiting for parliamentary approval should they prove to be appropriate all of this has to date been summarily dismissed by ministers and these suggestions do not come from libertarian, anti-vaxxer conspiracy theorists determined to thwart the work of government they come from the public payroll organisations who have been partners in this pandemic and they deserve to be listened to thank you Mr Marra I now call Julian Mackay to be followed by Jim Fairlie up to five minutes please Mr Mackay thank you Deputy Presiding Officer before I begin could I apologise to the chamber that I'll be absent from closing speeches I'm stepping in to give this speech on behalf of another member who's unwell this afternoon and I have another engagement during closing speeches I will return as quickly as possible and would like to thank the Presiding Officer for her tolerance the process of passing two pieces of emergency legislation at the height of the first phase of the pandemic and before remote participation arrangements had been made was a difficult one for this Parliament but it was one which I believe showed us in our best light responding to a crisis generally collegiately and with common purpose those bills didn't get everything right though and that's one of the key questions we're presented with today do we want to leave ourselves in a position of needing to go through that process again do we want to delay potentially life-saving actions and self-evidently obvious ones even for a matter of days if we are once again hit by a pandemic unlike anything previously seen in living memory or do we consolidate what we've learned from this experience so that the necessary powers are available in the event that they are needed I welcome the Deputy First Minister's commitment to introduce a gateway clause something the Greens were keen to see introduced to address the perfectly valid concerns about the primacy of Parliament over Government last session the Greens amended Newerty Bill and those amendments were designed to provide appropriate limits and safeguards on the Henry VIII powers afforded to the Government through that process so I'm glad to see similar restraint being shown here without unduly interfering with the Government's ability to fulfill its obligations to the public during a future health crisis beyond the powers specific to the circumstances of a public health emergency though we can all recognise that some of the changes introduced through the two coronavirus acts simply made sense and probably should have been the case all along the most obvious example of this would be where processes previously only able to be completed in person via hard copy papers can now be done digitally if we're committed to the delivery of efficient, effective and easy to access public services returning to the pre-pandemic situation in this area would clearly be a retrograde step these provisions will be of particular benefit to those in more rural communities and the reality of travelling to a council office to register a relative's death for example is quite different to that of urban residents though it's important to highlight that this isn't an either or situation the association of registrars were right to point out that for some people the opportunity to complete such a process in person is important whether for personal reasons lack of digital access or some other circumstance this is not permission for councils to move some services entirely online one area in which green MSPs put considerable effort during the two emergency bill processes was housing specifically the protection of tenants including those in purpose built student accommodation since then we've joined the Government on the basis of an agreement which includes our new deal for tenants proposals now being taken forward by Patrick Harvie as minister for tenants rights as far as we're concerned it was far too easy for landlords to evict tenants before the pandemic and it's frankly still too easy now but the protections brought brought back in in 2020 made a real difference to many people who were at risk of losing their homes and there's simply no good reason for going back to where we were before a system where all the cards were stacked in favour of landlords a number of other progressive provisions first introduced in the context of the emergency are now appropriately being extended such as the bankruptcy protections which if I remember correctly were first pushed forward by Jackie Baillie the duty on purpose built student accommodation providers to take account of the chief medical officers advice will hopefully avoid a repeat of the scenes we saw at Murano Street student village in Glasgow and elsewhere in the autumn of 2020 and there are other provisions I'm glad to see included but which I don't have time to cover now Presiding Officer this bill takes a pragmatic approach to maintaining the improvements which were brought about as a result of our response to the pandemic it gives government the powers it would need in the event of another such crisis and with the amendments confirmed today it will strike the appropriate balance between parliamentary oversight and executive action and for those reasons the Greens will be supporting this bill Thank you Ms Mackay I now call Jim Fairlie to be followed by Miles Briggs up to five minutes please Mr Fairlie Thank you Presiding Officer Presiding Officer we have all seen them in fact the bad boys in my school used to get themselves expelled by abusing them and ministers now and in the presence should take note of that their little glass fronted housing cases with a hammer hanging on the chain with the message break glass in case of emergency perhaps if the government had included that fire alarm type warning in the face of the bill it might have tempered some of the more ludicrous and overhyped descriptions of what this bill actually is as my colleague John Mason pointed out there is lots in