Coronavirus (Scotland) Bill

The Presiding Officer (Ken Macintosh)

The next item of business is a debate on motion S5M-21370, in the name of Michael Russell, on the Coronavirus (Scotland) Bill. We have a new format for this. Because of the wide-ranging nature of the bill, we will have four opening ministerial speeches. The Cabinet Secretary for the Constitution, Europe and External Affairs, Michael Russell, will begin.

09:37  

The Cabinet Secretary for the Constitution, Europe and External Affairs (Michael Russell)

Thank you, Presiding Officer. I assure you that the sum of the parts will be the same length as if there was only one speech. I hope that that relieves members.

Responding to a global and a national crisis is about people coming together to help one another through this most difficult of times. Today, as a Parliament, we are meeting to consider emergency legislation that is solely designed to help our country pull through.

We have all seen how those on the front line against the coronavirus—the hospital staff, those who are keeping social care going and the national services—have risen to the occasion, and the people of Scotland are rising to the occasion, too. They are now subject to restrictions that none of us could have imagined that the Government would have to impose in our lifetimes. I know that the people of Scotland recognise the necessity for those restrictions and that, by working together, following the rules and staying at home, they are slowing the spread of the virus, protecting Scotland’s national health service and saving lives. That is what it is about—saving lives.

In this Parliament, we have been working together, too, not as representatives of our parties, but as the men and women entrusted by the people of Scotland to make their laws. We are supported by all those with whom we work, and I pay particular tribute to the team that has worked on the bill; it has done an amazing job in less than a week.

Our laws need to change for a while in response to the coronavirus crisis. We took the first step last week, when the Parliament gave its consent to the United Kingdom bill that is now the Coronavirus Act 2020. We have further work to do today and we will have further work to do in the weeks ahead. The Coronavirus (Scotland) Bill will make changes to Scotland’s laws across a wide range of subject areas. It will, I imagine, be the only piece of legislation that any of us will consider that amends both the Anatomy Act 1984 and the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002.

The bill provides essential and practical help. It will help people who are in difficulty because of Covid-19 to keep a roof over their heads, and it will help people who are struggling with debt. However, the bill also makes dramatic changes to our laws that many of us will find uncomfortable and challenging. I do not shirk from that. I find them very difficult, too, but I am satisfied that they are necessary and proportionate given the scale of the challenge that we face.

The changes that the bill makes are far reaching, but they will not be for ever. Unless the Parliament’s approval is obtained for an extension, the provisions of the bill will expire on 30 September 2020. That date is written into the bill. Parliament can extend that period for two six-month periods if it chooses to do so, but the changes in the bill will not remain in place beyond 30 September 2021. Again, that date is written into the bill. [Interruption.] No, I am sorry, but I have a lot of ground to cover. I will try to take points later on.

The longest that the bill can last is 18 months, and that can happen only if the Parliament has positively approved it on three separate occasions. I commit the Scottish Government to keeping under review every change in the bill and to keeping those changes in force only for as long as they remain necessary and proportionate to deal with the coronavirus outbreak or its effects on our society. Because of that, the bill allows us to suspend any of its provisions at any time and even to repeal them completely earlier than in the six-month cycle that I have just described, and we will do so as soon as it becomes clear that any provision is no longer needed.

Such decisions will be made in conjunction with and informed by the Scottish Parliament—by all of us. Our unity on such matters is important. We need to work together if we are to defeat the greatest challenge that we have faced as a nation for many generations. Unity is worth working for, no matter how hard it is to achieve. It is to the credit of everyone here that we have already agreed a great deal between the parties, but there are still areas of the bill that need further work.

Accordingly, the Cabinet Secretary for Justice will confirm this morning that we are withdrawing part 5 of schedule 4 in order to allow an intensive and wide-ranging discussion by all interested parties, including victims whose voice has not yet been fully heard, about the right way to ensure that justice continues to be done in Scotland. We will come back to the chamber with a standalone bill on that issue, along with the regulations to implement it, on 21 April, which is anticipated to be the next sitting day. The courts must be allowed to function. By the end of this month, we must have the means to ensure that that can happen, but I stress that we want those means to command the widest support possible.

The bill requires the Government to report to the Parliament every two months on the continued necessity of all the measures in it and the use of the powers that it contains. As Mr Fraser knows, because he has raised the matter with me, I am open to having a discussion about how that process should take place. If the Parliamentary Bureau wishes to put in place special arrangements for that, I would be very happy to discuss such arrangements with it.

I commit the Government to involving the Parliament and its committees—and any special arrangements—as much as is humanly possible in the monitoring and scrutiny of the changes that are made by the bill. It is on the basis of that process of scrutiny, of constant review and of a commitment to unwind the changes when our public life returns to normal, and a commitment to the unity of this Parliament and the work across parties and between individuals, that I invite every member to pass the bill.

We have a national emergency. That is why, today, we are debating emergency legislation. All of us recognise the gravity of the challenge that we face and the scale of the response that is required. This is the greatest challenge that we have faced in this young Parliament’s history; it is one of the greatest challenges that our country has faced in modern times. We will get through it only by working together. It is in that spirit of solidarity that we can look forward to better times.

I will now pass over to my colleague the Minister for Local Government, Housing and Planning to address specific issues in the bill. He will be followed by the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and then the Minister for Europe and International Development.

I move,

That the Parliament agrees to the general principles of the Coronavirus (Scotland) Bill.

09:43  

The Minister for Local Government, Housing and Planning (Kevin Stewart)

We have all been told to stay at home to save lives, and I am pleased that so many folk out there are doing just that. Our homes provide the very foundation of our health and wellbeing, and we can all imagine the impact if we did not have a safe and secure place to stay, particularly during these challenging and unprecedented times.

However, the inevitable economic challenges that are unfolding as a result of the steps to halt the pandemic mean that there are households that will face significant financial hardship, which in turn could impact on their ability to pay their rent. We do not want anyone to feel that they could lose their home because of an unparalleled public health emergency. That is why we are introducing provisions in the bill to prevent people from being evicted from their homes by temporarily extending the notice periods for eviction. That measure will apply across the private and social sectors regardless of the time that a tenant has spent in the property.

The extended notice periods will apply to all statutory tenancies that are currently in existence in the private and social rented sector, for six months. In cases where a landlord needs to move back into a property, or of serious antisocial or criminal behaviour, the extension will be three months. We have strongly advised anyone who is in hardship or facing financial problems to speak to their landlord and make arrangements. We want landlords to recognise the financial pressures and challenges that people might face. In turn, we encourage all landlords who are having difficulty to speak to their lenders about a mortgage break, and we have encouraged the UK Government and UK finance to increase that break to six months and to cover all mortgages. We have also encouraged anyone who needs to apply for universal credit—which has a housing element—to do so.

I welcome the commitment that has already been shown by many landlords around the country in response to the outbreak. We see great work being done to support tenants in the social sector. The Scottish Association of Landlords is asking its members to be proactive in helping tenants who expect to experience difficulty paying their rent. [Interruption.] I am sorry, but I really do not have time to take an intervention.

The Scottish Government will establish a fund that eligible private landlords will be able to apply to if they experience difficulty securing rent as a result of the Covid-19 crisis. They will be offered an interest-free loan with deferred payments. The intention is to take the pressure off landlords, in the short-term, if their tenants are having difficulty making rent payments. We expect to have that fund in place by the end of April, at the latest.

The measures that are being proposed in the bill seek to find the right balance between protecting tenants from eviction due to financial pressures arising from the pandemic, and ensuring that landlords across the private and social sector can continue to operate effectively. Crucially, the provisions are needed to ensure that we can keep people in their homes at a time when that stability and place of safety is more important than ever.

I will pass on to my colleague the Cabinet Secretary for Justice.

09:47  

The Cabinet Secretary for Justice (Humza Yousaf)

The most important duty of any Government is to keep its citizens safe and maintain public order. Therefore, we will do everything that we can to maintain a fair and effective justice system. However, we also need to respond to the realities of the current public health guidance.

Our current system relies heavily on physical attendance at court, and on physical evidence itself; our courts are extremely busy places. Where possible, moves have already been made to switch to digital systems. The use of the physical court estate has also been rationalised, and national custody hubs have been established. However, workforces across the justice system are being affected, and we must anticipate that that will continue. We must ensure that accused people, victims and witnesses are not disadvantaged or unable to access justice because they are sick or are following public health guidance that is designed to keep us all safe. It is essential that the justice system continues to function, and that public confidence is maintained at this time. We know the significant distress that delay and uncertainty causes for victims of crime. The impacts on people who are detained in custody and held in remand are also extremely profound.

We are already in a position in which a backlog of cases is building up. Our best efforts, including this legislation, can unfortunately only hope to mitigate that to a certain extent.

I will focus on two provisions that will be the most high-profile. They relate to solemn trials—my colleague the Cabinet Secretary for the Constitution, Europe and External Affairs has already mentioned that—and to provisions on prisons.

As I come to the provisions on solemn trials, I echo my colleagues who have spoken before me. All of us understand and bear the weight of responsibility for the times that we are in. This is not a time to be bullish, nor a time for egos or petty partisanship. All of us—Conservative, Labour, SNP, Liberal Democrat, Green or independent—are part of the national endeavour that is needed to help us overcome this virus.

If ever we needed a reminder of the gravity of the situation, we gather in the chamber the day after the youngest victim of coronavirus in the UK passed away. He was 13-year-old Ismail Mohamed Abdulwahab, from Brixton. As a parent and step-parent—my step-daughter is only a couple of years younger than Ismail—I cannot imagine the heartache and devastation that his family is facing. It is with Ismail’s death in mind—and the deaths of the many people who, sadly, have passed away in Scotland, across the UK and globally—that we work in a spirit of compromise and consensus to do the best that we can do collectively, not just to overcome the virus but to ensure that our rights are protected.

In that vein, we understand how vital the principle of trial by jury is, as the cabinet secretary indicated. The Lord President’s proposal acknowledged that but indicated the real threat to the delivery of justice that is posed by the pandemic. The solution in the bill is proportionate but, as we know, it has not secured the support of this Parliament. We are also aware of the concerns of the profession.

Accordingly, I intend to move an amendment at stage 2 that will remove those provisions from the bill. The Lord Advocate and I will immediately institute further discussions with the judiciary, the legal profession, the political parties here and—let us not forget them—the victims, many of whom would want the proposed change to take place now. We seek a practical, achievable solution that will meet the objectives that we all have, that is, to ensure that justice is done and not delayed, in so far as we can prevent delay, while of course upholding the vital human rights that we all treasure and enjoy.

The solution needs to be in place this month, so I make a firm commitment to the Parliament and to wider Scotland that we will bring emergency legislation for debate on the next due sitting day here, which is 21 April. We will also aim to bring forward draft regulations to implement the legislation at that time.

I ask all members to accept that offer, which seeks to take us forward together, as we must move at this incredibly difficult time. Whatever measure is brought forward, I reiterate that what is proposed will be temporary. After we get through the pandemic, we will of course return to trial by jury.

I will speak briefly to the other proposal in the bill that I think will gather a lot of attention, that is, the emergency release of prisoners. I have previously cautioned members that we cannot rule out releasing prisoners if doing so is in the best interests of public safety, keeping our establishments and those who work in them safe, and keeping those in our care safe.

The coronavirus outbreak is already causing a reduction in staff levels, as members are aware. That is being well managed but it means restrictions in the prison regime and to visits. To ensure that we have the ability to reduce the prison population rapidly if necessary, to ensure the safety of staff and those in our care, the bill contains provisions to allow the creation of a bespoke system for early release—what is proposed is similar to the emergency release powers that the UK Government has.

I stress that the power for which the bill provides does not in itself release prisoners; secondary legislation will be required for that, and much of the detail, including on which classes of prisoner might be released, will be addressed in regulations, which of course will be subject to parliamentary approval.

Although much of the detail will depend on the exact circumstances that we are seeking to address, I give an absolute assurance that public safety will always be a key consideration for us and that any release will be subject to an appropriate level of risk assessment. In that regard, members should note that the bill says explicitly that a prisoner cannot be released if they would pose an immediate risk of harm to an identified person. We have also included in the bill a number of categories of prisoner who would not be released, including, for example, those convicted of a sexual offence.

My colleague the Minister for Europe and International Development will now conclude on behalf of the Government.

09:53  

The Minister for Europe and International Development (Jenny Gilruth)

Thank you. I will conclude on behalf of the Government by setting out to Parliament some of the other provisions in the bill.

Measures have been included in the bill only when strict criteria have been met. We required that they be necessary as part of the response to the coronavirus outbreak, and that they be urgently required, if they were to be included in the emergency legislation. Members will see that we have, for every measure in the bill, set out in the policy memorandum why, in the Government’s view, the measure is required as a result of the pandemic and why it is urgent.

Many measures are required to reflect the reality that our public services are struggling with levels of staff absence and workforce disruption that are much higher than normal, while they are reprioritising and refocusing in order to fight the coronavirus pandemic. That disruption can be expected to continue for some time. Therefore, the bill will give services additional flexibility in respect of compliance with, for example, statutory duties to reply to freedom of information requests, to lay reports in Parliament, and to publish documents in physical formats.

We have listened to concerns about the changes in respect of compliance with freedom of information requirements. I will lodge amendments at stage 2 that will adjust the provisions to reflect the Scottish Information Commissioner’s suggestion to extend the period for responding to requests.

The bill also introduces measures that respect the additional needs that many Scots will have as a result of the financial pressures that are caused by the effects of the virus. It will, for example, extend the current statutory moratorium on debt relief from six weeks to six months, and it will provide additional protection for commercial leaseholders by increasing the statutory period for payment after an irritancy notice from 14 days to 14 weeks.

The bill makes changes that are required because of the simple fact that we can no longer go about our daily lives or run our public services as we used to. Public health advice regarding social distancing and public health regulations that require people to stay at home mean that we must think differently about how to regulate ourselves and how to do business.

The bill contains dramatic and unprecedented measures for dramatic and unprecedented times. No aspect of our lives—public or private—has been left untouched by the virus and the measures that are necessary to control and limit its transmission. The seriousness of the measures reflects the seriousness of the mission: this is about saving lives. I look forward to hearing the views of other parties on the bill’s provisions, and to taking part in today’s debate.

The Presiding Officer

I thank all the ministers.

09:56  

Murdo Fraser (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)

I remind members of my entry in the register of interests—specifically, my interest in property and my membership of the Law Society of Scotland.

I join the Cabinet Secretary for the Constitution, Europe and External Affairs in paying tribute to the bill team for the remarkable work that they have done in producing such a complicated bill, with all the supporting documentation, in such a short time. The bill runs to 69 pages and includes a huge number of detailed provisions. In addition, the explanatory notes and policy memorandum have had to be produced, which has required a huge amount of effort from a small number of individuals. We should be grateful to them all.

I also thank the cabinet secretary for the co-operative way in which he has approached the bill, in working with the Opposition parties, which is particularly important given the limited time that is available for scrutiny of the bill. Most members will have seen the bill only yesterday afternoon, and we are now being asked to consider it, to lodge and vote on amendments, and to vote on the bill in its entirety within the space of a few hours. That is a challenge for us all.

We should acknowledge now that it is likely that we will not get everything right in the short time that is available to us. There will be aspects of the bill that, with the benefit of time and hindsight, we will realise are wrong or could have been better worded. However, we are in an emergency situation, which is why we must press ahead with legislation without the normal levels of safeguarding.

The bill will introduce for the Scottish ministers a wide range of new powers that would, in normal times, be deemed to be unacceptable. We will agree to those powers being granted, and for human rights and civil liberties to be curtailed on occasion, because of the challenge that we face in fighting the coronavirus.

That does not mean that the powers should be unfettered, nor does it mean that there should be suspension of the entirety of normal scrutiny, or of the need for reporting by ministers. Indeed, one area in which the bill could be strengthened is in respect of the need for regular reporting by ministers, and of how Parliament can hold the Government to account for the extraordinary powers that it is taking to itself. We believe that there is a case for forming a new committee of the Parliament to look specifically at the powers in the bill. That is especially important because the normal business of Parliament’s committees might not continue in the coming weeks. I am pleased that the cabinet secretary signalled earlier that the Government is open to that idea, and I look forward to its being discussed in the Parliamentary Bureau, as we go forward.

On specific measures, I will start by considering the provisions to protect people who rent property. We absolutely agree that new protections should be put in place in order to avoid people having to move home while the coronavirus pandemic is on-going. We need to recognise that many families are being put in a very difficult financial position because of economic disruption, perhaps because they have lost their normal employment. On that basis, the extension to six months of the notice period for eviction for non-payment of rent seems to be reasonable, although it is worth reiterating that that does not mean that rent should not be paid. Rent arrears that are built up during the period should be the subject of agreement between landlords and tenants, for repayment in due course.

There are two other important points to make in this respect. First, we do not want an end to evictions in all circumstances, and that is not what is proposed in the bill. There will still be cases in which tenants can be evicted for antisocial or criminal behaviour. That is important; I am sure that we have all heard about situations in which individuals’ lives have been made a misery by antisocial neighbours—in some cases, they might have been waiting years to get an eviction order. It is simply not right that people would have to suffer further misery for months more because of legislation that protects people who behave illegally.

Secondly, many landlords depend on income from private rent, which might be the primary source of income for some retired individuals and couples, in the absence of any form of private pension. Such people could face real hardship, given the current delays in the First-tier Tribunal for Scotland, because the bill will, in effect, extend to 12 months the period for which a tenant might avoid eviction for non-payment of rent. That could cause real financial difficulty for individuals—sometimes not very well-off people—whose primary source of income is one or more private rental properties. For that reason, we call for a hardship fund to be established for landlords who are in that situation. I was pleased to hear what the Minister for Local Government, Housing and Planning had to say about that a few moments ago, so we look forward to seeing detail on that in due course.