this bill which we broadly agreed on across the committee and one area I was particularly keen to stress with the government was digital exclusion and the ability of service users to be able to continue to have face-to-face meetings if they chose to do so and I'm glad that that issue has been heard continuing the theme of agreement there is one thing we can surely all agree on and that's that we were not fully prepared for a pandemic before Covid hit us the various desktop exercises and plans that existed turned out not to be entirely adequate for the reality and it really would be pretty catastrophic mistake to make to just go back to where we were and I don't often quote once in Churchill but those that fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it so let's not forget that when Covid struck there was no possibility for us to break the glass in case of emergency because we didn't have the powers to do so had the Scottish Government not extended those powers and put them in our statute book when they fell in England and Wales they would have fallen up here as well as the coronavirus 2020 act was in effect parent legislation allowing the Scottish Government to continue to protect the Scottish people with Scottish centric thinking my colleague and the committee really did raise his genuine principal concerns over the Henry 8 powers and for those concerns there is gently sympathy right across the committee and thankfully during our evidence session with the Deputy First Minister it's clear that he has taken those concerns on board and delivered what I believe to be an eminently sensible solution a trigger clause that means those powers are only exerciseable as dictated by professionals who are charged by delivering the kind of support we saw during the pandemic during the committee I put it to Professor Laundris that the bill simply means that in legislative sense we are preparing ourselves for the future so that in the event of another emergency we have the legislative competence to enable us to deal with it in this Parliament I asked her if that was a fair assessment and she said yes that is exactly right so only after an emergency has been declared and the Parliament had time to debate it can the Government lift that we hammer and smash the glass to release those powers indeed it was the Tory member Sandesh Gulhane during portfolio questions raised by Jackie Baillie on the 23rd of March who asked for that provision give me a second who asked for that provision in the first place in this chamber and not only has it been delivered the Government have gone further so I hope that Alex Rowley has been satisfied with the agreement who was asking for an intervention Alex Rowley a very grateful to Jim Farley giving away the time that would be taken by the Parliament to debate and to allow the smashing of the glass with this hammer for this emergency legislation does he not recognise that this Parliament has shown itself imminently capable of turning around primary legislation in a matter of hours to respond to imminent threats does he not see that we could do that again Jim Farley absolutely accept that there is the possibility of that to happen if the Parliament can sit in permanent but you have no idea what the next pandemic or what the next emergency is going to be therefore it is required to have legislation sitting ready to go the real irony of this debate is as has already been mentioned that this bill just brings us into line with England and Wales who already have these powers so one has to wonder why the Tories are so desperate to hamstring this Parliament's ability to act quickly and effectively with these powers ready to use at a moment's notice now I'll concede that the Henry powers are controversial I am satisfied with Mr Swinney's announcement today one final point the opposition members are absolutely right to point out that these powers do go further than England and Wales powers in respect of what powers are available under health protection although they are comparable to schedule 19 the UK coronavirus act 2020 and section 45f2 of the public health control diseases act 1994, neither of these two UK acts contain Henry powers but the UK government does have and has used the civil contingency act of 2004 which in effect gives it the right to impose Henry 8 powers over anything it likes if it declares an emergency therefore the Tory objections to this part of the bill seems to be it's okay for Westminster to hold such powers for all scenarios but the Scottish government can't hold the same powers which are exercisable only after parliamentary approval their position simply makes no sense the Scottish government has listened to the committee's genuine concerns, able to put by Mr Rowley made that distinction and has modified its thinking to a measure piece of legislation that will be on our statute when the time arises and it will that we need to break that glass in an emergency Thank you Mr Fairlie I now call on Miles Briggs to be followed by Casey Clark up to five minutes please Mr Briggs Thank you Deputy Presiding Officer and in the time I have today I wanted to concentrate my comments on part four of the bill that was brought in during the pandemic including the removal of eviction grounds were supported as an emergency response to the pandemic we all want to see good and responsible landlords and I believe a vast majority of landlords across Scotland are indeed responsible it's obvious that in the interests of all parties we need to make sure that they work to secure a tenancy but also to support and sustain tenants when they're facing financial difficulties if there's one thing we do know and this is something which I think is important and hope ministers will listen to today it is that changes in policy and interventions into the property market can often result in changes in behaviour by property owners and decisions being taken to remove properties from the rental market as Michelle Thompson I think was pointing towards a key concern is that the introduction of the proposals in part four of this bill do not currently take into account the wider private rented sector and pre-judges the outcomes of the Scottish Government's future housing bill and indeed as has already been highlighted the draft strategy and consultation around the new deal for tenants as well housing policy in Scotland and indeed across the developed world is littered with unintended consequences which the convener of the local government committee highlighted and I very much share those concerns over the possible loss of affordable homes for the rented market or could drive I'm grateful to the member for giving way can I put it to the member that this is a slight overreaction to the measures contained in this bill pre-action protocols are already standard practice and a requirement in the social rented sector and we've been told that they are already best practice in the private rented sector and as for making repossession grounds discretionary none of that prevents any landlord from seeking repossession it only means that their circumstances and their tenant's circumstances will all be taken into account when a decision is made the minister needs to take consideration of all the organisations and individuals who will be affected by these changes and who have put forward their real concerns and the Government's response the Deputy First Minister's response to our committee report stretched to just 23 words of basically admitting that the Government acknowledged these concerns today about that because consideration of single aspects of the private rented sector in complete isolation from the wider market do not allow for proper parliamentary scrutiny either of these proposals and we've not seen that sadly we've not been able to do that as a committee the housing crisis in Scotland is perhaps at its most vulnerable however in rural Scotland and the potential impact which this bill could have on the supply and demand of rented properties in rural Scotland should be a real concern to all of us including SNP and Green Ministers who do not seem to be taking these concerns as seriously as they should be and these concerns are being expressed from across the rural sector key stakeholders from Scotland Land and Estates Scottish Association of Landlords Scottish Property Federation NFU Scotland the Church of Scotland has already been touched upon and individual landlords as well and as stated in the Deputy First Minister's response to these organisations I do believe that the Scottish Government is misusing Covid legislation to push through housing elements of the agreement between the SNP and Scottish Green parties a key component of the solution to the housing crisis in Scotland is the supply and improvement of homes to rent Ministers have undertaken no work to consult or undertake impact assessment around this and the sectors want to see that pause to be able to look and understand the potential situations which tenants will face but also the unintended consequences and given the increasing interest rates and cost of living crisis which we are seeing the need for rental properties is essential and any measures which could potentially be detrimental to the provision of these properties needs to be fully understood and considered and that's something sadly I do not think this bill has achieved to date to conclude Deputy Presiding Officer the real concerning impact which part 4 of the bill could have on the supply and potential removal of rental properties appears to not have been considered fully by the Scottish Government I hope now that ministers and we've heard them suggest this at stage 2 will indeed pause and consider the real impact of the bill Scottish Conservatives will be bringing forward amendments to part 4 at stage 2 I hope that's something we can see engagement across the chamber on but it's important we do really consider these unintended consequences to the property market in Scotland Thank you Mr Greig I now call Katie Clark to be followed by Willie Coffey up to 5 minutes please Ms Clark Thank you very much Presiding Officer I'm a member of the criminal justice committee so I'm going to focus on that aspect of the legislation Audrey Nicholl the convener of the committee has obviously already spoken to the report and the issues that I'm raising largely relate to process rather than fundamental principle other than in relation in time limits which I'll deal with later in my contribution there are a number of provisions in this bill that will result in significant changes to the criminal justice system some of which are complex however the committee wasn't able to scrutinise many of these measures in the bill in detail due to time restraints due to the truncated nature of this process I believe it would have been more appropriate for some of these provisions to be brought forward a standalone legislation which would have had a timetable to enable the full scrutiny process particularly given that some of even the temporary measures are in place or could be in place until 2025 I'd like to focus on some specific aspects of the bill the first is in relation to remote custody appearances which the Scottish Government have indicated they wish to become the normal part of the justice system and our understanding is that there is considerable concern within the legal profession and the wider justice system about these remote custody appearances which were enabled by the previous Covid legislation and so therefore are currently operating for example in the Glasgow custody court last Monday the court ran to hapus nine at night in the evening due to a range of technical problems and I know that because my colleague attended the court and witnessed what happened we understand that this is far from an unusual occurrence and in their evidence to the committee both the Scottish Solicitors