There is a great deal in the bill about the criminal justice system; my colleague Liam Kerr will comment on that in detail. Our main area of concern relates to the suspension of trial by jury for serious criminal cases. Article 6 of the European convention on human rights specifies the right to a fair trial, but it does not specify that it must be trial by jury. However, it is a long-established Scots legal tradition that jury trials be held in solemn cases. The removal of that right would be extremely prejudicial to people who have been accused of serious crimes. Therefore, Conservative members’ view—which is shared by the legal profession—is that removal of jury trials would be a retrograde step that is hard to justify, even in the extraordinary circumstances that we are now in. I welcome the cabinet secretary’s having said that the matter will be given further consideration.

Other solutions need to be properly considered. One would be simply to delay all solemn trials until we are through the current difficulty, but that would be prejudicial to accused persons, and it would be difficult for prisoners who are on remand and for victims of crime and witnesses. However, that might be a better outcome than simply to allow trials to proceed with one judge.

We could look more seriously at having juries via remote television link, although there are practical difficulties in that. We could consider holding trials in larger venues, where jurors could be spaced out to allow social distancing, or we could test all jurors for coronavirus at the start of proceedings and at the start of each day, in order to provide protection for people to whom they will be in proximity.

None of those solutions is ideal, but we believe that they all need to be properly examined because of the serious nature of the proposal to remove the right to a jury trial. We look forward to continuing discussions on that in the weeks ahead.

There is much more that I could say, but my time is up. I am pleased with progress, and this morning we are hearing from the Government on the issues that are of concern to us. We hope, assuming that the amendments that we expect are lodged at stage 2, to support the bill at decision time.

10:03  

Alex Rowley (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)

I am grateful for being able to speak in the debate on emergency legislation relating to the coronavirus pandemic. We are in a strange and unprecedented time. I pay tribute to everyone who has been working on the bill in such difficult circumstances so that we could receive it before Parliament sat today, and I acknowledge the joint working across Parliament.

It is important that all front-line workers—whether they are in our health and social care services, in the shops serving food, or lifting our refuse—know that the Scottish Parliament will work collectively in their best interests when they are all putting themselves and their families on the line.

We are facing something that none of us has faced in our lifetimes. It is still just as important, however, that legislation that is passed in this country, and which affects the lives of Scottish people, faces proper parliamentary scrutiny.

The bill tackles some difficult areas, and I can see that difficult decisions are having to be made, and will continue to have to be made. We are facing this crisis at a time when many of our public services are under massive pressure, after year upon year of austerity that has left some services with real difficulties in facing up to normal everyday life—never mind the current crisis.

Last night I heard someone say that today would be the blackest day in legal history if the bill were to proceed and jury trials were to be stopped in the short term. We believe that the Law Society of Scotland makes a fair point when it says that there is a need for more information, and that the issue requires

“fuller consideration and consultation in order to avoid unintended consequences.”

I am pleased that the cabinet secretary has picked up on that point this morning and proposes to address it and, after doing so, to bring another bill to Parliament on 21 April.

We are facing the blackest period in our history, and I feel that the blackest days are still to come. As parliamentarians, we must accept our collective responsibility to make the right and necessary choices. It is clear that what is required in these extreme circumstances is balance between competing interests. That said, the health of our country should always be considered to be of paramount concern; I hope that that is the intention behind many aspects of the bill.

The difficulty lies in those competing interests, particularly in relation to civil liberties and human rights. I agree with Amnesty International that

“Any restriction on the individual’s human rights must meet the criteria of necessity, proportionality, legitimacy, be time-limited and subject to regular review.”

I note that the cabinet secretary has proposed that the legislation be reviewed every six months, with Parliament having the power to continue it if necessary. I also note the proposal that there be a report back every two months. I believe that one of my colleagues is considering lodging an amendment that will propose monthly reporting, instead.

When legislation that gives the Government such unprecedented powers is introduced, having the confidence that Parliament will hold the Government to account through scrutiny will be important. That is why the point that Neil Findlay made earlier about accountability of the Government to Parliament is crucial.

I believe that emergency legislation is necessary, and I welcome the Government’s having brought forward the bill. I suspect that we will see more emergency legislation as we grapple with outcomes from the virus pandemic that are, at this stage, unknown to us. However, we must ensure that, even although the bill is well meaning, it will have as few unintended consequences as possible, especially given how quickly we are dealing with a fast-moving situation.

The economy is going to go through a time of major difficulty. Although we need to look at what further support will be needed, we need also to accept that the economy is not going to be the same as it was, and that the Government will have to play a far greater role in our economy and our society in the months that lie ahead.

10:09  

Andy Wightman (Lothian) (Green)

I am sure that all members would have regarded the provisions in the bill and in the regulations that came into force last Thursday as an April fools’ day joke if they had been floated a few weeks or months ago. However, using the Parliament’s provisions for emergency legislation is appropriate in the circumstances, given that we face a major public health crisis. In such a situation, as other members have said, any bill’s provisions should be strictly necessary, specifically time limited and subject to review and reporting.

There is very little time for scrutiny of the bill. I join Murdo Fraser in commending the drafters, the Government officials who have been involved in the work and all the organisations that have turned round briefings in a very short space of time last night and this morning. I will make some brief observations for the record, principally on the justice provisions in schedule 4, the housing provisions and other provisions.

Our justice system is at the heart of our democratic institutions. It is designed to ensure a law-abiding society, the liberty of the individual from the power of the state and sanctions for those who transgress agreed norms of behaviour in the civil and criminal spheres. The bill, in focusing on the justice system and how it can operate in the weeks and months ahead, is practical and sensible. We welcome the removal of the provisions that would give the Executive powers to suspend jury trials, and we look forward to engaging in discussions on how the problem of how to conduct jury trials can be tackled with a view to ensuring the right balance between human rights, public health and the efficient administration of justice. It is incredibly important that the Parliament achieves consensus on that extremely sensitive question, so we look forward to taking part in discussions on that in the weeks ahead.

On housing, we welcome the provisions that ensure that all statutory tenants will be provided with extended notice periods to ensure that, as far as possible, no tenant will be evicted during the emergency period. However, welcome though that is in comparison with the Government’s original proposals, it is not sufficient. Many tenants will face unprecedented declines in their incomes and job prospects over the coming weeks and months, and, although it is some comfort for a person to know that they will be safe in their house during the relevant period, it will remain open to landlords to commence eviction proceedings at any time, and vulnerable tenants will have to live through the crisis knowing that they will be evicted in six months’ time. Therefore, we argue—and we will lodge amendments on this—that there should be no notices to quit and that no eviction proceedings at all should be initiated during the emergency. They can all wait.

Furthermore, we need provisions that deal with eviction applications that are already in the system—perhaps most crucially for those against whom eviction orders have already been granted but have not been enforced, who are the most vulnerable group of all. The proposals explicitly do not deal with those who have already had eviction proceedings initiated against them or orders to quit granted. Although some comfort is available from the de facto suspension of many court proceedings, our view is that all such proceedings should be suspended for the duration of the emergency period.

We welcome the provisions on land registration, which has been the subject of intense debate between the keeper of the registers of Scotland and the legal profession over the past few days. That highlights the fact that, despite our having the world’s oldest system of recording titles to property, we have still not managed to move into the digital age.

We welcome the debt arrangements. One of the most significant impacts of the pandemic will be the number of people who will face unsustainable debt not because of their own actions but because of the financial circumstances resulting from the pandemic.

We have serious concerns about the freedom of information proposals in the bill, as we are not persuaded that they are all strictly necessary. I heard what the Minister for Europe and International Development had to say earlier, and I look forward to engaging in discussions later today.

No legislator should take much pleasure in the bill’s enactment. It has a sunset clause, which is good, but it still contains extensive powers that enable ministers to legislate by regulation. We understand why that is the case, but no one should be under any illusion about the unprecedented powers that we are being asked to hand to the Executive. Over the coming months, it will be vital that the Parliament has the time and resources to ensure that the powers that are contained in the bill remain proportionate and necessary. In that context, the Greens will support the general principles of the bill.

10:13  

Alex Cole-Hamilton (Edinburgh Western) (LD)

We are living in exceptionally difficult times. We could not have imagined supporting the bill in virtually any other circumstances—but support it we will.

I thank the cabinet secretary for his engagement with my party over recent days and for his remarks on jury trials, which I will come on to later.

The bill was written in just a matter of hours, which was no mean feat. However, it is precisely because it was written in just a matter of hours and has not been consulted on that we must be robust in our scrutiny of it today.

Now that the cabinet secretary has confirmed the removal of part 5 of schedule 4, we will support the bill, with some minor amendments, not least because it contains vital and much-needed changes that will give comfort and security to the many people who would otherwise face destitution in the teeth of this crisis. As we have heard many times, the provisions on evictions are of great importance. I hope and expect landlords to be understanding in this emergency and to recognise the flexibility that is being afforded to them by the banks. Nobody should be made homeless during this crisis. Responsible private and social tenants need the extra protection against eviction.

The sense of national urgency is why we agree that the vast majority of the provisions in the bill are necessary, although we harbour some concerns, particularly on FOI deadlines. Above all, we could not have supported the introduction of the new powers that are contained in part 5 of schedule 4, which would give ministers the power to remove juries in trials on indictment for the duration of the emergency. I raised that issue at a cross-party meeting last week, when the bill was first mooted, and I issued drafting instructions to a clerk to remove those provisions. I am grateful to hear that the Government will respond to that.

Jury trials have been part of Scottish justice since the 13th century and have survived the bubonic plague, the Spanish flu and two world wars. They are a central pillar of our unwritten constitution and our social contract. In England, Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service is pausing all trials that would require a jury until such time as it can find a way of proceeding safely. The service recognises the challenge and the danger of asking juries to sit at this time of heightened infection risk. However, it has chosen not to abandon the jury system but instead to pause such trials while it seeks solutions. Indeed, it looks as though, across all democracies in the world, no other country is ending jury trials. Were we to have pressed ahead with the measure, we would have stood alone in that regard.

Only once before in the history of these islands have jury trials been replaced by judge-led hearings. The Diplock courts were created in Northern Ireland in 1973 so that terrorism offences could be tried in front of a judge because of risk to juries of reprisal or tampering. The focus of those provisions was on keeping jurors safe, but we are not trying to keep jurors safe from terrorists; we need only find a solution to keep them safe from infection. I look forward to working with the Government towards that end before we return, later in April. As Murdo Fraser said, the solution might be to use bigger venues such as theatres or cinemas; it might be about testing everyone who is on site for the virus every day; or it might involve computer link-ups. We also need to make it easier for witnesses to give testimony via computer link-ups, and I will lodge amendments to that end for stage 2.

However, there will be a solution and we need one, because the provisions have been met with a howl of outrage from the legal profession. The Faculty of Advocates, the Law Society of Scotland and solicitors the length and breadth of the country have all spoken in opposition to part 5 of schedule 4. It is a marker of the strange times that we live in that I find myself in an alliance with Joanna Cherry and Michael Gove in opposing the provisions. I am glad that the Government has heeded those calls, because juries matter. They matter because the burden should rest on the prosecution to take a group of everyday people through the evidence and the details of the law and to persuade them of guilt. Above all, to participate in a jury is to fulfil the social contract, and we cannot simply bypass that.

We are just one week into lockdown. Unamended, the bill would interrupt an unbroken tradition of Scottish justice that has endured for nearly 800 years. No other democracy has embraced the proposed measure, and it has been roundly condemned by the profession. We should listen to them. I am grateful that the Government intends to remove the provision, and I assure ministers of our support for the bill at decision time tonight.

The Deputy Presiding Officer (Linda Fabiani)

We move to the open debate. We are already short of time, so it would be appreciated if members could come in under four minutes.

10:18  

Rona Mackay (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)

No one in the chamber will disagree when I say that none of us wants to propose this legislation and none of us imagined that we would have to do so; but, of course, we must. We must ensure that we can adapt to the extraordinary crisis that we face by following due legal process and providing clarity for organisations and the public. We are in uncharted territory, but I believe that the general principles of the bill are sound, justified and absolutely essential. We are in an emergency situation. As others have said, the positive all-party discussions that have allowed the bill to be drafted so quickly have been welcome. We are not in normal times, and party politics should be put aside.

The bill complements and supplements the Coronavirus Act 2020, which was passed by the UK Parliament and to which the Scottish Parliament gave its consent last week. There are several detailed aspects of the bill, focusing on justice, public health and the economy.

The majority of people are complying with the advice to stay at home in order to avoid spreading the virus and to ease the burden on our amazing front-line national health service workers. As Michael Russell said, it is vital that people have a roof over their head during this period, which is why legislation to protect from eviction for six months those who are having difficulty in paying their rent is most welcome and necessary. Outwith the bill, I hope that measures to provide the homeless with accommodation are rapid and successful.

In the short time that I have, I will focus on the provisions that relate to justice and policing. All the measures in the bill are practical and commonsense, and they will allow our justice system to continue to operate in these extraordinary times.

As we know, the provisions that would allow solemn trials without jury are controversial and serious: they will be amended and brought forward in emergency legislation on 21 April, as the cabinet secretary outlined. It is important to say that Rape Crisis Scotland, Victim Support Scotland and Women’s Aid support those provisions and believe them to be vital in helping to minimise the distress of delays for victims of sexual and serious crimes.

Through secondary legislation, ministers will have the powers to release certain classes of prisoners. That process is, of course, subject to a strict set of caveats and to a public risk assessment. Prisoners who are serving life sentences, terrorists, sex offenders and all those who are serving sentences for the most serious crimes, as well as untried prisoners, will not be covered by the legislation. The important details of the provisions are clearly set out in the bill that we are considering today.

Schedule 4 relates to children and vulnerable adults. Changes have been introduced to enable the children’s hearings system to function, such as a reduction in the required number of panel members and alterations to child protection and supervision orders, to prevent their lapsing. Those changes, too, are detailed in the bill. The rights of the child will be upheld during the implementation of these temporary measures.

The Equality and Human Rights Commission has stated that actions to protect people that complement or enhance equality and human rights

“will maximise consent and compliance, and ultimately best safeguard public health.”

That is what the bill proposes to do.

The initial time period for the legislation runs to the end of September, when it could be extended, if necessary, through the affirmative procedure. The Parliament will review the act after two months to ensure its effectiveness and proportionality.

In this emergency situation, I recommend supporting the general principles of the bill for all the reasons that I and other members have outlined.

10:22  

Graham Simpson (Central Scotland) (Con)

Just a few weeks ago, none of us expected that we would be dealing with genuine emergency legislation with far-reaching consequences for the power of the state over individuals. The encroachment into human rights is unprecedented and has consequences.

I will concentrate my remarks on the proposals in the bill around evictions. There are around 340,000 households in the private rented sector and 550,000 in the social rented sector in Scotland. Some of those people—although not all—struggle financially and some will have lost their jobs as a result of the coronavirus outbreak. Some will have to socially isolate in the coming weeks or months. We are all being told to stay at home.

In cases where people have lost their income as a result of the restrictions that the Government has imposed, it will take time for the very generous packages that are on offer to kick in. It would be entirely wrong for people to lose their homes in those circumstances. Both of Scotland’s Governments are right to restrict the circumstances under which evictions can take place. They take slightly different approaches, but their aim is the same.

In Scotland, the bill before us temporarily extends the notice period for all evictions, except in certain limited cases. The extended notice periods are either for six months, in most cases, or for three months in cases of antisocial or criminal behaviour, or when a landlord or their family member needs to move into the property. As the Chartered Institute of Housing in Scotland pointed out, we need to ensure that victims of domestic abuse are not trapped in their homes with the perpetrators.

The bill relates to the notice period that the landlord has to give of their intention to start eviction proceedings; there is not, as Aileen Campbell first promised, a six-month ban on evictions. In reality, the bill provides a stop on evictions, which means that some landlords will not get rental income for over a year. Many private landlords are retired and many have one or two properties—not vast portfolios. Some rely on the rental income to pay their care home fees. Ninety-five per cent of landlords have between one and five properties.

By any measure, it is not sustainable to expect those people not to be paid for more than a year. We suggested to the Government that a hardship fund be put in place for those landlords who suffer loss of income as a result of the measures. I was pleased to hear the minister commit to that and I invite him—if he wants to intervene—to say whether that fund could be applied for to cover the whole period for which a landlord may be without money.

Kevin Stewart

As I said earlier, we are looking at a landlord loan fund, which we will make available as soon as possible and for as long as it is needed. We hope that we can have all that in place by the end of April at the latest, as I said in my opening remarks. We are developing the detailed criteria around that. We will make such a loan available for as long as possible, for as long as it is needed. We envisage that that would be up to a year, and we will backdate it to 1 March.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Can Graham Simpson come to a close, please?

Graham Simpson

Certainly. That is very encouraging and good to hear, and on that basis we can support the provisions in the bill. The bill is proportionate; it is, unfortunately, necessary; and on the basis of what we have heard, we will support it.

10:26  

Ruth Maguire (Cunninghame South) (SNP)

I know first hand how worried and anxious people are right now at the changes that are happening to their lives. I have lost a friend to this virus and am acutely aware of the seriousness of what our communities face. We are in the midst of a national emergency: stringent steps are required to suppress the spread of the virus and save lives. Public bodies across the UK must have the tools and powers that they need to carry out an effective response to save lives.

Across the chamber we all understand that the bill cannot be scrutinised in the way that we would normally demand. It is a huge transfer of power to Scottish ministers and through them to local authorities. It is clear that the effect of some of those powers is to temporarily overturn and/or bypass some of the human rights protections established in law by the Scottish and UK Parliaments. That is a legitimate response to the emergency that we face.

That said, I am mindful that the legal test for derogation from human rights standards is rightly high and that—most importantly—hard-won human rights protections are most vital and most at risk at times of emergency and crisis. Extraordinary powers must come with proper limits; regular renewal is essential; and the burden of justifying restrictions must lie with Government and be open to proper and timely scrutiny and challenge from existing bodies outwith the Parliament and, of course, from the Parliament itself.

In giving over extraordinary powers to Government, our first question should be how we take them back. Significant powers will be provided to police, immigration officers and public health officials to arrest people deemed infectious, to place them in isolation and to take biological samples without their consent. Those actions may at some point be required to save lives. It would be helpful for the Scottish Government to confirm what additional safeguards will be put in place where the infectious person is a child or a vulnerable adult.