Bar Association and the Law Society of Scotland said that these appearances are often subject to technical problems concerns have also been raised about the greater difficulty in obtaining instructions from accused person by lawyers association of social workers who have expressed their concern about access arrangements these are significant changes to how the legal system operates in Scotland and I do believe that there are matters that this chamber and any criminal justice committee should have had the opportunity to find out a great deal more about another aspect that I would like to focus on is the issue of virtual trials as the committee report has said there is very little evidence that full virtual trials have in reality taken place and therefore very little evidence as to how they are working what is clear is that there are aspects of trials that have had virtual aspects therefore for example people give evidence by a virtual link or indeed juries have been taking place in cinemas but I would like to express my concern that indeed some of the undertakings that have been given by ministers that there is an attempt to make sure that these trials only go ahead where all are agreed and that there is a proper scrutiny process in terms of how they operate perhaps the part of the bill that gives greatest concern in relation to justice and indeed to human rights concerns is the extension of time limits which of course are already in place in relation to Covid legislation this bill proposes that on a temporary basis which of course could mean until 2025 that the statutory time limits which have been in place on an emergency basis are continued there are some minor changes to them but in general they are very similar to the emergency Covid legislation that obviously means that it could be a far longer period of time until a case comes to court even more concerningly is that the time that a person can be held on remand is also being extended so for example a person can be held on remand for nine months until they are served with the indictment which basically is the full charges that they will be facing Scotland of course already has the highest remand and prison populations in western Europe along with poor overcrowded prisons in many parts of the estate between 2014 and 2017 57.18% of prisoners who were later convicted in summary cases and 28.9% of prisoners who were later convicted in solemn cases did not receive a custodial sentence at the end of the proceedings I think that there is considerable human rights concerns about this aspect of the proceedings there would never be a situation where somebody that should be in prison should be there because there of course is always provision in Scots law on cause please conclude for cases to have time limits extended but I do believe that these are fundamental issues that the chamber needs to be concerned about today, thank you and I now call on Willie Coffey the final speaker in the open debate thank you very much our local government committee focused on tenancy issues considered in part 4 of the bill and the whole committee was content to support the proposals by the Scottish Government including our Tory and Labour colleagues who supported it then but are going to vote against it in 20 minutes or so very curious indeed there are two key proposals in the bill in relation to private sector tenancies to retain those temporary measures introduced to protect tenants from eviction during the Covid period one is to continue to make all eviction cases that go to the housing and property chamber of the first tier tribe discretionary rather than mandatory as they were pre Covid and the other is in requiring landlords to carry out pre action protocols concerning grounds for evictions due to rent arrears for what hope are clear and obvious reasons those measures were necessary during Covid to help protect people from eviction from their tenancy in the private rented sector during a major health pandemic and the Scottish Government is asking Parliament to agree to retain those measures all eviction grounds have been discretionary in the social rented sector now for around 20 years and the proposal to retain this within the private rented sector basically aligns both sectors and continues that level of protection for tenants it has meant a fairer approach for tenants and it balances the needs of tenants and landlords a bit more shelter certainly backs both proposals and their submission for members describes the measures as important and progressive which will help support tenants to keep their homes wherever possible and it will prevent homelessness remember too that the discretionary element doesn't prevent landlords from pursuing an eviction should that be necessary and that point was well made during a committee's work but it does provide that additional comfort that circumstances must be taken into account before a decision is taken now it's fair to say that during our evidence some landlords were concerned by the measure and some fear that landlords with perhaps a single or only a few properties might opt to leave the sector altogether but Matt Downey from Crisis argued that the issue isn't about whether landlords will or won't leave the sector but simply that the discretionary element allows the support needs of both the tenants and the landlords to be taken into account which was never the case before he described it as a common sense move that could be to everybody's advantage the minister also commented that the measure does not fundamentally alter the rights of landlords but provides that fairer balance of rights for everyone and the Government in its response to our committee's report has given us an assurance that it will liaise with the tribunal to monitor eviction cases going forward part 4 of the bill also retains the pre-action protocol provisions that have been in place in the social rented sector too for some time what these basically mean are things like having clear information on a tenancy the level of arrears that are in question stating the rights of the tenant signposting to support and advice landlords making a reasonable effort to agree a payment plan with a tenant and giving reasonable consideration to any steps a tenant has taken to address their situation are all recommended although these steps aren't mandatory in themselves the tribunal can take this into account and consider whether a landlord has complied with the protocol before granting a decree for eviction the Scottish Association of Landlords don't have any objection to this measure and say that the measures represent what they have always considered to be best practice anyway where landlords try to engage with tenants, try to help them overcome the problems and ultimately sustain their tenancy Presiding Officer, there haven't been many positives coming out of the whole Covid experience for anybody and it has been cited today the deployment of digital technology in a number of settings not least here in this place to allow this place to continue to function and in many other areas too where online meant people could stay in a job continue to do business and it has been a revelation to many of us about how we can work in the future but these two measures in part 4 brought in temporarily to try and protect people from eviction during a public health emergency have been particularly helpful to I think and are worthy of retaining on a permanent basis now I hope the Parliament agrees the principles of the bill at stage 1 and these measures are an important part of that protecting people who face eviction by supporting both tenants and landlords including in any bill in front of the Parliament and I'm happy to support the bill today thank you we now move to winding up speeches and I call on Alex Rowley up to six minutes please Presiding Officer, in closing for Labour in today's debate I want to restate the point I made to John Swinney at committee and that is with the Green Party the SNP can force this legislation through but in doing so I believe we have another bit of poor legislation that without doubt removes powers from this Parliament into the hands of the executive I have listened carefully to what Mr Swinney said today and I will address that I also want to restate the point I made that there is much within the wide-ranging bill that is good and has support as we have saw from the evidence sessions of all the committees who heard evidence on different aspects of the bill I say this bill is wide-ranging and I would suggest it is too wide-ranging and to do justice and come up with good legislation that will address the issues that require attention we as a Parliament should have the time and the space that is needed take justice as an example there is no doubt that the pandemic has caused major problems but it is also clear there were major problems for the pandemic that required action as Katie Clark has said the fact that Scotland has the highest remand and prison population figures in western Europe along with poor overcrowded conditions and many prisons should be a concern across this chamber but is putting legislation into a catch-all Covid recovery bill the best approach to this I think not and I note from the report of the criminal justice committee that they say time and again in the report that they had limited time to scrutinise this bill then let me turn to education I have to say as a die of four grandchildren and in five die means grandad but as a die of four grandchildren I really worry about the impact that Covid has had on education and the downward spiral that we saw pre Covid and the changes for education in this bill gives me no confidence that this Government is even beginning to get on top of the issues in education so I do conclude this bill will do little to aid the recovery and reform of Scottish education that is desperately needed at this time we must do more to rebuild education in Scotland and that must be a priority I want now to turn to the parts of the bill considered by the Covid-19 recovery committee and there were many positive aspects discussed in looking at the evidence however there is one part of this bill that is for me and I hope for this Parliament a red line and that is Henry VIII I have to say that when I first heard Murdo Fraser talk about a power grab I did think that that was a bit rich but the more I looked at the evidence the more I realised this was a proposal to remove powers from this Parliament the legislator and put them into the hands of ministers the executive and you can frame it however you like is to remove power from the democratically elected Parliament into the hands of ministers and that is not acceptable not acceptable under any circumstances and we need to address that the written submissions from Dr Andrew Tickel and Professor Alison Britton of Glasgow Caledonian University states that they include the main provisions in part one of the bill are generally in keeping with the law already applying in England and Wales and will establish a more flexible and resilient framework for co-ordinating the public health response to any future health emergencies and that is good but they then go on to say as currently drafted the bill includes one highly problematic element which has not been adequately explained or justified by the Scottish Government the Henry VIII power empowered the then king to make law without reference to the English Parliament in 1539 and now in 2022 the SNP want to do similar to take powers from this Parliament as Tickel and Britton put it while powers of this kind have been used by the UK Government to adapt the statute book to the United Kingdoms departure from the European Union Henry VIII powers are rightly controversial as they infringe upon the separation of powers give legislative functions to the executive and can be imposed with modest opportunities