The people I represent will also want to know that the prompt action that is being taken against individuals who appear to be acting outwith the strict confines of the lifesaving advice and instructions will be taken just as vigorously against employers and businesses that put staff in harm’s way.

There has also been concern around the relaxation of child protection and safeguarding legislation, which would enable an individual barred from undertaking regulated work with children to continue to do so. Clarity from Scottish Government ministers on the circumstances in which that power might be exercised is crucial, including, importantly, on how children’s rights to protection from abuse and harm will be protected. I also seek assurance from ministers on how we ensure the protection of those whose rights are most at risk from the suspension of legal duties to assess the needs of children with additional support needs, those with disabilities, care-experienced children and young carers.

Four minutes gives us time to raise only a couple of points, so I will end on this one. Cross-party working and productive scrutiny coupled with the unprecedented reprioritisation of resources and powers shows what can be done when there is a will. Once we get through this crisis, let us demand that of ourselves again in tackling poverty, addiction and inequality: the other things that threaten the lives of the citizens we represent.

10:29  

James Kelly (Glasgow) (Lab)

It would have been unimaginable, even a few weeks ago, that the Parliament would be passing in one day the sweeping powers that are embedded in the bill. However, the circumstances in which we live—in which we fear for those in our communities and for those who are close to us—mean that the Government is right to legislate in these emergency circumstances. We will support the general principles of the bill and, no doubt, the bill at stage 3.

I will touch on a number of matters, the first of which is the bill’s provisions relating to prisoner release. There is no doubt that the prison environment is very challenging. We have spoken many times in the chamber about overcrowding in the prison estate. It has been reported that there have been 111 cases of people displaying symptoms of Covid-19 in prisons, and they have had to be self-isolated. That is understandable, given the circumstances in which people in the prison estate live, but it is also very concerning. Therefore, the bill’s provisions relating to the release of prisoners who are coming towards the end of their sentence, when there is no threat to public safety, are correct.

I ask the justice secretary—or Mike Russell, if he is summing up—to address the issue of public safety. It is important that prisoners who are released are tested for Covid-19, because we have a duty of care to those prisoners and to those who will come into contact with them, such as those in their communities and their support workers, who are needed in order to give them proper support to ensure their smooth transition back into the community. I ask that that issue, which is not mentioned in the bill, be addressed.

I welcome the cabinet secretary’s announcement that the provisions on jury trials will be taken out of the bill through an amendment at stage 2. It seems to me that the Government moved too hastily on that proposal and failed to explain why it was required. The Government described the fact that there is a crisis and the need for a power, but it did not outline why such a power is necessary.

I welcome the fact that there will be a proper consultation between now and 21 April. The strength of the opposition that we have seen overnight, particularly from organisations such as the Law Society, shows that the Government had got it wrong and had moved far too quickly on the issue. As we move forward, it is important that we build consensus not only among organisations such as Victim Support Scotland and Rape Crisis Scotland but among key figures and organisations in the legal profession. At this time, it is important that legislation is built with consensus and support both within and outside the Parliament.

My final point relates to the review period. Never before have we seen such powers being passed in a day, so it is important that we look at not only the review timescale—we should perhaps reduce the timescale to once a month—but the process that underpins the reviews. It will be important to review the operation and implementation of the powers as time goes on.

10:33  

Kenneth Gibson (Cunninghame North) (SNP)

I pay tribute to the bill team and others who have worked with ministers around the clock to deliver a robust bill under these difficult and volatile circumstances. As other members have indicated, these circumstances are unique in our lifetime. We have a common goal and, judging by the measured contributions so far, I am confident that this pivotal bill will pass today.

Much continues to be said about the devastating consequences of this outbreak on our economy and society, and we must do all that we can to help our constituencies and businesses through this time. No doubt like all colleagues across the chamber, I have been in constant communication with community organisations and individual constituents. It is a monumental task, with hard-pressed staff, reduced in number, trying to help millions almost from a standing start. Nevertheless, if possible, I hope that the UK Government will speed up the process of identifying and making payments to those who are self-employed.

June is still two months away, which is a long time to wait before beginning to make the first payments. Many will struggle to pay their bills, loans, credit card bills and overdrafts. Sadly, some banks have increased their interest rates from 9.9 to 39.9 per cent for unauthorised overdrafts, while they benefit from a base rate of 0.1 per cent. That is nothing short of daylight robbery, and it is kicking people when they are down.

Although the Scottish Government has no powers to stop those practices, I am pleased to see that it is using its limited powers to protect those who are getting into debt by including a temporary extension of moratoriums on diligence. The bill seeks to increase the length of the moratorium on diligence that is created by sections 195 to 198 of the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 2016 from six weeks to six months for moratoria that are established during the period that is covered by the emergency legislation.

The bill also removes the restriction that only one moratorium can be applied for in any one 12-month period, and contains a provision for trust deeds. Making it easier for individuals and families to apply for a moratorium may provide just the respite that they need while awaiting payments, or the respite that businesses need to pick up during these deeply uncertain times.

In addition, the temporary relaxation of some requirements in relation to legal aid applications is helpful and incredibly important to those who have been through trauma.

These on-going changes must keep Scotland a functioning country with a working justice system. The proposed adaptations—such as the extension of time limits in criminal proceedings—offer a workable solution to maintain that. Police Scotland is doing a magnificent job in co-ordinating responses and keeping everyone safe, and we must ensure that the legal framework continues to work.

As domestic abuse will continue—and, likely, increase—during this crisis, I hope that it is clear to survivors that, during the lockdown, they are encouraged to make their way to safety, if they can. To assist some of the most vulnerable people in our society, the bill extends guardianship for adults with incapacity, the period of existing certificates, and provision of services to expedite the release of adults with incapacity from hospital.

The majority of the measures in the bill will automatically expire six months after they come into force, which is—I believe—appropriate. Explicit action and agreement from the Scottish Parliament is required to extend those measures for another six months, and then—potentially—a third time, to a total of 18 months from when the bill is passed. In addition, the Scottish ministers will provide a report to Parliament every two months about the use of the emergency powers, which I welcome.

I thank all those who are working to save lives and to keep Scotland going, and I extend my condolences to those who have lost loved ones to the coronavirus, including at least one of my constituents. I also wish those who are currently suffering from it a speedy recovery. Let us all keep being responsible and doing what we are doing to make sure that we beat this pandemic together. I support the bill, and I ask all colleagues to vote in favour of it.

10:37  

Liam Kerr (North East Scotland) (Con)

I remind the chamber that I am a practising solicitor and hold current practising certificates with the Law Society of Scotland and the Law Society of England and Wales.

The principles of the bill are to provide new powers to help the Government deal with the coronavirus outbreak effectively. The justice provisions in schedule 4 are, therefore, extensive and wide ranging. Although many of the powers are unprecedented, we can support many of them as drafted; indeed, some of the measures are welcome. However, we are not without doubts. We have particular disquiet about two justice areas, and the Cabinet Secretary for Justice was right to focus on both.

The proposal to release prisoners from sentences early is difficult. It is difficult for victims of crime and their families, who will—understandably—ask about the punishment element of prison and worry about whether the mechanism for assessing prisoner risk is sufficiently robust. It is difficult for the victims of domestic violence who fear that their attackers could be back to haunt them. Scottish Women’s Aid is right to demand robust safety arrangements, including appropriate notification of victims and intensive monitoring in that area in particular. It is also difficult for the public, who will worry about their safety, particularly in times of lockdown when already stretched support organisations and local authorities may be unavailable. To those who are concerned, I say simply that we are, too. By way of reassurance, I remind those who are watching of, and associate myself with, the cabinet secretary’s earlier comments in that regard.

The proposal arises from the unprecedented and grave situation that Scotland faces. There is no doubt that the prison environment poses a unique challenge, not least for the health of our dedicated prison staff, and I understand why we must think the previously unthinkable if we are to reduce the spread of the virus in prisons. However, we must be sure that there is no additional danger to officers, the public or victims by releasing criminals before they are ready. That means that, once they are released, any breach of home detention or any other condition must be detected and dealt with—the police must have the resources to monitor released offenders properly. In addition, if the measure has to happen, it must be for the shortest time possible. It would be helpful if, in closing, the Cabinet Secretary for the Constitution, Europe and External Affairs could give the public some idea of which type of prisoners, and how many, might be eligible for release.

With only four minutes, I cannot elaborate in depth on the proposal to suspend trial by jury. However, had the proposal proceeded today, it would have meant an extraordinary change to the present situation. Alex Cole-Hamilton spoke very well about that, and I respect his views. Trial by jury is a fundamental and important protection and a vital safeguard when it comes to the powers of the state, and it forms a cornerstone of human rights. Let us not forget that the proposal would substitute the decision of 15 people from normal society with that of a jury of one, who will often be male, one of society’s top earners, from a particular educational background and of a certain age.

Furthermore, I am not persuaded that such a proposal would prevent delays. Indeed, there is a suggestion that it could exacerbate backlogs in the system. In its briefing, the Law Society makes the most sobering point when it says that

“the interests of justice and the rule of law are not served by taking the proposed step at this time.”

That is correct, and I am pleased to hear the Cabinet Secretary for Justice’s assurance that he will amend the bill at stage 2 to seek further discussions on a practical and achievable solution that upholds human rights. Such solutions exist—Murdo Fraser listed some of them earlier.

Our support for the principles of the bill is a function of the situation, but it is also conditional and, in some cases, reluctant. Nevertheless, support it is.

10:41  

Stuart McMillan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)

First, I thank the Cabinet Secretary for the Constitution, Europe and External Affairs and the Scottish Government for introducing the legislation and for acting so swiftly. I cannot welcome the bill—I do not think that anyone can—but we are where we are with the coronavirus. The swift action that has been taken has, sadly, been necessary.

I put on record my thanks to everyone who is working on the front line to help our communities and save lives.

I will touch on a couple of points, the first of which relates to schedule 1 and housing. When the housing minister speaks later, I would be grateful if he could provide some clarity on one aspect. Yesterday, following the announcement about the extension periods, I received emails and phone calls from concerned constituents whose lives are made absolutely miserable because of antisocial neighbours. They are genuinely concerned. Like most people, they are staying at home, but so are their antisocial neighbours, who, I was told by those who spoke to me, are tenants of a private landlord. The housing minister stated earlier that antisocial tenants can still be evicted, although the process will be extended by three months. Can he provide further clarity on how that will proceed? Will the process remain the same as it is just now, but with a three-month extension period?

Secondly, I want to ask about private landlords. The Parliament regularly hears about bad and rogue landlords, and there are plenty of them across the country. However, there are also plenty of good and decent landlords. They are worried about their properties being trashed, the rent not being paid and the effect of such extensions on the neighbours of their properties. In his summing-up speech, can the minister give some assurance to those of my constituents who are blighted by antisocial neighbours that the extension period will not have too much of an adverse effect on them? Can he also give assurances that engagement will continue with local authorities and the private rented sector to ensure that antisocial tenants will not be free to continue to abuse their neighbours without censure?

Kevin Stewart

I will not be summing up, so I will answer Mr McMillan now. As I said earlier, the exceptions are for antisocial behaviour or criminality. We will all have constituents who face difficulties and they might be exacerbated during the current situation, which is why we have made those exceptions.

Stuart McMillan

I thank the minister for his clarification. Will further discussion take place with local authorities and the private rented sector, once the bill has been enacted, to reassure all tenants in my constituency and across Scotland? [Interruption.]

The Deputy Presiding Officer

For the record, there was a yes from the minister in response to Stuart McMillan’s final question.

We move to the closing speeches. I call Alex Rowley. [Interruption.] Mr Rowley has metamorphosed into Pauline McNeill.

10:44  

Pauline McNeill (Glasgow) (Lab)

That is not an easy thing to do. [Laughter.]

I thank Scottish Government officials for the incredible drafting work that they have done in an incredibly short period of time. I whole-heartedly agree with the cabinet secretary, Mike Russell, that we must work together and unite where we can, taking the right steps to manage everyday issues in our society during this dreadful but, I hope, short period.

I am sure that the cabinet secretary agrees that we should still do our job as an Opposition party when we think that the Government can improve legislation. We did that last week with regard to Aileen Campbell’s announcement on the no-eviction policy, which we were delighted to welcome. No Government, whatever its complexion, can get everything right. We will be constructive and get behind the Government in managing the biggest-ever crisis that our country has faced.

We want to make this work effectively. I echo the points that Neil Findlay and Alex Rowley made: we do not want to overwhelm the Government with letters and questions. We want to scrutinise its work, so it would be helpful if ministers told us how we can do that. Humza Yousaf was absolutely right to say in his speech that this is not a time to be bullish or ego driven.

Transparency is essential, as Murdo Fraser eloquently said, and it is essential that there is on-going review. Engender has specifically asked that the Government looks at the impact of the coronavirus crisis on women, as it might be different from the impact on others; it also asked whether the Government would be willing to report on that.

I want to address the Government proposals on no evictions. I think that, sadly, the banking crisis of 2008 will seem like a walk in the park in comparison with what people might face during the upcoming period. I welcome everything that the Government has done, but there are some things that I would like it to consider doing in future.

I tend to agree with Andy Wightman that it is perhaps not right that the way in which the legislation is constructed means that eviction notices will hang over people’s heads. I want to discuss that further at stage 2.

The Government should consider going further to help tenants who, through no fault of their own, are not covered by a Government scheme or universal credit. I recognise that we cannot see the full picture at the moment. There are millions of people who are self-employed or who have lost their jobs and are not covered by the Government scheme or are getting only a percentage of their wages. We cannot yet see the full impact of that.

I whole-heartedly welcome the announcement on funds for landlords, which Graham Simpson raised. I would also like the Government to talk to us about whether, as a last resort, a system of rent breaks could be considered further down the line when we have a clearer picture. Perhaps it could consider a temporary fund attached to the Scottish welfare fund, which I appreciate does not cover rent at the moment, for those who might fall through the gap and might need some short-term help.

I would like the Government to specifically look at rent arrears debt.

Kevin Stewart rose—

Pauline McNeill

I will give way to the minister in a minute if he still wishes to intervene.

I envisage that huge debt might arise and the Government might want to consider a specific scheme to help tenants avoid poor credit ratings and get back to an even position.

Kevin Stewart

It is key to get the message across that tenants should talk to their landlords and that folk should be applying for universal credit when that is the right thing to do. Beyond that, Pauline McNeill will know that we have discretionary housing payments and other measures. The key thing for me is that folk should pay their rent if they can, but if they are having difficulties, they should immediately talk to their landlord, whether they are in the social rented sector or the private rented sector, so that we can bring about the flexibilities that are required.

Pauline McNeill

There is nothing in that that I disagree with: people should continue to pay their rent. What I am trying to address are the cases of people who are not able to do so, through no fault of their own, if they have lost their job or other income.

I would like the Government to look at extending the time that someone can stay in temporary accommodation. That issue was raised by Shelter.

As other members have done, I recognise that the Cabinet Secretary for Justice is withdrawing what was probably the most controversial proposal, which was for judge-only trials in solemn procedure cases. It is helpful that he did that early in the process. I think that we all agree that we need to take more time to look at the issue of removing the fundamental right of an accused person to be tried in front of their peers and have comparative justice—that is, the same justice as everyone else.

I support the idea of a consultation. There are dangers to the public in proceeding with jury trials. I welcome what the Government has done. Labour members will take full part in the consultation. We could look at the wartime example, where juries were reduced to seven members. We will work with the Government to find a solution.

10:50  

Adam Tomkins (Glasgow) (Con)

I start, as did the Cabinet Secretary for the Constitution, Europe and External Affairs, by saying that unity in this endeavour is essential. He said that it was important; it is essential. We need to work together, and I and my party and all members are grateful for the way in which the Government has tried to ensure that we can work together.

The bill, as published yesterday and as it currently stands, contains measures that, in my party’s view, go too far—at least at the moment—because the case for their necessity has not been made. I want to reflect a little more on that test, as I did last week.

We all accept that there is a public emergency that threatens the lives of our citizens and indeed the life of the nation. We all accept that that emergency requires an extraordinary response, and requires us as parliamentarians to confer on ministers powers that we would not ordinarily contemplate. We must vigorously and rigorously apply a test of necessity to the examination of whether those extraordinary powers are required. It is not about whether they are administratively expedient, or whether they would make our life easier, but whether they are strictly required. Jenny Gilruth referred to that in her opening remarks. Last week, when we discussed the matter in the context of the legislative consent motion for the UK Parliament’s Coronavirus Bill, the cabinet secretary indicated very strongly his agreement that that is indeed the test. We will co-operate to confer on ministers those powers that are necessary to meet the exigencies of the crisis.

I will say something about how we apply that test to the two most controversial sets of proposals in the Coronavirus (Scotland) Bill: those with regard to juries, and those with regard to freedom of information. I very much welcome this morning’s indication by the cabinet secretary and his colleagues that they will today withdraw from the bill the proposals about juries, albeit that that does not mean that we have solved the issue—the issue has absolutely not been solved, and we know that we will have to revisit it in a matter of weeks. If talks are held about that process, I commit myself and my party to take part in them constructively. We want to solve that aspect of the coronavirus crisis.

Courts must be able to function, but they must be able to do so in a way that uses means that command the widest possible support—that is what the cabinet secretary said in his opening remarks—and that do not unnecessarily trammel the rights and freedoms of the people involved in the criminal justice system. The cabinet secretary is right to say that that includes victims as well as defendants; however, the rights and freedoms of the accused are paramount in ensuring that we have a fair criminal justice system.

We need to think about measures that are much less restrictive on rights and freedoms, rather than simply abandoning all jury trials for the duration of the crisis. We can think about the consequences of delay; the logistics of testing empanelled jurors for coronavirus; remote juries; virtual trials; and larger venues. Every cinema and every theatre in Scotland is lying empty at the moment. Those are large spaces—larger than criminal courtrooms. If we in the Parliament can come together to debate legislation while maintaining social distancing, it should not be beyond our wit to conceive of ways in which the criminal justice system could function too.

It cannot be shown to be necessary to abandon criminal trial by jury in Scotland, if no other Commonwealth country in the world is contemplating it, given that we are dealing with a global pandemic. The Lord Chancellor is not contemplating such a measure in England and Wales.

I want to say something about the way in which the argument has been constructed. If we read carefully in the policy memorandum that accompanies the bill the view on why the Scottish Government wanted to take the step, we can see that it is not an argument of necessity—it is an argument of administrative convenience. If we do not do that, it says, there will be a backlog of cases. That is not a good enough reason; that is an argument of administrative convenience and not an argument of necessity.

The Law Society of Scotland is absolutely right to point out in blunt terms in its briefing for the debate that

“The potential for a case backlog ... would not, on its own, be sufficient reason”

for departing from the need for jury trials.

We will take part in the talks on a constructive basis, but we will vigorously and rigorously apply this single and simple test: we will support those extraordinary measures that are necessary and we will not support those that cannot be shown to be necessary.

On freedom of information, the proposals that Jenny Gilruth set out are welcome. I regret that they do not go as far as I would have wanted them to go. I am not convinced of the need to extend freedom of information deadlines for anybody other than those who are working on the front line. I completely understand that health boards, general practitioners and pharmacies—anybody who is working in the NHS—have much better, more important things to do right now than to respond to FOI requests, but I am not convinced that the same argument holds for all Government departments. It might hold for local authorities, but not all Government departments.

As I understand it, the proposal is that we will extend the deadline for dealing with FOI requests from 20 days to 60 days, but we will not thereafter allow the 60-day deadline to be further extended to 100 days. That is welcome, but as I understood what Jenny Gilruth said—she can correct me if I am wrong—the bill will continue to provide that

“The Scottish Ministers may by direction specify further circumstances in which a Scottish public authority may extend a relevant period”

beyond 60 days. There is still a substantial degree of flexibility there to avoid or evade ordinary FOI rules. We will need to look very carefully at that at stage 2 and, if necessary, at stage 3.

10:57  

Michael Russell

A great deal has been covered in this debate. I will deal with as much as I can, and I will be happy to address other issues outside the chamber as we go forward. I will explain that in a moment.

I want to say a couple of words about things that have not been mentioned. First, there is the extension of provisions under the Anatomy Act 1984, which is not a minor matter but requires to be done. Secondly, a very major matter relates to provisions under the Adults with Incapacity (Scotland) Act 2000. These are designed to try to assist in the present situation, but there are times when space within medical premises will have to be allocated to victims of the disease, and we will have to be able to take appropriate actions. I would be happy to answer specific questions on those matters.

Mr Rowley indicated that there may be an amendment from Labour on one-month reporting. That would be an entirely legitimate amendment, but I stress that, as I indicated, discussion is going on about a structure of reporting within Parliament. If a special committee is set up, reporting might be even more regular than that; I would not necessarily want to tie anybody’s hands on that matter. An effective protocol is in place to allow negotiations to take place quite quickly on secondary legislation for Brexit. I am sure that we can negotiate very quickly a protocol with Parliament that would allow a special committee to have a function in reporting.

In addition, I am about to start commissioning work on guidelines for reporting across the Government. That committee could feed into that, and that work could start almost instantly. I hope that, instead of amending the bill, we can take that forward as something that we need to do.

Under public safety, and Mr Kelly’s point about prisoner release, there will be robust criteria and assessment for release. Providing that power in the bill does not mean that it will happen. The regulations have to come into place and, clearly, those regulations are open to influencing. I know that the Cabinet Secretary for Justice will want to discuss those regulations. Certain categories of prisoner are already exempt in the bill.

On the issue that was raised by Liam Kerr, the first choice will be for people to go on home detention curfew. There would be no blanket release, but that would reduce the prison population in a way that would be effective. Again, the cabinet secretary is happy to discuss those matters.

Kenny Gibson and Pauline McNeill raised issues about the real hardship that people are experiencing. We are very aware of that. Every constituency MSP will be aware of the real hardship that exists: we are getting emails and being contacted about that not hourly, but almost minute by minute. That has been the situation for the past 10 days.

As Pauline McNeill indicated, there are people who fall between the gaps. That happens at every level, whether it is in relation to assistance for self-employed people, rent, or long-term debt. At present, we do not have all the answers to that. I stress that point, because it is quite unfair to criticise ministers or officials for not answering inquiries—sometimes the information is not there. Some of the support systems are being run by the United Kingdom Government and some by the Scottish Government, and it is difficult to keep up with some of it. We are doing our very best and will continue to do so.

The points that have been made about hardship need to be addressed and will be addressed. Mr Gibson made the point about the self-employed not receiving assistance until June and that is a very big issue. An equally big issue is those people who are already in debt and who will find themselves in further debt as a result of some of these actions. I know that my colleagues Fiona Hyslop and Kate Forbes are focused on the issues. We will continue to try to address them.

I want to make it clear, as did my colleague, that there is an open invitation for discussion on the issue of jury trials. The only thing that remains solidly on the table is the imperative to take action. That imperative is not an administrative issue—I will try to disagree reasonably gently with Adam Tomkins on that point—but is about the effect of the backlog on the accused and, most important, on the victims, who have a matter of great difficulty hanging over their heads for a long period of time. Victim Support Scotland wrote to every MSP to make that point. What is on the table is how we resolve that issue. If there are better ways to resolve it than those proposed by the Lord President, we would wish to see those ways. We have heard some ideas here today. The idea of taking over the cinemas of Scotland in order to hold trials in them, although slightly Kafkaesque, is probably something that we can consider very seriously. We need to get on and make a decision. That is why there is a commitment to bring a bill to Parliament on 21 April, along with draft regulations, so that we can get a solution in place.

Finally, as everybody here has reflected, we are engaged in highly unusual proceedings. Many people will be busily writing away and planning to lodge amendments. I will make two points. If the bill can be improved, let us improve it. That has been my position on every bill that I have introduced to the Scottish Parliament. For example, that was my position when we had the exceptional emergency legislation on the continuity bill, although the passing of that bill seems like a slow tortoise compared with what we are doing on this occasion. That approach was much criticised by Mr Tomkins, among others, so if we can improve it, we should. However, the best is the enemy of the good; our amendments need to focus on what we can do and what we need to do, otherwise we could sit here all night and into tomorrow and would still not have a better bill.

Angela Constance (Almond Valley) (SNP)

There has been much discussion this morning about our justice and legal systems—rightly so. Does the commitment to revise and revisit the bill apply to our very many vulnerable adults and elderly people who will be impacted by the considerable changes to the legislation on adults with incapacity?

Michael Russell

It does not. I mentioned the legislation on adults with incapacity briefly, but I am happy to discuss that in more detail with the member. The purpose of those changes is very clear and they are very time limited. It is focused almost entirely on ensuring that those who are in very difficult circumstances continue to get the support and help that they need and that that is not affected, for example, by a shortage of staff. It also reflects the needs of the health service. I would be happy to discuss the matter with Ms Constance, but I note that there is no equivalent taking place here.

If there are amendments that could improve the bill, we want to see them and we need to see them quickly. The bill team is in a committee room on this floor of the building and will be happy to discuss amendments, as am I. If anyone thinks that a probing amendment would give them an opportunity to consider something, I ask them to come and probe me first [Laughter.] I may probe back very vigorously. Let us focus on what we need to achieve in the bill.

I commend the general principles of the bill to the Parliament. I hope that at stage 2 we can focus on what is really important so that we can pass the bill. The bill will be passed: it is designed to be passed and it must be passed in order to save lives.

The Presiding Officer (Ken Macintosh)

That concludes our stage 1 debate on the Coronavirus (Scotland) Bill. Because this is emergency legislation, we move straight to the question on the motion. The question is, that motion S5M-21370, in the name of Michael Russell, on the Coronavirus (Scotland) Bill at stage 1, be agreed to.

Motion agreed to,

That the Parliament agrees to the general principles of the Coronavirus (Scotland) Bill.

The Convener (Ken Macintosh)

In dealing with the amendments, members should have the marshalled list and the groupings of amendments. I remind members that we will follow normal procedure, which is that the division bell will sound for the first division of the afternoon. Despite the social distancing measures that we have put in place in the chamber, there are enough consoles and desks for every member participating. We hope that each vote will last one minute for the first division after a debate and 30 seconds for divisions thereafter.

Sections 1 and 2 agreed to.

Schedule 1—Eviction from dwelling-houses

The Convener

The first group of amendments is on housing. Amendment 1, in the name of Pauline McNeill, is grouped with amendments 2 to 21, 49 to 51, 55 and 58. If amendment 17 is agreed to, I cannot call amendments 18 to 20, because they will have been pre-empted.

Pauline McNeill (Glasgow) (Lab)

A few weeks ago, after the ministerial statement, I indicated that, should there be larger problems in paying rent due to the coronavirus pandemic, I would want to discuss the notion of rent-free periods. After reflection, I decided not to lodge an amendment that was drafted for me. However, in the frenzied process for today’s proceedings, it has found its way into the marshalled list. I am moving amendment 1 in order that we can have a discussion on the group, but I intend to seek permission to withdraw the amendment. Instead, I will speak to wider points around amendment 48.

With regard to amendment 18, according to Shelter Scotland, many people are being asked to leave their temporary accommodation during the pandemic. Shelter gave me two cases: in Dundee, an 18-year-old was asked to leave their accommodation at short notice on the basis of an outstanding service charge but was subsequently accommodated by the Salvation Army; and another individual was asked to leave when a private hostel closed and was not refunded for the nights that they had already paid for. Amendment 18 could plug a gap in the legislation. We all agree that, during the pandemic, no one should be evicted from temporary accommodation without due process. The drafting might leave a lot to be desired, but I am looking for the minister’s assurances that people in temporary accommodation will not be treated differently or unfairly during the period of the Covid-19 pandemic.

I address Andy Wightman’s amendments in the group. I support the Government’s overall policy of no evictions during the pandemic crisis. It is important to raise awareness of that law, and I want it to be the strongest law that it can be. I was interested in the statements that Andy Wightman made at stage 1 and I am interested to hear in detail what he will say about the many amendments that he has lodged at stage 2. I raise with ministers my concern that the bill does not cover those who have been given notice for eviction; I would like the bill to cover them. If the bill does not cover them at stage 2, I would be interested to discuss with ministers whether anything could be done at stage 3.

I move amendment 1.

The Convener

I call Andy Wightman to speak to amendment 2 and the other amendments in the group. Amendment 19 pre-empts amendment 20, both in the name of Andy Wightman.

Andy Wightman (Lothian) (Green)

Presiding Officer, did you say that amendment 19 pre-empts amendment 20? The note on the grouping says that amendment 17 pre-empts amendments 18, 19 and 20. Thank you. Those are all amendments in my name and it is clearly a measure of the short time that we have had that I have lodged amendments that pre-empt each other—never mind.

I join the Presiding Officer in thanking the Parliament’s legislation team for its remarkable work over the past few hours. I also thank the cabinet secretary and his officials, who have engaged constructively and promptly in what I think is now known as the Mike Russell probing room, committee room 4.

The Greens welcome the provisions in the bill that relate to social and private tenants. I place on record our appreciation for the work that the Government has done in that area. It is a substantial interference in the normal working of the rented housing market, but it is a necessary and proportionate one. For the avoidance of doubt, we wholly support the measures in the bill.

I also want to thank staff at Shelter for their assistance with my amendments, which take the provisions that are in the bill a little further. The amendments are in line with my comments at stage 1 about our view that nobody should be served with a notice to quit during the emergency period.

Amendments 3 to 11 provide clarification of the grounds for eviction from private residential tenancies as they are considered by the First-tier Tribunal. When it is back up and running, the tribunal will deal with eviction orders made during the emergency period. Schedule 1 to the bill takes all the mandatory grounds for eviction from private rental tenancies that exist in the Private Housing (Tenancies) (Scotland) Act 2016 and makes them discretionary during the emergency period.

The bill as drafted—and this is new—also requires the tribunal to be

“satisfied that it is reasonable to issue an eviction order on account of those facts”.

Those facts are the ones that pertain to the circumstances of the landlord in relation to the specific eviction ground. That is how I read it; I had a brief discussion with Scottish Government officials about the issue and I am happy to be corrected if that is not the case.

In light of that belief, I have inserted amendments 3 to 11 to add the words:

“and, in particular, to any relevant facts relating to coronavirus”.

In the First-tier Tribunal, the facts that must be stated in order to obtain an eviction are facts that relate substantially to the landlord’s condition—in other words to whether the landlord really intends to sell the property. Those are the facts that must be established. There are very few facts that must be established on behalf of the tenant. During the emergency period, some landlords will be affected by the coronavirus, but the situation is most particularly faced by the tenant, who faces losing their home. The landlord does not face losing their home. I want it to be clear—and we may return to this at stage 3—that the First-tier Tribunal can, on new and universally discretionary grounds, take account of relevant facts relating to the coronavirus.

That is my first suite of amendments.

I indicated at stage 1 that I think that the bill should go further in two areas. First, instead of extending the notice period as the bill provides, we should, as I said earlier, suspend completely the ability to serve notices to quit. Many tenants are facing very difficult personal circumstances and will, as the bill stands, still be in receipt during the emergency period of notices to leave, although those notices will be for a longer than normal duration. It is of little comfort to someone in such circumstances to know that they are to be evicted, but not quite yet.

Amendment 16 gives effect to that policy. It is a blanket amendment. It removes all ability for landlords to initiate eviction proceedings. I am aware from our discussions this morning that the bill provides certain grounds for exemption from the extension to the notice period. Those grounds are antisocial behaviour and criminal conduct. Were amendment 16 to be agreed to, I would support any amendments at stage 3 that sought to fetter the blanket effect that amendment 16 currently would create.

Amendments 12, 15 and 17 would remove the parts of schedule 1 that would be redundant were amendment 16 to be agreed to. That deals with a second substantial issue.

16:45  

As I raised at stage 1, a third substantial issue relates to tenancies in which proceedings for eviction have commenced but have not been completed or in which proceedings have been concluded, with orders and decrees granted but not yet enforced. That latter group—those for whom orders and decrees have been granted but the landlord, for whatever reason, has not yet enforced them—are possibly the most vulnerable tenants, because they face imminent eviction.

As far as I can determine is competently possible in the short timeframe that is available, amendments 2, 13, 14, 19 and 20 try to ensure that, in such cases—whether they be Scottish secure tenancies, short Scottish secure tenancies, Scottish assured tenancies or private residential tenancies—legal proceedings can be suspended until after the conclusion of the emergency period. Again, if Parliament is minded to support those amendments, I would be happy to support amendments at stage 3 that would provide some exemptions.

On a separate note, amendment 21 makes modifications to the Housing (Scotland) Act 2001, so that a court, in considering the recovery of possession proceedings in relation to Scottish secure tenancies, takes account of any rent arrears that

“have arisen as a result of coronavirus”.

Currently, that is not the case, but amendment 21 would allow that to happen.

Amendment 50 is on quite a different matter; it relates to the requisition of accommodation. It is evident—no doubt all members will have received correspondence about this—that some accommodation provision needs to be made for homeless people and for key workers who cannot, or, indeed, should not, continue to live in their own home. That might be for public health reasons, because of transport difficulties—the person might live at some distance from their workplace in a hospital—or, indeed, because a family member is isolating or is vulnerable. For the person’s own mental welfare, they might also want to be closer to their place of work. I am aware that, here in Edinburgh, some owners are continuing to offer short-term lets for rent to key workers, in contravention of the Health Protection (Coronavirus) (Restrictions) (Scotland) Regulations 2020, which we will vote on later.

In my view, random Airbnbs—particularly those in shared stairs, many of which are unlawful because they do not have planning consent, are in contravention of title conditions and mortgage lending conditions, and do not have appropriate third-party liability insurance—are singularly ill suited to the job of housing the homeless or key workers. That job should be done in a co-ordinated manner, using accommodation such as hostels, hotels, serviced apartments and the like, where there is no interference with the lives of residents and where health risks can be managed. That is not communism, as Murdo Fraser intimated earlier on Twitter, but a proportionate response to an emergency.

Under the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987, local authorities already have powers to acquire property, and amendment 50 would put it beyond doubt and make it explicit that local authorities have the power to requisition accommodation in connection with the public health emergency that we face.

Amendment 51 is on a separate issue and is concerned with the unsuitable accommodation regulations. It seeks to ensure that everyone has a right not to be housed in unsuitable accommodation for more than one day during the emergency period.

I think that I have covered all my amendments. I apologise that I have not had time to properly consider Pauline McNeill’s amendments but, broadly, they look like they are able to be supported.

Ross Greer (West Scotland) (Green)

I will move amendment 49 as a result of the behaviour of private providers of student halls of residence in Scotland. Members will be aware that, under the terms of the 2016 act, the overwhelming majority of people who live in private rented sector accommodation and who do not live in student accommodation have the right to terminate their lease with 28 days’ notice. Many private rented sector tenants have used that right.

Those who live in student accommodation do not have that right; student accommodation is treated privately. Although every university that I am aware of and a number of private providers, such as Unite housing, have been very accommodating of their students during this time of crisis, some private providers have absolutely not been and have simply attempted to trap students in rooms that they are not using.

That is what spawned the not staying, not paying campaign that the National Union of Students, many members of the Scottish Youth Parliament and a number of student associations are running at the moment. There are students who are being forced to pay for rooms that they are not staying in because they have left—they have followed public health advice and are back staying with their families.

Amendment 49 gives students the right to terminate their lease and, should the amendment be agreed to, I will move a further amendment at stage 3 that will make it clear that the amendment will give students the same right to terminate their lease with 28 days’ notice that other private tenants have. That was the original intent of the amendment; the immediacy of the right that is currently proposed by the amendment is simply a consequence of the rushed process. The purpose is to give students in student accommodation the same rights as anyone else in the private rented sector.