for parliamentary scrutiny particularly in circumstances when they are used in an emergency basis so whilst I welcome what Mr Swinney had to say and will study closely what he had to say I asked the Government to think again on what is certainly for Labour a red line and in doing so I acknowledge there is much support for aspects of this bill no more so than from Crisis Scotland whose brief I read this morning making a very strong case for part IV of this bill let's work together to build the future let's look at where we can find compromise and move forward in this Parliament to build a better future for Scotland thank you I call on Jamie Greene up to six minutes please right at the beginning of the pandemic this chamber came together in good faith to respond to the very real and severe threat that the pandemic posed each and every one of his lives at risk and we had to act fast of course we didn't get everything right as legislators but I think we can be proud of the fact that we did act quickly, nimbly and most constructively when needed from stage 1 right through to Royal Ascent in record time the First Minister herself has stated that the current direction of travel is to get back to normality as quickly as possible whilst maintaining vigilance every secretary said we want to ensure we remove measures no longer needed in order to respond to the pandemic whilst keeping those that were there to demonstrable benefit to the people of Scotland vigilance I think is prudent I don't disagree with the thrust of Mr Swinney's argument still that some of the adaptations to the delivery of public services such as digitisation were useful frankly some of them should have happened sooner but now they are here some might be here to stay we all accept that but our argument has been that this bill as drafted to us goes far too far contains measures which are frankly no longer necessary and not of demonstrable benefit to use Mr Swinney's phrase he also used the phrase that this bill is necessary, proportionate and appropriate and it is those three words I want us all to be mindful as we go through this process yes of course some of the measures we took in the past may be necessary in the future of course some of the powers that we gave government in that scenario may be appropriate as well when needed but proportionality is a whole other ballgame now it's been called a power grab by many but I think that oversimplifies what is actually quite a grave attempt by government to retain extraordinary powers the previous parliament which many of us here were part of were cautiously uneasy about affording the government these powers in the first place we did it because we had to but at no time was there any suggestion at all that we would be asked to be given the government these powers on a permanent basis anything but and it's quite depressing that today the parliamentary arithmetic will probably result in this bill passing anyway ignoring the many concerns that have been voiced in this building and outwith my colleague Murdo Fraser rightly pointed out that the depth of concern started right back at the consultation process right back in the consultation process and then the report which the committee produced as one phrase jumped out at me and that was this the government Scottish government has not made a sufficient case for why these powers should be made permanently had not made sufficient case then and it still has not made sufficient case the committee heard there were viable alternatives to the so-called Henry the eight powers including for example the removing of the provisions entirely until a public health emergency actually arises that would give Parliament a proper say for example by passing new emergency laws we did it before I asked why can we be trusted to do it again that's a point Jackie Baillie made, Alex Colehampton made and many others a question that is equally yet to be answered by the government and it's not just politicians who have concerns about this the law society warned that these powers have the potential of a real significant reduction and restrictions on liberty being imposed through regulations reduced opportunity for Parliamentary oversight and scrutiny they said the bill creates a risk of misuse or the powers being used worse in error and I'm afraid to say that the use and inclusion of these powers is simply not reflected in equivalent legislation in other parts of the UK no matter what we've heard today in fact the suggestion that they do in a second is not just unhelpful but it's misleading and let me explain why there are differences because as drafted this bill says that it includes the power to modify or amend any enactment any piece of legislation ministers want that power that power is not found elsewhere it's simply not and that's a point I'll have it give away in a second there's another point of the UK legislation and that is one that is very deeply personal to me the ability to remove early release and to reduce people's prison sentences is unended and unlimited for example in the Scottish bill in the UK bill it's capped 180 days quite a sensible move of course we'll give the Government the benefit of the doubt let's see what the stage 2 amendments are in that respect but I will reflect on this the affirmative procedure is not the same as the three stage process that legislation goes through which is so sacrosanct to us in a unicameral environment such as this in fact I would go far say as regulations are simple vote majorities and they're also victims to the whims of political majorities such as was the case with the EU continuity to bill another so-called emergency law as I said there are some sensible unreasonable justice related provisions which I do support but there are others which we don't the virtual trials have been widely condemned by many the sentences of the colleges of justice said that videos by video hearing should not become the norm they say