I am aware that the Government has concerns about the proposal relating to the European convention on human rights. Briefly, the issue is about the balance of rights. Landlords have rights, but so do tenants, and they are vulnerable during a crisis—especially young tenants with little income. We are not talking about pensioners who use rental income like a pension, as Conservative colleagues mentioned this morning; we are talking about private companies that run student halls.

Two sections of the ECHR are relevant and I will briefly quote from them. One is article 8.2, which says:

“There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.”

This is clearly an issue of public safety and the protection of health as clarified under article 8. Article 2 of protocol 4 also includes relevant points about an individual’s

“liberty of movement and freedom to choose his residence.”

The amendment is simply about giving students those rights. If the Government believes that there are ECHR concerns, my question is about the other bold steps that it is taking to protect private rented sector tenants in other areas, which we welcome. The intention of the amendment is to give students, specifically those in student accommodation, the same rights as anyone else, including students, in the normal private rented sector, and that is why I will move amendment 49.

The Minister for Local Government, Housing and Planning (Kevin Stewart)

The Government has made it clear that no landlord should evict a tenant because they have suffered financial hardship because of the coronavirus. We expect landlords to be flexible with tenants during this financial hardship, and we expect that folk—whether they are in the private or the social rented sector—will be signposted to the financial support that is available. I have already written to all landlords in Scotland about that, and we will continue to communicate with them to ensure that we keep people as safe and secure as possible.

We have moved swiftly on to stage 2 today. I turn first to Pauline McNeill’s amendments. I understand that she intends to withdraw amendment 1 and I am grateful for that. It is unclear how her amendment 18, on evictions from hostels, would stop those evictions. There is a provision in the Housing (Scotland) Act 2001 that looks at minimum rights for hostel dwellers, and it is unclear what amendment 18 would add.

There is already provision for people who are asked to leave hostel accommodation, and that should be picked up by local authorities under their statutory duties to homeless people. I assure Ms McNeill that I have spent almost every waking minute of every day talking to folk about situations across the country. I would be interested in finding out about the two cases that she mentioned and what has been done to help those folk.

At the moment, we are, in the main, getting things right for people throughout the country, thanks to front-line staff from the Simon Community Scotland in Glasgow, Streetwork in Edinburgh and other third sector organisations across the country. I want to ensure that we get folk off the street, out of hostels and into the best temporary accommodation that we can find for them. If Ms McNeill will choose not to move amendment 18, I pledge here and now that we will have further discussions as we move forward about getting it right for everyone across the country.

Bob Doris (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)

I hope that this is the appropriate grouping in which to raise this particular concern, given the amendments that we are looking at.

I was approached today by a landlord in my constituency whose position is that a small number of tenants—I should point out that I believe that this will be an absolute rarity—who are not financially impacted by Covid-19 may not pay rent despite being perfectly able to do so. As I say, I am sure that that would be an absolute rarity.

Can the minister reinforce the point that those who can pay their rent should continue to do so?

Kevin Stewart

Those folk who can afford to pay their rent should continue to pay it during this time. Those who find themselves in difficulties should look to access the benefits system and the housing element of universal credit. We have already advised landlords in the social rented sector and in the private rented sector that they should be giving their tenants that information now and that tenants should approach their landlords immediately if they fall into difficulties. However, those who can afford to pay their rent should continue to pay it during this time.

Turning to Andy Wightman’s amendments, I will first deal with the amendments that seek to insert the phrase

“and, in particular to any relevant facts relating to coronavirus”.

Inserting that phrase would cause some redrafting difficulties. Beyond that, the tribunal itself will have to look at the reasonableness of all this, and I reassure Mr Wightman that it will have to look reasonably at the impact of coronavirus in making its decisions. I think that Mr Wightman talked to some legal officials earlier about the issue, and I reinforce the point that we will ensure that those reasonableness grounds include the impact of coronavirus.

Andy Wightman

I am grateful to the minister for that clarification. Can he confirm that, when the tribunal considers the reasonableness grounds, it will take into account both the interests of the landlord and the interests of the tenant in relation to the coronavirus situation and that it will pay particular attention to the interests of the tenant, because they face losing their home?

Kevin Stewart

I would expect the First-tier Tribunal on every occasion to look at what is reasonable not only for the landlord but for the tenant, particularly in the situation that we find ourselves in.

We have some disagreements with Mr Wightman around some of the grounds-for-eviction issues. We believe that there should still be an allowance for evictions in three months of folk who display antisocial behaviour and people who carry out criminal acts. That is extremely important, because some of the acts that might be taking place during this situation could be dangerous for other householders in the area. We need to handle this appropriately. The other area where we think that there should still be grounds for eviction is abandonment, but only if it is proven that the tenant has abandoned the property.

Mr Wightman has lodged a huge number of amendments on these issues, some of which—as he has already pointed out—are pre-empted. I think that it would also be fair to say that some of the amendments are a little bit confusing.

Pauline McNeill

I would like to press the minister on the specific situation of tenants having already been given notice of eviction, for whatever reason, and that notice being served during the coronavirus pandemic. Does the minister consider that the bill should cover that situation?

Kevin Stewart

The tribunal has not been sitting for some time, so I find it difficult to believe that anybody has been given a legal eviction notice during this time. Any landlord who serves an illegal eviction notice—one that has not gone through the tribunal—at this time will be committing a criminal act and could face a fine of £50,000 plus imprisonment. If any member finds any case like that, I would like to know about it as soon as possible. I cannot accept Mr Wightman’s amendments on these issues.

17:00  

Mr Wightman’s amendment 50 raises real ECHR issues, and I cannot accept it. The proposed new paragraph 7A(2) of schedule 7 says that the definition of

“‘holiday letting’ has the meaning given by Regulation 4(4)”,

which is a regulation that could change at any time, so there are also technical difficulties with the amendment.

I reassure Mr Wightman that I have spoken to many local authorities and others in the sector over the past few weeks. Many local authorities are already looking at utilising accommodation that was previously used for short-term lets as temporary accommodation for homeless people, and I encourage all local authorities to consider doing that. Beyond that, we have set up linkages between the Scottish Association of Landlords and some local authorities to ensure that we are utilising empty homes in the private rented sector to accommodate folk who find themselves homeless. I hope that we will do everything that we possibly can to get homeless people into mainstream temporary accommodation at this time.

We have made great efforts to move folk who have been rough sleeping off the streets and into hotel accommodation in Glasgow and Edinburgh, but I want to go further and get people into mainstream temporary accommodation. I thank everyone who is helping the Scottish Government to do that.

Andy Wightman

The purpose of amendment 50 is to ensure that, as a last resort, local authorities have the legal power to requisition property if they need to. The minister’s response has been to say that that is already happening, and I welcome that, of course. However, can he clarify whether, in extremis, if property is needed, local authorities will have that legal power?

Kevin Stewart

Local authorities have a lot of powers at their disposal, and they often do not use them. I would argue that, if we were to move to requisition, by the time we had looked at all the implications of that, including the ECHR issues, the pandemic would be well over. As it stands, local authorities can use their compulsory purchase power to take buildings into their use. That power is used very rarely, but it is now being used more because we have changed the guidance on it.

In this situation, we could move to something after we have ironed out all the possible difficulties, but it probably could not come into play for a very long time. I would much rather reach a mutual agreement to use empty properties right across the country during the current situation. It is in everybody’s interests that we do so. Local authorities need to carry out their duties to house homeless people properly, and it is in the interests of landlords—whether they be short-term letters or in the private rented sector—that their properties are used. I would argue that it would be very difficult for some of them to attract tenants by other means during the period of lockdown and beyond. I would much rather that mutual consent was reached on these issues, and I am sure that we can achieve it.

I turn to Mr Greer’s amendment 49, which is very complex and would convert all institutionally provided student accommodation into private residential tenancies. That would have huge ramifications for students and landlords. For example, if students did not wish to terminate, their tenancy type would suddenly change dramatically.

The legal issues with the amendment need much further consideration. We cannot say today that the amendment is compatible with the ECHR. It would treat students differently—

Ross Greer

Will the minister give way?

Kevin Stewart

I will take Mr Greer’s intervention, if he will just let me finish this point first.

It would treat students differently from other categories of tenant, and there has been no examination of the balance between the landlord’s and the tenant’s rights. For that reason alone, I urge members not to risk this important bill by agreeing to amendment 49.

Ross Greer

I am interested in the minister’s point about our not being able to say for certain in relation to the ECHR. The reality is that we cannot say for certain about any of the provisions in relation to the ECHR. Through the bill, the Government is making a number of bold provisions that will affect the balance of rights between landlords and tenants in other areas. If a private student hall provider believed that its rights had been undermined by the amendment, it would be able to make a legal challenge and seek redress if it wished to.

The amendment would affect the bill overall only if the Advocate General decided, between now and royal assent, that it was an issue and therefore paused the whole bill. That is not going to happen with a piece of emergency legislation such as this. If private accommodation providers wanted to seek legal redress, they would have the same right to do so as anyone else.

Kevin Stewart

In relation to the other provisions that we have put forward, we have looked at that balance and have justified the moves that we are making. We have to be absolutely certain that we get the bill right. There will be an acceleration to royal assent, and we cannot risk any difficulties at all in ensuring that the bill gains royal assent. I therefore have real concerns about the legal aspects of amendment 49.

Daniel Johnson (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)

I recognise the difficulty that the minister faces and the need to ensure that the bill gains royal assent. However, this is a very significant issue, with students left with accommodation that they frankly do not need any more, because the universities are no longer providing education. That is a real issue in my constituency. Does the minister recognise that issue, and will he commit to looking for proposals that might remedy the situation?

Kevin Stewart

I recognise the difficulties that some of Daniel Johnson’s constituents face, because they are difficulties that some of my constituents face as well. We can look at the issue in the next emergency bill, but we must get this bill absolutely right. If this bill does not gain royal assent, that will create real difficulties not only for me, as a minister, for the Government and for this Parliament, but for people right across this country, in terms of keeping people safe and secure.

We can and will look at the issue in the second emergency bill. However, I ask Parliament to reject amendment 49. As I said, we recognise beyond doubt that there appears to be an issue in respect of some providers of student accommodation in their consideration of letting students leave their accommodation or tenancy early. However, we are also aware that a number of providers are changing their policies and are agreeing to students being released from their agreements early.

The Minister for Further Education, Higher Education and Science has written to all university and college principals—and this has been copied to the networks involving student accommodation providers—asking that all institutions look sympathetically at any need for students to extend their stay beyond the existing arrangements. He has also asked that that be extended to those who have returned to the family home and who are having to ask to break agreements, and that institutions continue to be as helpful as possible to avoid disadvantaging those students. We are already working with accommodation providers to see how we can all work together to support students who are still in student accommodation.

Neil Findlay (Lothian) (Lab)

The minister mentioned a second bill. Could he elaborate on that? It might just be me, but I have not heard of that.

Kevin Stewart

I did not hear what Mr Findlay said.

Neil Findlay

The minister mentioned that a second bill might be forthcoming. Could he elaborate on that?

Kevin Stewart

Mr Russell will deal with all that in his summing up.

I ask members to reject amendment 49.

I am well aware that I am asking Parliament to reject all the non-Government amendments in this group—sorry, I have missed one. I beg your pardon, Convener. This is what happens in situations where we are dealing with things at the tail end.

Mr Wightman’s amendment 51—I apologise for not mentioning it—is on unsuitable accommodation. The amendment causes some difficulties, but I see exactly where Mr Wightman is coming from on it. I am willing to work with members to see what we can do to improve the Homeless Persons (Unsuitable Accommodation) (Scotland) Order 2014. I ask for patience and that we get the time to look at the proposal for the future—[Interruption.]

The Convener

Address the chamber through the microphone, please.

Kevin Stewart

Sorry. As I said, we will look at that suggestion for the future bill.

I am aware that we are asking Parliament to reject all the non-Government amendments in this group. However, I am more than willing to continue to talk to members about some of the issues that they have brought to the Government’s attention. I assure Parliament that I am doing all that I can to talk to stakeholders on a very regular basis so that we get things right, and I am more than happy to pinch suggestions that come from anyone in any part of this chamber, in order to get all of this right for the people out there, who we must keep as safe and secure as possible.

Graham Simpson (Central Scotland) (Con)

The minister finished by saying that he is prepared to work with other parties and take on board good ideas. We have already been putting forward good ideas, through my good friend Murdo Fraser, and we are well aware of the legislation that will follow, after the recess. Some of those ideas, relating to holiday accommodation, might well appear in that legislation. For me, that is the way to do business in this Parliament. The way not to do business is to fly kites and launch mini-campaigns at stage 2 of an emergency bill. The number of amendments of that nature in this group is frankly absurd. They deal with very detailed, technical issues that require proper scrutiny. To throw them in at this point is absolutely ridiculous.

Andy Wightman

The member says that the amendments in this group are “absurd”. He knows as well as I do what parliamentary process is, and the timescales within which we are working on this bill. He is also aware that there is a policy issue about whether the Government’s proposals in the bill are adequate. We take the view that they need to go further, and that is an honest difference of view with the Government. I have made it very clear that we whole-heartedly agree with what is in the bill and that we will be supporting it, but we believe that it needs to go further.

I ask the member to justify his remarks that these amendments, which have taken a considerable bit of work, are, in his words, “absurd”.

Graham Simpson

I will be coming on to one of Mr Wightman’s most absurd amendments in a second.

I am surprised that the wee nats have not talked to the big nats more on this—[Interruption.]—in the way that Mr Fraser has been doing.

17:15  

The Convener

Mr Simpson is normally a very polite member. I urge him to stick to that and not to use even jokey terms across the chamber.

Graham Simpson

I apologise, Convener. It is a joke that I have used before, when I got away with it.

We will oppose most of the amendments in group 1—in fact, we will oppose all of them, bar amendments 55 and 58, in the name of Mr Russell, which Mr Stewart spoke about.

I turn to a few of the amendments that deserve comment—[Interruption.] Indeed, they deserve minimal comment. Let us look at Mr Wightman’s amendment 50, shall we? That is a good one. It was described as a dose of communism by Mr Fraser on Twitter, and that is absolutely what it is. In effect, it would give councils the power to grab or requisition holiday accommodation, should they feel the need to have it. I go back to what I said at the start—someone who wants to introduce such an idea should surely go out to consultation on it. Amendment 50 is a step too far; what it proposes is absolutely absurd.

As for Mr Greer’s amendment on student accommodation, I agree with the minister. There are human rights issues with what it proposes. At the very least, Mr Greer should have spoken to other parties for a number of days, if not weeks, about the introduction of such a measure.

As I said, we will oppose pretty much all the amendments in this group. I go back to what I said in the stage 1 debate earlier today, which is a long time ago now: the Coronavirus (Scotland) Bill is an emergency bill to deal with the coronavirus crisis that we are facing right now. That is what it is about. In the speech that I made this morning—[Interruption.] No, I will not take an intervention.

I made the point that we have people who are ill and who are stuck at home because of that. We also have people who have lost their jobs and people who will go on to lose their jobs. That is what the bill deals with. That is why we will, I hope, introduce measures to prevent evictions in certain cases. However, we should not introduce measures to prevent evictions in all cases, because that would be entirely wrong; if we did that, we would be going too far.

What we propose to do will leave some landlords in the position of not getting any income on properties for more than a year. By discussing the situation with the Government, we have got an agreement to introduce a fund that would help landlords in those cases, many of whom do not have big property portfolios. [Interruption.] I can hear Mr Findlay muttering at the back, as he usually does. Most of the landlords in Scotland—95 per cent of them—have between one and five properties; they are not wealthy people. Often, they are pensioners who rely on the rental income to pay their way. Given that we have agreement to have that fund put in place, I think that the measures that are in the bill are sensible, proportionate and should be supported.

The Convener

I invite Pauline McNeill to wind up and to indicate whether she intends to press or withdraw amendment 1.

Pauline McNeill

I seek to withdraw amendment 1, and I will not move amendment 18.

Unlike Mr Simpson, Labour members applaud the efforts of Andy Wightman to consider matters of technical detail in scrutinising the bill; that is welcome. I say that notwithstanding the support that we think should be given to landlords, which I mentioned earlier. The magnitude of the disruption that vulnerable tenants have already experienced is considerable, and that is before we consider what might lie ahead.

I think that it is unfortunate to reduce this issue to something as trivial as a suggestion that any member would come to the chamber and not scrutinise the proposal. Even if the minister disagrees with the proposal, I would like to think that he would get to his feet and support the idea that we should scrutinise it.

We do not think that the Government has gone far enough—we have said that. However, I also want to make this clear: we supported the Government this morning, and we will support the Government again. Whenever we can find consensus, we will be there with the Government, but we demand the right to challenge the Government on the areas in which we think that tenants will be vulnerable.

Kevin Stewart

Will the member take an intervention?

Pauline McNeill

I will let the minister in in a minute, and I would like him to address my next point. I am dealing with a case in which notice was given a week ago to a couple on the ground that the owner wants to move their family into the property. Now, we can take a view about that, but the point is that that couple will be evicted, because the bill does not cover them. That concerns me deeply. It is not a comfort to my constituents that the First-tier Tribunal is not sitting, because they will feel that they are breaking the law, because the notice has been served.

Kevin Stewart

I want to work across Parliament in order to ensure that we get what we are doing absolutely right. I have absolutely no problem with scrutiny taking place on all of that.

There are differing views around certain aspects of the issue that we are discussing. However, there is one clear message in all of this: we all have to do our bit to protect people as much as we possibly can during this situation. There will be folks who, throughout this, will act in an absolutely magnificent way and will rise to the challenges and be as good as they possibly can be. However, there will also be folks who do not behave appropriately during the course of the situation. I point out again the criminal penalties for illegal eviction, which can involve a £50,000 fine and, possibly, some time in jail. We should all be pointing that out to those folks who might choose to flout the rules.

Pauline McNeill

Indeed.

In conclusion, we can only guess what situation people will be in, but that is what we are legislating for. That has to be borne in mind, but we know that there will be direct consequences for tenants. I whole-heartedly welcome the minister’s assurances about those in temporary accommodation, so I will not press amendment 18.

Finally, I say that Andy Wightman makes an important point in relation to the directions that will be given to property tribunals when the notice period is lifted and people are brought before the tribunals for non-payment of rent or whatever. What the minister has put on record is helpful. It must be clear that, when a property tribunal is applying the test of reasonableness, it must consider the case in the context of the coronavirus pandemic and bear in mind that that is directly relevant to the loss of a job or other circumstances that have caused someone to be in arrears.

Amendment 1, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendment 2 moved—[Andy Wightman].

The Convener

The question is, that amendment 2 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Convener

There will be a division. As this is the first vote of the afternoon, I will ring the division bell to summon members to the chamber, and we will have a five-minute suspension.

17:24 Meeting suspended.  

17:29 On resuming—  

The Convener

We will move straight to the division.

For

Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)

Against

Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lindhurst, Gordon (Lothian) (Con)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)

The Convener

The result of the division is: For 24, Against 57, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 2 disagreed to.

Amendments 3 to 11 not moved.

Amendment 12 moved—[Andy Wightman].

The Convener

The question is, that amendment 12 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Convener

There will be a division.

For

Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)

Against

Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lindhurst, Gordon (Lothian) (Con)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)

The Convener

The result of the division is: For 24, Against 57, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 12 disagreed to.

Amendments 13 to 15 not moved.

Amendment 16 moved—[Andy Wightman].

The Convener

The question is, that amendment 16 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Convener

There will be a division.

For

Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)

Against

Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lindhurst, Gordon (Lothian) (Con)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)

The Convener

The result of the division is: For 24, Against 57, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 16 disagreed to.

Amendments 17 to 21 not moved.

Schedule 1 agreed to.

Section 3 agreed to.

Schedule 2 agreed to.

Section 4 agreed to.

Schedule 3 agreed to.

Section 5 agreed to.

Schedule 4—Justice

The Convener

Amendment 22, in the name of Stewart Stevenson, is grouped with amendments 23 to 27. If amendment 25 is agreed to, amendment 26 is pre-empted and will not be called. Stuart McMillan will speak to and move the amendment in Stewart Stevenson’s name.

Stuart McMillan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)

As Stewart Stevenson cannot be here, he asked me to move amendment 22, which is a probing amendment, on his behalf. Can the cabinet secretary confirm that, notwithstanding the reference to the general expression of willingness to receive a document being expressed on a website as giving permission to a sender, any printed notice such as a letterhead, or the giving of an email address, can also give such permission?

I move amendment 22.

The Cabinet Secretary for Justice (Humza Yousaf)

As this is a probing amendment, I am happy to confirm that. However, I urge members to reject amendment 22 if it is pressed. I am sure that it will not be.

The Convener

I call Monica Lennon to speak to amendment 23 and to other amendments in the group.

Monica Lennon (Central Scotland) (Lab)

Amendment 23 would add the Mental Health Tribunal for Scotland to the definition of “tribunal” in schedule 4 to the bill. The reason for doing so is that the Mental Health Tribunal for Scotland has not been transferred into the First-tier Tribunal for Scotland, therefore it is not included in the interpretation provisions of schedule 4. That omission needs to be rectified. Amendment 23 is necessary and I thank the Law Society of Scotland for its assistance.

The Convener

I call Humza Yousaf to speak to amendment 24 and the other amendments in the group.

Humza Yousaf

Do you mean amendment 23, Convener?

The Convener

I ask you to speak to Government amendment 24, cabinet secretary, and to the other amendments in the group.

Humza Yousaf

Forgive me; I thought that we were talking about mental health tribunals.

With regard to amendment 24, as the Lord President said in his written statement earlier this week, an area that is as significant as trial by jury is a matter for the Parliament, and the Parliament has been clear that there is a need for further dialogue on the matter. I understand the concerns that have been raised, but I hope that it is accepted that the temporary measure was being proposed only to ensure that our criminal justice system could continue to operate effectively during these incredibly challenging times. I will now begin a period of intensive and wide-ranging discussions with the judiciary, the legal profession, victims organisations and political parties to find practical and achievable solutions to the impasse. I do not think that there will be any easy answers, as was mentioned during the stage 1 debate, but I will take forward the consultations with an open mind and in good faith.

The delay to cases that we may well see will be intolerable, so I hope that we can find a resolution to the matter. I look forward to the Parliament agreeing to amendment 24.

Daniel Johnson

I, too, thank the Law Society of Scotland, which has done an extraordinary amount of work in a very short space of time and has provided us with a huge amount of detail on the bill. My amendments address at least one of the points that the Law Society raised on the extension of exemptions to hearsay evidence that is provided in court. We have just heard from the cabinet secretary about the issues that were raised about jury trials. Although those were the subject of much discussion during the stage 1 debate, of equal concern are the provisions to extend the admissibility of hearsay evidence in trials.

Our system of justice relies on several principles, one of which is trial by a jury of one’s peers; another is that evidence can be robustly tested in court, which is done by way of cross-examination. Although it is true that hearsay evidence is admitted in the case of the exemptions that are set out in the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995, those exceptions are just that—exceptional. The bill that we are looking at would make exemptions very much the norm, because people are not able to attend court and therefore are not able to be cross-examined. That is the reason for my amendment 25; however, there is a drafting error in it and I will not move it. Nonetheless, the issue needs to be considered very carefully, particularly because we will have the opportunity to consider a further emergency bill when we return from recess.

Another issue that needs to be examined is the early release of prisoners on remand. The bill gives ministers significant powers to provide for the early release of prisoners, which is sensible and prudent. It is important that we manage the prison population for two critical reasons: first, the capacity of the criminal justice system and, secondly, because prisons are, understandably, a cause for concern as centres for transmission of the virus. Remand prisoners constitute 20 per cent of our prison population and account for 50 per cent of daily prisoner movements, as they go into and come out of prisons. Understandably, that is a significant concern but, as it stands, the bill does not give ministers the powers to provide for the early release of prisoners on remand. My amendment 27 seeks to deal with that, but I recognise that it is a complex matter. Amendment 27 is very much a probing amendment that I am keen to discuss, and I will continue to raise the issue as the situation continues.

Alex Cole-Hamilton (Edinburgh Western) (LD)

Before I speak to my amendment 26, I want to say a few words about amendment 24, and to express my gratitude to the Government for moving so far on the matter.

The changes that the UK Government made through its bill last week, for which we passed a legislative consent motion, were the first of many difficult adaptations that we will have to make to our society in our response to the crisis. As a Liberal Democrat, it is very hard for me to accept that we must, for the time being, surrender certain aspects of our freedom and liberties for the safety and protection of the most vulnerable people in our society, but I have made my peace with the measures that have been introduced so far. We, in my party, could not have supported the introduction of the new powers in part 5 of schedule 4, on the ability of ministers to remove, for the duration of the emergency, juries from trials of indictment, so I whole-heartedly welcome the Government’s amendment 24.

As we heard this morning, Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service in England is pausing all trials until such time as it can find measures with which to safely operate juries. We should rise to the challenge and emulate that action. Indeed, if we were to pass the proposal, we would have been the only democracy in the whole world that would, in just the second week of lockdown, have ended a tradition that has, in Scotland, lasted 800 years. It would have been a very sad day.

The meat of the argument is around the balance of rights. As a Liberal Democrat, I see the opportunity to be tried before a jury of peers almost as a human right. We must also observe the right of defendants not to languish on remand as they wait for us to find a solution; that is justiciable under the terms of the ECHR. We do not suggest that those two rights are mutually exclusive, and we do not suggest delaying such trials in perpetuity. The bill gives latitude to extend the time bar. Let us do that for as long as we need, but only for as long as we need.

The Lord Chief Justice in England is looking for solutions; I mentioned some to the cabinet secretary in my speech this morning. I was deadly serious about use of places where the public gather, such as cinemas and theatres, which have much more space than traditional courtrooms have, and could easily be repurposed with the audiovisual technology that would be needed.

Proponents outside Parliament of paragraph 11 of schedule 4 point to the tremendous backlog of cases that they imagine might build up if we pause the system. I say again that we need to pause the system only for as long as it takes us to find a solution that would allow juries to sit safely. In any case, it is also true that, during this period of lockdown, there could, because of the absence of people on our streets, be a dramatic reduction in the number of solemn arrests that are made. The reduction of upstream workload could give ample space for courts to clear any backlog that might arise.

I am very grateful to the Government for heeding my concerns and the concerns of the other parties, the Scottish Criminal Bar Association, the Law Society of Scotland, and solicitors throughout the country, and for lodging amendment 24. I am very glad to see that, and it is very welcome. It recognises that Scotland has, in only our second week of lockdown, no cause to be the only country in the free world to dispense with a tradition of justice that has endured unbroken here for 800 years.

I absolutely support Daniel Johnson’s amendments. I understand that he does not intend to press them, but we will support any moves that he makes to attempt to take the matter forward in later legislation.

We politicians do not like to be asked hard questions, but every member knows the power of asking questions. By asking questions, we can probe what is being said, draw out areas of agreement, and highlight inconsistency. The same is true in a criminal trial. A witness who gives evidence in a witness box or in a court by videolink from a remote site can be asked questions and have their evidence proved, and any inconsistencies can be addressed. They can be cross-examined by the defence.

However, sometimes witnesses cannot be in court; for example, the witness might have died since giving a statement to the police. The law now recognises that the evidence of witnesses who are abroad, who cannot be traced, or who are unwell might be available only if their statements are read to the jury. That is not ideal, but it is a necessary compromise. We find the law in section 259 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995.

However, it is important to realise that, following a decision of the High Court of Justiciary in 2003, in the case of N v HMA, the trial judge has no discretion. If a witness statement meets the criteria of that section, the judge must admit the evidence of the witness by statement. The then Lord Justice General, Lord Gill, was clear that the judge cannot choose whether to allow the statement into evidence: if the test in the section is met, the statement is used.

Our concern is that the proposal in the Government’s bill would result in statements being used instead of oral evidence, for any witness for whom

“it is not reasonably practicable, because of a reason relating to coronavirus, for the person who made the statement to attend the trial or to give evidence in any other competent manner.”

What does that even mean? Who fulfils that condition?

17:45  

Paragraph 257 of the policy memorandum explains that that provision is designed to make sure that witnesses who are

“unable to attend court to give evidence in person”,

or who are unable to give evidence because they are self-isolating and do not have access to the equipment that is required to give evidence via videolink, or lack the technical skills to operate that equipment, can have their statement admitted in evidence. That sounds very sensible, but it is not what the Government proposes. What about a witness who is not at high or higher risk, and who would still, if they had an essential job, be working? Why could they not go to court to give evidence, or to a remote site to give evidence by videolink?

Giving evidence is important. A prosecutor would not use evidence if it were not essential. We understand that there will have to be a role for the good sense of the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service in this, but we cannot support a proposal that would make the test so wide that almost any witness could claim to fall within the criteria.

The Scottish Criminal Bar Association cannot support the proposed provision, and it has said:

“We urge that care is taken if the rule against hearsay evidence is to be varied as proposed, in that thought is given to how such an important step is taken securely and robustly. It cannot rely on the whim of the witness. Experience suggests that if it does, advantage will be taken of it.”

I am coming to the end, Presiding Officer. If that condition is as loose as the Government proposes, a court will have to admit evidence from a witness who says that they do not have the technology to give evidence from home, and do not want to leave home, even if they are not at high or higher risk from the virus.

Amendment 26 is designed to tighten the criteria and to focus the test on whether there is a particular risk to the wellbeing of witnesses and others from their coming to court or going to a remote site, and on whether a court officer could deliver a laptop with a video camera to a witness’s home so that they could give evidence from there.

Under the new protective criteria in proposed new paragraph (2A), judges would still have no discretion on whether to admit statements, but they would have to decide whether there was a particular risk to the wellbeing of a witness that was attributable to the coronavirus.

The intention of amendment 26 is that judges will decide whether there is a particular risk to the wellbeing of the witness from coronavirus transmission, and whether that risk outweighs the undoubted benefit to the interests of justice and of a fair trial of having the witness examined under oath in the usual manner.

Liam Kerr (North East Scotland) (Con)

I will not speak for long. Initially we were inclined toward Monica Lennon’s amendment 23, because I, too, read the Law Society of Scotland’s note and attach weight to it. However, I believe that the president of the Mental Health Tribunal for Scotland might say that it is unnecessary. I will take an intervention from the cabinet secretary if he is able to give me more detail on that.

Humza Yousaf

Of course, I should also have responded on other amendments, which I hope to be able to do later.

We received quite strong representations from the president of the Mental Health Tribunal for Scotland. The president said that the tribunal already has powers to deal with matters by electronic means, that it does not need the benefit of the bill’s provisions on that subject, and that including them is likely only to confuse matters. Also, of course, we want to avoid unnecessary duplication in legislation. The Mental Health Tribunal for Scotland already has the powers, so there is no need to duplicate them in the new legislation.

Liam Kerr

I am grateful to the cabinet secretary for that helpful clarification.

As I stated this morning, I welcome amendment 24, which is in the name of the Cabinet Secretary for the Constitution, Europe and External Affairs. I am glad that the Government has responded to the considerable pressure on the matter. We understand the concern that it sought to address, but as we heard this morning, the Government’s proposal is not necessary and there are other ways to address that concern. I very much look forward to positive engagement in the near future on the matter.

Daniel Johnson’s amendment 25 is interesting, and I am glad that he lodged it so that the matter could be aired. Although we are sympathetic to the points that he has raised, we would have difficulty with the amendment, so I am pleased that he will not press it.

Finally, having listened to the debate, I am inclined to support Alex Cole-Hamilton’s amendment 26.

Humza Yousaf

I will speak briefly on the amendments that I have not yet touched on. On Daniel Johnson’s amendment 25, I understand where he is coming from and the concerns that he legitimately raises. However, the coronavirus outbreak is likely to mean that some witnesses will be unable to attend court to give evidence in person or, in fact, to give evidence in any other manner, so the new measure is intended to reduce the impact of the coronavirus on court business by allowing statements to be used in evidence in appropriate cases, where there are no other alternatives. That is the important element.

Notwithstanding that, we recognise that a number of concerns have been raised on the issue, in particular by the Law Society of Scotland. I invite Daniel Johnson not to move amendment 25, but I am happy to support Alex Cole-Hamilton’s amendment 26, for the reasons that he outlined.

On Daniel Johnson’s amendment 27, I recognise his long-standing interest in reducing our prison population—in particular, in reducing the number who are in prison on remand. He and I agree that we have too many remand prisoners in Scotland.

However, prisoners on remand are different from other prisoners who are in our care, because remand prisoners are there as a result of a court-mandated decision on bail. It would not be right to go above the courts in that regard. The judiciary has a long-standing and established role in determining whether a person who is accused of a criminal offence should be bailed or remanded.

There would be operational issues if amendment 27 were to be agreed to. For example, on what basis would remand prisoners be released? Would it be conditional or unconditional release? Who would set the conditions?

To give Daniel Johnson some reassurance, I point out that there is already a mechanism for remand prisoners to have refusal of bail reviewed when their circumstances have changed. I do not want to prejudge the issue, but the courts might well view the coronavirus outbreak as a material change in circumstances. Indeed, the courts have confirmed that they will continue to give priority to bail reviews and appeals. I look forward to continuing to work with Daniel Johnson to seek to reduce the prison population—especially the number of prisoners who are on remand. However, I suggest that amendment 27 is not the way to do that, so I hope that Mr Johnson will not move it.

Amendment 22, by agreement, withdrawn.

The Convener

I call amendment 23, in the name of Monica Lennon.

Monica Lennon

Because new information has come from the president of the Mental Health Tribunal for Scotland, I am happy not to move amendment 23.

Amendment 23 not moved.

Amendment 24 moved—[Humza Yousaf]—and agreed to.

Amendment 25 not moved.

Amendment 26 moved—[Alex Cole-Hamilton]—and agreed to.

Amendment 27 not moved.

Schedule 4, as amended, agreed to.

Section 6 agreed to.

Schedule 5 agreed to.

Section 7 agreed to.

Schedule 6—Functioning of public bodies

The Convener

The next group is on the functioning of public bodies, particularly in relation to freedom of information. Amendment 28, in the name of Neil Findlay, is grouped with amendments 29 to 47, 56 and 57. As a result of pre-emption, if amendment 29 is agreed to, I cannot call amendments 30 to 46; if amendment 36 is agreed to, I cannot call amendments 37 to 39; and if amendment 42 is agreed to, I cannot call amendments 43 to 45. I will outline those pre-emptions again when we come to the vote on each amendment.

Neil Findlay

I see that the Cabinet Secretary for the Constitution, Europe and External Affairs has left the chamber, so perhaps one of the other ministers who is on the front bench can answer a question for me. Earlier, I asked about another bill coming forward. Can the Cabinet Secretary for Justice tell us whether that will be only a justice bill or whether it will cover other elements? It would be helpful to know that before we proceed.

Humza Yousaf

The initial offer of another bill was to deal with the issue relating to solemn proceedings, but the Cabinet Secretary for the Constitution, Europe and External Affairs has given an indication that, depending on what is discussed here, and if members raise other issues, we will be open minded to widening the scope of that bill.

Neil Findlay

That is a helpful clarification.

At this time of crisis, huge decisions are being made by Governments, public bodies and agencies across the world. The decisions that are made by our Government and public bodies will affect people’s jobs, businesses, homes and families. They will reverberate for years to come, and they will impact on every citizen in our country. Some are literally life-and-death decisions.

It is the role of members of this Parliament, councillors, the media and the public to hold the Government and other public bodies to account. We cannot abandon key elements of scrutiny and transparency at this critical time. Indeed, the First Minister herself said that transparency is vital and that she is committed to it, which is welcome. Greater transparency gives the public more confidence in what is being done in their name.

It was therefore surprising and disappointing to see what came out from the Government yesterday. It was in the interests of openness, transparency and accountability that I lodged the amendments in my name in this group, on behalf of the Labour Party.

Amendment 28 would change the blanket approach of the bill so that the bill would cover the sectors that are under the greatest pressure. It would limit the provisions of the bill to health boards, care providers and integration joint boards, leaving existing legislation to apply to other bodies. I omitted local government from amendment 28, and I will seek to remedy that at stage 3.