that the dignity and solemnity of the courtroom are missing in a video conference the faculty of advocates, the Scottish list of bar association and many others I've raised many concerns about this the main one I want to raise briefly is that of early release that power was used in emergency situations there were 348 people granted early release under these powers you might want to hear this of those 348 142 re-offended within six months after early release that should be a statistical alarm bell in each year every one of our ears right now I'm afraid that's that's not a risk that these benches are willing to take to be quite frank the committee was also divided on relations to fiscal fines and many other things in conclusion I want the government to think about two final things those very consensual I'm afraid listening to the speeches the conveners are split in the reports the casting votes should have been the warning signs but the second and the most important one is I urge the government to take a license of today's debate the speeches today were so powerful in their combined attempt to protect the sanctity of the separation of powers of parliament and executive let's not cross that line on a permanent basis we do so at our peril I call on Humza Yousaf to wind up the debate up to eight minutes cabinet secretary thank you very much as the cabinet secretary is responsible for part one of the bill both public health protection proposals and indeed arrangements for vaccination and immunisation I'm pleased to close this debate for the government this has been an interesting debate not only touching on public health policy but of course many other aspects of the bill I hope to spend most of the time trying to address some of those points that have been made but let me say from the offset that the deputy first minister myself and of course other government ministers I think cabinet secretaries will continue to engage both with members of this parliament but also with important stakeholders in advance of the parliamentary processes that the bill still has to go through can I thank the five scrutiny committees work at stage one supported of course by filling very thoughtful briefings from both external stakeholders but also of course the committee's advice as Siobhan Brown, the lead Covid-19 recovery committee has said no stone was left unturned in the government's no stone was left unturned in scrutiny of these proposals in the government's view that demonstrates the parliament's adeptness at scrutinising longer more complex and cross portfolio bills we remain of the view that it was best to group the range of proposals supported on into a single bill intended for commencement from September of this year following on from the government's response to stage one reports at the beginning of this week there's been a full debate in our position on stage two amendments I've listened carefully to all the points that have been made and I hope for those members who often use the term railroading legislation or bulldozing legislation I hope they've listened carefully to what the Deputy First Minister actually said about the compromises we are willing to make those compromises undoubtedly anybody's objective view on those compromises would be that we are wanting to give parliament further scrutiny over this bill and over these emergency powers of course I'll give way to Jamie Greene Jamie Greene One air of consensus that the Government could agree to is to take the good bits of the bill where there is consensus across the chamber which we will pass and agree to and ditch the bits which are the hugely controversial bits which actually protect the primacy and sanctity of this parliament Cabinet Secretary I was going to come to this point the trouble if I can respond and then I'll give way to that point what I would say to Jamie Greene of course is if we did that then the emergency powers which are required to respond in quickspeak not simply to take the legislation off a shelf that might be inadequate for the particular pandemic or emergency we are dealing with and therefore we would have to enact emergency legislation that would take days and I can tell you as the Cabinet Secretary for Health who is dealing with this immediate pandemic that every day counts we cannot afford to do that Of course I'll give way to my friend Jim Fairlie Thank you very much Cabinet Secretary and this goes back to the point of trying to raise with Jamie Greene and I except he didn't have time but Andrew Tekel today made this statement most of what this bill does to extend the powers which already exists on a permanent basis in England and Wales under the 1984 Public Health Act of Scotland on a permanent basis which seems unobjectionable to me Sanders Gohani asked for a 90 minute debate in order to release the bills that are going to be held in situ surely if you want something packaged up those kinds of measures taken by the Government would give you what you were looking for Cabinet Secretary That is the very point these powers do exist in England in Wales they have sweeping powers the UK Government has sweeping and widespread powers over public public health protection and what we are suggesting is that we also have powers in emergency but that we not only provide a statement of why those powers emergency powers, emergency regulations should be enacted but of course that the Parliament authorises that so anybody suggesting that the Government could impose a lockdown without Parliament's authorization hasn't listened to what the Deputy First Minister has said so let me read again exactly what we are proposing and I appreciate entirely that the devil will win the detail you will want to look and examine that amendment closely that is absolutely appropriate but let me just read again what it is that we are proposing to ensure that the necessary parliamentary oversight is in place the Government will bring forward amendments