Amendment 29 is the key amendment in the group, and it would delete part 2 of schedule 6, on freedom of information. It appears that no other jurisdiction in the western world—including the UK Government, with its large parliamentary majority—has sought to use emergency coronavirus legislation to curtail access to information as this bill attempts to do. Scotland stands alone in taking such restrictive action, and the Scottish Government has not justified the necessity and urgency of such an approach.

An alternative approach, which is more considered and balanced, is essential and would be in line with our commitments on human rights and open government. I ask the cabinet secretary whether he will engage with the Scottish Information Commissioner and follow the New Zealand chief ombudsman’s approach, which is altogether more pragmatic and sensible in that it puts a responsibility to act reasonably on the applicant and the body that is subject to the FOI request. In New Zealand, the chief ombudsman has made it clear that the responding body will not be penalised for going over time if that is justified in the circumstances. I suggest that that non-legislative approach is a much more constructive route, which we should follow.

There is an added incentive for members to support amendment 29: if they do so, another 16 amendments will be pre-empted, which will save us a lot of time. [Laughter.]

Amendment 30 refers to the restricted list of the most pressured public bodies, which I mentioned.

Amendments 31 to 35 and 37 to 39 would change the number of days in which bodies must respond to FOI requests.

Amendment 47 would make provision for additional finance to be provided to the Scottish Information Commissioner should that be required, so that the public can be provided with information about their rights.

Amendments 56 and 57 would restrict the duration of the proposed changes to the period up to 30 June 2020. Any restriction on the FOI process should be a temporary and clearly time-limited measure, so that the public can hold the Government and public bodies to account. Restrictions should not be kept on the statute book for a day longer than they have to be there.

The freedom of information system was hard won. It is a key part of our democracy and a key element of the openness and transparency of our society. It is there to inform. As I said, no other western democracy is seeking to restrict its FOI system, even in these difficult times. It is essential and in the interests of good decision making and good governance that we maintain our system.

I move amendment 28.

Ross Greer

I lodged amendment 36 and other amendments in the group because, although I understand the immense pressure that some public bodies are under during this crisis, we need to strike a balance between the effective use of reduced resources and the need for transparency as a way to maintain faith in public institutions during a time of crisis. I have lodged amendments that, as a whole, strike a reasonable balance in that regard.

I have a question for the Government about schedule 6 as a whole, and paragraph 7 specifically, which a minister might address either through an intervention or during their own speech on the group of amendments. Paragraph 7 of schedule 6 gives the Scottish Information Commissioner a broad remit to take the virus and its impact into account when considering the responses of public bodies to FOI requests. My question is sincere: why is that provision alone not sufficient to provide flexibility to public bodies in relation to their response times?

18:00  

My amendments would remove the extension of the review period from 20 to 60 days and would remove the additional 40-day discretionary extension for both the initial request and the review, which would reduce the total maximum period in which an FOI request could be responded to from 200 working days to 80 working days. A period of 80 days is still quite long—it is double the current 40 days allowed between the initial request and conclusion. As someone who uses FOI extensively to hold the Government to account and for whom the review process is a norm when dealing with obstructive public bodies, I do not relish that extension, but I recognise the strain that some public bodies are under.

On the point that some public bodies are more directly affected, amendment 40 would provide that the provision would apply only to the public bodies that are the most pressed by the crisis. Amendment 28, lodged by Neil Findlay, has similar intentions. The Greens believe that being prescriptive through primary legislation now is not the best option.

Neil Findlay

Does the member accept that the approach that is being taken in New Zealand is much more pragmatic and that a non-legislative response is one that we could all work with and live with if it were applied here?

Ross Greer

I was reading up on the approach in New Zealand this morning. I do not understand the freedom of information law in New Zealand that underpins the statement by the ombudsman. It is because of what the ombudsman said today that I pose my question to the Government. Paragraph 7 of schedule 6 would give the Information Commissioner a broad, flexible remit during this crisis, which begs the question why the rest of the provisions in that part are necessary at all.

A huge number of public bodies can be subject to FOI requests, and I would not want to accidentally omit public bodies that should be included because they are subject to pressure simply because we do not realise that today. That is why we propose the approach of giving the Government dispensation to put the measures together using a Scottish statutory instrument—with appropriate consultation of the Parliament to ensure that the SSI is approved.

If amendment 42 is rejected and paragraph 6 is to remain, we would be content to support amendments 43 to 46, in the name of the minister, to clarify that paragraph. Paragraph 6 is essentially redundant without paragraph 5. I urge members to vote to remove both of them.

We will certainly support Mr Findlay’s amendment 47, to ensure that the Information Commissioner’s office is sufficiently resourced, given the additional responsibility that it will have during this period. That will be critical, and I am grateful to Mr Findlay for having lodged the amendment.

Going back to the extension to appeal times, I hope that Parliament will support my amendments 36, 41 and 42, removing that extension for the reasons that I have already outlined and giving particular consideration to what I have said about the powers that are given to the Information Commissioner in paragraph 7, which make the sweeping extension unnecessary. If amendment 36 were to be accepted, it would pre-empt amendments 37 to 39, in the name of Mr Findlay; if amendment 36 were to fall, we would support those amendments in Mr Findlay’s name.

The Minister for Europe and International Development (Jenny Gilruth)

The Government recognises that transparency is of paramount importance in the current circumstances. Nothing in what we have proposed would remove the right of people to make FOI requests or the duty of public bodies and the Scottish Government to respond promptly. I assure members that nothing in the proposals will restrict the normal channel of accountability of ministers through parliamentary questions and committee scrutiny. As we have made clear, we are very open to looking at how scrutiny can be tailored to meet the current, unique, circumstances that we face.

What we are proposing for FOI is timetable flexibility at a time when the absolute priority of the public sector has to be protecting the safety of Scotland’s people. Scottish public authorities are experiencing unprecedented pressures and, despite their best efforts, many are likely to miss statutory FOI time limits for requests for information during the pandemic. As the Scottish Information Commissioner put it in his briefing to all MSPs yesterday:

“The circumstances that public authorities across Scotland currently face are unprecedented, and we are wholly sympathetic to the pressures that the COVID-19 pandemic will be placing on public institutions, structures, resources and staff. Meeting the current 20 working day FOI timescales in circumstances where premises are closed, where information may be inaccessible, where staff are absent, or where organisations face unprecedented demands for essential services will undoubtedly create significant challenges for many organisations.”

Although we welcome that comment, the fact remains that unless we legislate in the bill, public bodies will be breaking the law if they miss FOI deadlines.

Anas Sarwar (Glasgow) (Lab)

The Public Audit and Post-legislative Scrutiny Committee has looked at FOI legislation. We were due to publish our report two weeks ago, but, given the national circumstances, we decided to pause on publishing it until further down the line.

The use of proactive publishing was highlighted in the evidence that we received for our report, both from external organisations and from members of this Parliament. If we were to proactively publish more information, we would reduce the need for FOI requests. Can the Government look at proactive publishing as a potential solution, as an alternative to some of the provisions in the bill?

Jenny Gilruth

I thank Anas Sarwar for that helpful intervention, and I see that my colleague, the Cabinet Secretary for the Constitution, Europe and External Affairs, is nodding.

As a Government, we are looking at how we can communicate our messages in a different way. We are living through pretty unique circumstances, and displaying documents online, for example, which we might not have done in the past, is one of the ways that we will look to share information with the public in future.

The bill makes provision for temporary modifications to FOI deadlines as a proportionate response to these unprecedented circumstances. Since we published our proposals, there has been much discussion on whether we should limit the provisions to front-line health services. However, although national health service boards, general practitioners and others in the healthcare sector are on the front line of addressing the pandemic, a vast range of public sector organisations are involved in the response on matters including housing, transport, social services and education, with central and local government, agencies and public bodies all involved.

The current emergency affects all people in Scotland in a way that has never been seen before. Every public authority is affected. All but essential workers are working from home. As an example, occupancy rates in Scottish Government buildings are down by 97 per cent. Many staff have caring responsibilities.

Neil Findlay

Will the minister take an intervention?

Jenny Gilruth

Can I make some progress?

Neil Findlay

Will she come back to me?

Jenny Gilruth

I will.

We know that levels of sickness will increase as the pandemic progresses, and that that will affect organisations’ ability to respond to requests.

This is not business as usual for the Scottish Government—far from it. Teams that deal with housing, education, food standards, social security and a wide range of other matters are now working together on our response to Covid-19. Essential services need to be delivered. A vast range of Government policy and legislative work—not least on this bill and other emergency legislation—needs to continue at pace.

I will now take Mr Findlay’s intervention.

Neil Findlay

I do not disagree with a word that the minister has said on how public bodies are responding. However, exactly the same response is happening in England, Wales, Germany and France, and across western democracies, and none of those countries is seeking to restrict in the way that we are in Scotland. Therefore, I appeal to the minister again: can we take a balanced, sensible, non-legislative approach, rather than get ourselves tied into legislation that I hope none of us wants to pass?

Jenny Gilruth

We are taking a balanced and sensible approach. We have looked at the recommendations from the Scottish Information Commissioner, and those are what have informed our amendments.

Some of those countries might still take action on FOI requests or comparable legislation as the pandemic plays out—we do not know yet. I do not think that it is necessarily fair to compare where we are now to where the rest of the world is in terms of the pandemic and its global spread.

The proposals that we set out in the bill include extending the default FOI deadline to 60 days, with an option for an additional extension of up to 40 days where the case is particularly complex. However, we have accepted the advice of the commissioner that it would be better for the additional extension to be an option that could be targeted where bodies are under particular pressure. Scottish Government amendments 43 to 46 therefore provide the power for ministers to make directions to allow public authorities to extend deadlines further. That power is designed to be used in a targeted way, in relation to areas of particular pressure. Before using that power, ministers must consult the commissioner, and directions cannot apply to the Scottish Government itself. Those provisions would replace paragraph 5 in schedule 6. Therefore, we are happy to support amendment 41, in the name of Ross Greer. I trust that that will reassure members, and that they will be able to support those amendments.

I turn to the other Opposition amendments. I appreciate that we are all trying to find the right balance. Amendments 28 and 30, in the name of Neil Findlay, seek to restrict the flexibility to health service bodies alone. We cannot agree to that. As I have explained, a vast range of public sector bodies are engaged in responding to the pandemic, and we should recognise the effect that that is having on them, too.

Amendment 40, in the name of Ross Greer, also proposes that the measures should apply only to certain public authorities. It would require Scottish ministers to bring an affirmative instrument to the chamber to specify which. We recognise that that would allow for far greater targeting of the measures, but the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 applies to thousands of public authorities and time is of the essence. It would not be feasible for Scottish ministers to assess all authorities for potential inclusion and produce subordinate legislation in sufficient time to address the pressures that authorities across the country are feeling right now. Accordingly, we cannot support amendment 40.

Neil Findlay

Will the minister take an intervention?

Jenny Gilruth

I would like to make some progress.

Amendment 29, in the name of Neil Findlay, would remove the entirety of part 2 of schedule 6. If it were agreed to, the bill would make no provision whatsoever for freedom of information and the current law would continue to apply. Again, we cannot accept that. The Scottish Government is clear that our hard-pressed public authorities need additional flexibility so that they can focus on dealing with the pandemic. Amendment 29 would deny them that flexibility.

Amendments 31 to 35 and 37 to 39, in the name of Neil Findlay, seek to reduce the new timescales that are proposed in the bill. Again, we are unable to support those amendments as we do not believe that they would give authorities sufficient flexibility. I stress that authorities remain under a duty to respond promptly, which in many cases will mean that they will respond well in advance of the 60th working day in any event.

On amendment 36, although we recognise Ross Greer’s desire to make the bill more targeted, we are unable to support the proposal. We believe that it is important that authorities have time to reach the correct decision, rather than making a rushed one.

Amendment 42, which is also in the name of Ross Greer, would remove ministers’ ability to introduce an extension should the situation warrant it, which the commissioner recommended. We believe that it is sensible to have such a power in case circumstances change because, otherwise, fresh primary legislation would be required. Mr Greer’s amendment cuts across what the commissioner has recommended, so we cannot support it.

Amendment 47, in the name of Neil Findlay, would enable the commissioner to submit a revised budget to the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body for approval. Although we would wish to ensure that the commissioner is properly resourced, we observe that paragraph 4A(2) of schedule 2 to FOISA already allows the commissioner to prepare a revised budget and submit it. We believe that FOISA already contains provision to achieve what Mr Findlay seeks, so we are not persuaded that his amendment is absolutely necessary. We therefore do not support it.

Amendments 56 and 57, in the name of Neil Findlay, would see all the measures expire at the end of June 2020. We do not believe that that would provide our hard-pressed authorities with the flexibility that they need right now. Accordingly, we do not support the amendments. I note, however, that section 12 of the bill gives ministers the power to bring forward the expiry date of the provisions by regulation.

Adam Tomkins (Glasgow) (Con)

We very much welcome the fact that the Government has moved on the issue since yesterday, but its concessions, although they are welcome, do not go far enough. We will support all the Opposition amendments in the group except for Neil Findlay’s amendment 47, which we do not believe is necessary.

We recognise that the amendments are not perfect, as Mr Findlay did in his opening remarks on the group. We would certainly want the provision in amendment 28, if it is agreed to, to be extended at stage 3 to cover local authorities as well as health boards, general practices and the like.

Last week, in giving evidence to the Finance and Constitution Committee, Mr Russell said that he wanted the Scottish Government to be placed under increased scrutiny and oversight during the coronavirus crisis because of the extraordinary powers that it is having conferred upon it by both UK legislation and legislation to be passed by this Parliament. However, it now seems to have rather resiled from that bold position by being what appears to be the only Government in the democratic world that is seeking to shield itself from increased scrutiny under freedom of information legislation.

The Cabinet Secretary for the Constitution, Europe and External Affairs (Michael Russell)

I will make two quick points. First, the recommendations that we have brought forward are the recommendations of the Information Commissioner. It would be perverse if the Parliament were to reject the recommendations of the person it entrusts to monitor the legislation. That would be extraordinary.

Secondly, freedom of information is not the only instrument of scrutiny. I have made that clear. I will refer later to a very helpful proposal from Anas Sarwar in relation to scrutiny by the Parliament on behalf of the people of Scotland, and I hope to bring forward in the coming days new arrangements to allow individual members to be in touch with the Government about specific constituency issues very quickly indeed. We—and the Parliamentary Bureau, as I understand it—have protected parliamentary questions. To behave as though FOI is the only scrutiny is simply wrong.

18:15  

As far as other countries are concerned, sometimes in the chamber people say to the Scottish Government, “Go further—you must do what isn’t happening elsewhere,” but the moment we say that something is required and offer a cogent explanation for doing it, they say, “Oh, no—draw back; we can’t go as far, because nobody else has done it.” That is also perverse.

Adam Tomkins

It is not perverse at all, and Mr Russell knows that. If a court rules that a certain measure is not necessary to comply with international human rights standards, but we as a Parliament wish to enact that measure, we are not acting perversely.

Courts, regulators and commissioners, including the Scottish Information Commissioner, set the floor; we set the ceiling. We are not acting perversely by wanting to have additional protections that safeguard the fundamental rights of freedom of information more robustly than has been recommended by the Information Commissioner. That is not perversity, and Mr Russell knows that full well.

I am of the view that no legislation in this area is required. I go back to the necessity test. We are prepared to work with the Government to enact the legislation that it needs in order to address the crisis that we all confront. On that, I think that we are all agreed, but this matter does not require legislation.

There is no equivalent to any of these measures in the United Kingdom’s Coronavirus Act 2020, which was passed last week. It has found a non-legislative solution, which is that the Information Commissioner’s Office has simply put out a statement that says:

“we will not be penalising public authorities for prioritising other areas or adapting their usual approach during this extraordinary period.”

That is all that we need—a bit of sensible, pragmatic and administrative flexibility to deal with what is undoubtedly the case: health boards should be prioritising matters other than processing FOI requests at the moment.

We are asking—indeed, we are requiring by law—the people who we represent to make extraordinary changes to their lives, businesses and lifestyles. We need to take them with us. We do that by being open and transparent and not by being secretive. The proposals are unnecessary; they are unneeded. We will support all the Opposition amendments in this group, except for amendment 47.

Alex Cole-Hamilton

I do not intend to add much more to what has been a robust and full-throated debate. Continued scrutiny is essential when legislation is being sped through and parliamentary proceedings are being scaled back.

As the Information Commissioner told the Government, public interest in decisions made during this time is, understandably, significant. Services are refocusing to save lives, experiencing office disruption and dealing with staff absences, but not every public body and every public servant is being occupied by the coronavirus crisis or the response to it to the same degree—some might even have spare capacity as their operations are being scaled back, and projects, including new legislation, are being postponed. The bill goes far beyond what is necessary. It is setting up the FOI system for paralysis and opening the door to the suppression of scrutiny, particularly from journalists.

The initial response and the first stage appeal need not take a combined 10 months. Such rules, coupled with the relaxed approach that some organisations take to existing statutory deadlines could lead to a request sent today potentially not even being answered before the next Scottish general election.

As with the removal of juries, the Information Commissioner was not aware of any other country adopting such measures in its emergency legislation. Like Adam Tomkins, we will be supporting all Opposition amendments.

The Convener

I call Neil Findlay to wind up, and to press or withdraw amendment 28.

Neil Findlay

I press amendment 28.

I think that we have had a very good discussion—we have got exactly to the right issues that people would expect us to be discussing at this time.

I make an appeal at this stage to my colleagues in the Green Party to take a principled approach and support amendment 29. By doing so, we can get this provision out of the bill and we can move on to finding a non-legislative answer to the issue. We would all take part in those discussions willingly—with the Information Commissioner—and I think that we would come out with a far better result than what we will have if this proceeds. I appeal to Parliament to make that decision. It is in the interest of all our constituents and in the interest of good governance. It reflects the view that was expressed by the First Minister that we want absolute transparency throughout this really difficult time for our country.