to introduce a gateway vote mechanism which would mean that key aspects of the public health protection and education continuity powers would only have effect if a parliamentary vote on a formal Government declaration is held and approved that would allow Parliament to enact these powers with the confidence that lockdown, school closures and other emergency response measures could only be imposed in the event of a future public health threat in an emergency situation if the Parliament has so authorised so this is the critical point and of course again I reiterate that we respect the fact that the Parliament will want to see the detail of those amendments at stage 2 but I would ask members to do so in good faith and if they did so in good faith they would not be voting against the general principles of the bill at stage 1 there was some yes I'm all giving Brian Whittle I'm very grateful to the cabinet secretary for giving way you and I have had this conversation before cabinet secretary as with the Deputy First Minister truly the pandemic highlighted the shortcomings in the NHS IT system and education system and data gathering and usage and also we allowed the Silver Swan recommendations to slide surely it's in the readiness and preparedness that we need to be focusing on and that would have had the desired effect on helping us with future emergencies I don't see anything in that within the Government proposals I would say to Brian Whittle I have the greatest respect for him that he needs to read the bill carefully because the powers about preparedness are one of the key aspects of this bill the emergency powers are the other part but preparedness again similar to what the UK Government has already those powers are powers that we are seeking through this bill placed in around the justice provisions and I thought Audrey Nicol in particular made very powerful arguments around some of the disagreements that we know that exist in relation to virtual trials and that's why I think the approach the Government is taking is a sensible one those powers of course are in there temporarily and of course we have consultations one of which actually launched today in relation to some of the justice provisions and we will bring forward our thoughts on the back of those consultations I thought Katie Clark spoke very well very powerfully about the human rights implications and aspects in relation to the time limits I will continue to give her and my colleague the Cabinet Secretary for Justice will continue to give this Parliament very strong assurances of course that's why those powers are temporary we understand those human rights implications that these measures are only being brought forward and extended at this point to reduce that backlog which in itself of course that backlog has huge human rights implications and impacts again on many men and indeed women right across Scotland in relation to some of the other points that were made on education all I will say in that respect and the question was asked by Stephen Care by a number of other members across the chamber as we are continuing our engagement we have had continual engagement both as officials but also the Cabinet Secretary for Education I know my colleague Shirley-Anne Somerville met with University of Scotland and Colleges Scotland as recently as the fourth of May so we will keep Parliament updated and of course we are considering what the University is what colleges, COSLA, EIS and others have to say in advance of stage 2 I do not have much time at all to go into the detail of general the issues raised around tenancies I thought my colleague Patrick Harvie but also Willie Coffey made those points really well all the provisions they simply enable a tribunal to take into account all the circumstances relating to a case before making a decision I thought the points raised by Murdo Fraser around the concerns of the Church of Scotland were ones that we will reflect further on ahead of stage 2 so I will sum up simply by saying on the so-called Henry VIII power and further and perhaps most significantly the addition of a gateway vote mechanism for any future regulations for emergency nature I hope that those provisions give some comfort to the Parliament I hope that collectively these amendments give members and parties assurances that they can vote for the general principles of this bill I invite the Parliament to vote to learn the lessons of the pandemic to complete the statute book and to put in place that resilience for whatever challenges may come in the years ahead Thank you That concludes the stage 1 debate The next item of business is consideration of motion 4263 in the name of Kate Forbes on a financial resolution for the coronavirus recovery and reformed Scotland Bill I call on Kate Forbes to move the motion Thank you The question on this motion will be put at decision time The next item of business is consideration of motions 4335 to 4338 in the name of Kate Forbes on appointments to the Scottish Fiscal Commission and I call on Kate Forbes to move the motions Thank you The questions on these motions will be put at decision time The next item of business is consideration of business motion 4375 in the name of George Adam on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau on stage 2 timetable any member who wishes to speak against the motion should press their request to speak button now and I call on Stephen Kerr to move the motion Thank you Mr Kerr No member is asked to speak against the motion Therefore the question is that motion 4375 be agreed Are we all agreed? The motion is therefore agreed and there are three questions to be put as a result of today's business The first is the motion 43010 in the name of John Swinney on coronavirus recovery and reformed Scotland Bill be agreed The Parliament is not agreed Therefore we will move to a vote There will be a short suspension to allow members to access the digital voting system