The Convener

The question is, that amendment 28 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Convener

There will be a division.

For

Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lindhurst, Gordon (Lothian) (Con)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)

Against

Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)

The Convener

The result of the division is: For 35, Against 47, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 28 disagreed to.

Amendment 29 moved—[Neil Findlay].

The Convener

The question is, that amendment 29 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Convener

There will be a division.

For

Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lindhurst, Gordon (Lothian) (Con)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)

Against

Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)

The Convener

The result of the division is: For 35, Against 47, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 29 disagreed to.

Amendment 30 moved—[Neil Findlay].

The Convener

The question is, that amendment 30 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Convener

There will be a division.

For

Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lindhurst, Gordon (Lothian) (Con)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)

Against

Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)

The Convener

The result of the division is: For 35, Against 47, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 30 disagreed to.

Amendment 31 moved—[Neil Findlay].

The Convener

The question is, that amendment 31 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Convener

There will be a division.

For

Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lindhurst, Gordon (Lothian) (Con)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)

Against

Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)

The Convener

The result of the division is: For 35, Against 47, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 31 disagreed to.

Amendment 32 moved—[Neil Findlay].

The Convener

The question is, that amendment 32 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Convener

There will be a division.

For

Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lindhurst, Gordon (Lothian) (Con)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)

Against

Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)

The Convener

The result of the division is: For 35, Against 47, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 32 disagreed to.

Amendment 33 moved—[Neil Findlay].

The Convener

The question is, that amendment 33 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Convener

There will be a division.

For

Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lindhurst, Gordon (Lothian) (Con)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)

Against

Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)

The Convener

The result of the division is: For 35, Against 47, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 33 disagreed to.

Amendment 34 moved—[Neil Findlay].

The Convener

The question is, that amendment 34 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Convener

There will be a division.

For

Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lindhurst, Gordon (Lothian) (Con)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)

Against

Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)

The Convener

The result of the division is: For 35, Against 47, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 34 disagreed to.

Amendment 35 moved—[Neil Findlay].

The Convener

The question is, that amendment 35 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Convener

There will be a division.

For

Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lindhurst, Gordon (Lothian) (Con)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)

Against

Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)

The Convener

The result of the division is: For 35, Against 47, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 35 disagreed to.

Amendment 36 moved—[Ross Greer].

The Convener

The question is, that amendment 36 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Convener

There will be a division.

For

Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lindhurst, Gordon (Lothian) (Con)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)

Against

Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)

The Convener

The result of the division is: For 41, Against 41, Abstentions 0. I am therefore required to use my casting vote. The convention is that the convener votes against change because the Parliament has not made up its mind. I therefore cast my vote against amendment 36.

Amendment 36 disagreed to.

Amendment 37 moved—[Neil Findlay].

The Convener

The question is, that amendment 37 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Convener

There will be a division.

For

Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lindhurst, Gordon (Lothian) (Con)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)

Against

Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)

The Convener

The result of the division is: For 41, Against 41, Abstentions 0. The vote is tied so, again following convention, I vote against amendment 37.

Amendment 37 disagreed to.

18:30  

Amendment 38 moved—[Neil Findlay].

The Convener

The question is, that amendment 38 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Convener

There will be a division.

For

Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lindhurst, Gordon (Lothian) (Con)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)

Against

Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)

The Convener

The result of the division is: For 41, Against 41, Abstentions 0. The vote is tied—the Parliament has not made up its mind—therefore, I vote against the amendment.

Amendment 38 disagreed to.

Amendment 39 moved—[Neil Findlay].

The Convener

The question is, that amendment 39 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Convener

There will be a division.

For

Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lindhurst, Gordon (Lothian) (Con)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)

Against

Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)

The Convener

The result of the division is: For 41, Against 41, Abstentions 0. The vote is tied, so I use my casting vote to vote against the proposed change.

Amendment 39 disagreed to.

The Convener

I call amendment 40, in the name of Neil Findlay.

Amendment 40 moved—[Neil Findlay].

The Convener

The question is, that amendment 40 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Convener

There will be a division. [Interruption.] I will call the amendment again. I call amendment 40, in the name of Ross Greer.

Amendment 40 moved—[Ross Greer].

The Convener

The question is, that amendment 40 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Convener

There will be a division. [Interruption.] If members will just hold on a second, we will reset the vote.

Apologies, colleagues, that was my fault for throwing a spanner in the works. Members may now cast their votes on amendment 40.

For

Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lindhurst, Gordon (Lothian) (Con)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)

Against

Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)

The Convener

The result of the division is: For 41, Against 41, Abstentions 0. The Parliament is not agreed, therefore I use my casting vote to vote against the amendment.

Amendment 40 disagreed to.

Amendment 41 moved—[Ross Greer]—and agreed to.

Amendment 42 moved—[Ross Greer].

The Convener

The question is, that amendment 42 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Convener

There will be a division.

For

Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lindhurst, Gordon (Lothian) (Con)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)

Against

Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)

The Convener

The result of the division is: For 41, Against 41, Abstentions 0. The vote is tied, so I will use my casting vote to vote against the amendment.

Amendment 42 disagreed to.

Amendments 43 to 46 moved—[Michael Russell]—and agreed to.

Amendment 47 moved—[Neil Findlay].

The Convener

The question is, that amendment 47 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Convener

There will be a division.

For

Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)

Against

Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lindhurst, Gordon (Lothian) (Con)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)

The Convener

The result of the division is: For 23, Against 58, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 47 disagreed to.

Schedule 6, as amended, agreed to.

Section 8 agreed to.

Schedule 7—Other measures in response to coronavirus

The Convener

We turn to the group of amendments on social security. Amendment 48, in the name of Pauline McNeill, is the only amendment in the group.

Pauline McNeill

Amendment 48 is a probing amendment. Thinking ahead about how the economy is likely to look in the months to come, we are all concerned about a further crash. We need to look at the short-term gaps in who might need help and what kind of help they might need—whether rent holidays or rent breaks, which would obviously have to be underwritten by the Government. That is a matter that we should discuss further, although I am not proposing that we discuss it today.

My amendment 48 explores the setting up of funds for the specific purpose of helping people who fall through the cracks. I want to emphasise that point. They include people who are not in the welfare system, people who experience a pay reduction and people who need rent relief or rent support because of how they have been affected by the pandemic.

Amendment 48 to schedule 7 would allow local authorities, which already administer welfare funds, to provide assistance for up to three months. Discretionary housing payments are designed for people who are already on universal credit or benefits, and welfare funds are not applicable for the purpose of paying rent.

I just wanted to probe the Government on thinking ahead a bit to where we might be if people who fall between the cracks who cannot rely on discretionary housing payments or the welfare fund do not have some way to have their rent supported, should the economy crash in the future.

I move amendment 48.

Michael Russell

I thank Pauline McNeill for lodging amendment 48, which is, as she said, a probing amendment. She is absolutely right to probe on the issue. The question how people will make their way through and survive in such circumstances is central to the concerns of not just the Government but the entire Parliament.

The initial response to that has been a substantial increase of £45 million in the Scottish welfare fund, but that will be by no means the end of it. There will have to be considerable help for people throughout Scotland, across these islands and around the globe in order that we can get through what we are now facing.

On the specific issue of rent, the right and appropriate place for that is universal credit. We know the difficulties that people are having in accessing it at present, but that is very much what it is for. Many people have paid into the system and are not only entitled to that help, but must get the support of the system. That will be there for them; we have been told that and we believe it to be the case.

However, I commit myself, here and now, to continued vigilance on the issue. As I said in my opening remarks this morning—hours ago—we are committed to continuing to keeping the legislation under review.

Pauline McNeill

The cabinet secretary is quite right that many people will now turn to universal credit. If they qualify, they should get some support for their housing, but I have concerns that although some people will get something out of universal credit, they might not get housing support.

Michael Russell

I take the point. I am absolutely certain that the ministers and officials who are responsible, right across Government, will be looking at that not just weekly but daily, and we will come back to the matter again and again. When we come to the next piece of legislation—as I indicated this morning, there will undoubtedly be more legislation—we will need to return to the issue.

I ask Pauline McNeill to accept my assurances on the matter. What she has put in amendment 48 is extremely important, and it might be possible to flesh it out into a wider solution in another piece of legislation. However, Ms McNeill has marked the card, and has done exactly the right thing in doing so. We will continue to work with her and members from across Parliament to try to ensure that when people inevitably fall between the cracks, there is something there for them.

Amendment 48, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendment 49 moved—[Ross Greer].

The Convener

The question is, that amendment 49 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Convener

There will be a division.

For

Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)

Against

Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lindhurst, Gordon (Lothian) (Con)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)

The Convener

The result of the division is: For 19, Against 54, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 49 disagreed to.

Amendment 50 moved—[Andy Wightman].

The Convener

The question is, that amendment 50 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Convener

There will be a division.

For

Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)

Against

Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lindhurst, Gordon (Lothian) (Con)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)

The Convener

The result of the division is: For 19, Against 55, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 50 disagreed to.

Amendment 51 not moved.

18:45  

The Convener

The next group of amendments is on other measures in response to coronavirus. Amendment 52, in the name of Pauline McNeill, is grouped with amendment 53.

Pauline McNeill

I lodged amendment 52 on the request of the Law Society of Scotland. It would amend line 6 of page 6 of schedule 7 by changing “10 days” to “10 working days”. The amendment would extend the period of effect of an advance notice under the Land Registration etc (Scotland) Act 2012. It is intended to provide additional time for solicitors to prepare and submit applications for registration.

Registers of Scotland temporarily suspended the application record on 24 March 2020. As of 24 March, Registers of Scotland has been unable to accept paper applications for registration. That includes some advance notices for first registrations and transfers of part, and applications for registration of deeds, including dispositions.

In the context of the purchase of residential homes, an advance notice gives the purchaser protection and safeguards their purchase from a competing disposition that is granted to a third party, by entering the register for their own disposition for a period of 35 days. In other words, it gives the purchaser satisfaction that their disposition has been properly registered and is not open to challenge.

Following suspension of the application record, the immediate concern was that any deed that had not been registered would lose the protection of that advance notice if Registers of Scotland did not reopen the application record within that 35-day period to allow the deed to be registered.

The Law Society has worked closely with Registers of Scotland to facilitate a way in which transactions could proceed, by satisfying a particular framework that involves extending the period of the advance notice to provide sufficient time to register the deed. That period will run from submission of the advance notice until 10 working days after the application record fully opens. The bill currently extends the period to 10 days.

The Law Society believes that clarity is required as to the period; through the insertion of the word “working”, the bill would also cover and take into account bank holidays and weekends when Registers of Scotland is unable to accept paper applications. The keeper of the registers of Scotland has confirmed that she will consult the Law Society of Scotland as to whether she intends to reopen the application record. However, the emergency legislation might be required to provide that safeguard.

I move amendment 52.

Andy Wightman

Members might be aware of many instances over the past few weeks of land managers continuing to set the hills alight. They do that for a variety of reasons, under legal restrictions that are imposed by section 23 of the Hill Farming Act 1946, which imposes a season, from 1 October to 15 April, or an extended season to 30 April.

I commend the call exactly one week ago by Scottish Land & Estates that land managers desist from muirburning due to the demands that it could place on emergency services, and because of other issues in relation to the restrictions around working.

However, as evidence from across the country demonstrates, it is clear that the call is not being heeded. That is so important because the latest fire risk assessment, which was published this morning on behalf of the Scottish Wildfire Forum, says that the overall fire danger assessment for southern and eastern Scotland is officially “very high” for this week coming, and that in eastern Scotland on Saturday 4 April it is “extreme”. Amendment 53 would bring the muirburning season to an immediate halt, and would not allow any such activity during the emergency period.

Murdo Fraser (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)

I will speak briefly to the two disparate amendments in the group. In relation to Pauline McNeill’s amendment 52, which originated from the Law Society of Scotland, I declare my interest as a member of that society.

I welcome amendment 52; it seeks to extend the time that is available to solicitors to submit applications for registration of title to the keeper from 10 days to 10 working days. It is a modest and sensible change and I hope that the entire Parliament will support it.

I will not be quite as generous about Andy Wightman’s amendment 53, although I have no interest to declare in that respect; sadly, I am not the owner of a grouse moor—at least, not yet—although I appreciate that that distinguishes me from some of my Conservative colleagues.

An important qualification for any legislation is that it meets the test of necessity. That is particularly the case when it comes to emergency legislation that is being passed by Parliament without the opportunity for proper consultation and scrutiny. Amendment 53 does not meet the test of necessity because, despite what Mr Wightman said, there is no evidence that muirburning is currently taking place in Scotland.

Scottish Land & Estates has told its members very clearly that muirburning should not take place. In any event, the muirburning season comes to an end on 15 April, which is two weeks from today; that is likely to be before the bill is even enacted. The measure is therefore unnecessary—that is the kindest thing that I can say about it.

Andy Wightman is, once again, on his favourite hobby-horse—attacking landed estates and the people who own them. There are many other activities in the countryside that one could, equally, argue would present a challenge to the emergency services.

Andy Wightman

I merely observe to Mr Fraser that Scottish Land & Estates has called on its members to desist. My amendment would give that the force of law.

Murdo Fraser

Mr Wightman and I disagree. We should not be legislating unless there is compelling need to bring in a new law. His amendment is not necessary, because there is no social ill that it is trying to cure. There is no evidence of muirburning taking place at the moment; even if there was, the chances are that by the time the bill is enacted, the muirburning season will be over. Mr Wightman is again on his favourite subject—attacking people who earn a living from the countryside and from grouse moors. It is a vindictive move, and Parliament should oppose it.

Michael Russell

Convener, I find myself in the position of being contrary on both amendments. If you will bear with me, I will do my best to explain why.

There is absolutely no reason why we should not support Pauline McNeill’s amendment 52, except, apparently, for the way in which Registers of Scotland operates its computer systems. The Government has worked hard today to see whether we could accept the amendment. The problem is that the computer systems are based on days, rather than on working days, and to change the computer systems would require substantial work.

I have a solution. As Pauline McNeill suggests, there will probably be a need for emergency legislation to reopen the registers. That is being discussed. If we can resolve that, we will, of course, use the proposal in amendment 52, because we are entirely sympathetic to there being as much time as possible. Unfortunately, the issue cannot be resolved here today. I wish that it could, because there is no reason for my objecting to the proposal other than that strong reason.

Pauline McNeill

I appreciate what the cabinet secretary is trying to do. I think that we are probably at one in terms of the desired outcome. As I am sure he knows, and based on case law, days can be crucial for people when they register properties. I want to put that on the record. I do not know when he is thinking further legislation might be introduced, but it is important to make the point that some people could be caught out.

Michael Russell

I entirely accept that. Our intention will be to give the maximum time possible. It is for Registers of Scotland to decide, but I do not want to put in statute something that would create an additional problem for the organisation.

In all honesty, I say that I am by no means an expert on the subject. I had not heard of it until about an hour ago but, knowing it now, I feel that it is my duty to share it in Parliament. I hope that Pauline McNeill will seek to withdraw amendment 52.

On Mr Wightman’s amendment 53, I shall be contrary with regard to Conservative members. I read the amendment with a sense of déjà vu. It brought back the happy days when I was an environment minister and had heard of neither Brexit nor coronavirus. I would go back to those days, if only I could. I was familiar with muirburn regulations then. It is a sensitive issue. If any muirburn is taking place at this stage, it should stop: given the forecast, it must stop. In support of Mr Wightman, I say that I see absolutely no harm in putting that into statute. Therefore, I suggest that we do so.

It is not as simple as saying that the provision should cover only until 15 April, because there are circumstances in which muirburn could continue beyond 15 April—for, I think, another fortnight, although I am dredging from my memory regulations that I have not thought about for a very long time. In the circumstances, I am happy to support amendment 53. Others might not be.

The Convener

I call Pauline McNeill to wind up and to say whether she intends to press or to seek to withdraw amendment 52.

Pauline McNeill

I was just looking across the chamber towards Murdo Fraser, who I think is probably minded—as am I—to fix the issue correctly. I understand that some people could be adversely affected by amendment 52’s proposals—because a property is not wholly theirs until their title is registered by the keeper—although it is to be hoped that no one would be so affected.

Based on that, and on the promise that the cabinet secretary has made, I look forward to further discussion on the issue. I am sure that the Law Society of Scotland will have picked up on the matter and will be in touch when it sees the outcome of the debate. For those reasons, I will be happy not to press amendment 52.

Amendment 52, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendment 53 moved—[Andy Wightman].

The Convener

The question is, that amendment 53 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Convener

I summon members to the chamber for a one-minute division on amendment 53. [Interruption.] Yes—I summon them to the chamber.

The question is, that amendment 53 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Convener

There will be a division.

For

Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)

Against

Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Lindhurst, Gordon (Lothian) (Con)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)

The Convener

The result of the division is: For 59, Against 17, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 53 agreed to.

Schedule 7, as amended, agreed to.

Before section 9

The Convener

We turn to the last group of amendments, which is on equalities and human rights. Amendment 54, in the name of Ruth Maguire, is grouped with amendment 59.

Ruth Maguire (Cunninghame South) (SNP)

We know that people who are already facing inequality are most likely to be negatively affected by Covid-19, with an increased risk of facing financial and physical insecurity.

For example, women are affected in terms of their health not only as front-line workers and carers but also because of the policies that have been introduced to manage the impact of the virus. Periods of isolation and social distancing can exacerbate women’s experiences of domestic abuse, effectively trapping them in unsafe situations with limited access to vital support and means of escape. As at 31 March, seven women had been murdered in their own homes this year—this is therefore a serious matter.

I praise the Scottish Government’s decision to fund Scottish Women’s Aid and Rape Crisis Scotland to ensure that the key services that they provide are maintained. I thank both organisations for the important work that they do to keep women safe, which has always been challenging but has probably been particularly difficult recently. I want them to know that they are valued, respected and supported.

Amendment 54 creates a duty on ministers to

“have regard to opportunities to advance equality”

and reflects mainstreaming obligations under the Equality Act 2010. It does not introduce any additional reporting obligations during this period of crisis, but it does ensure that Scotland’s efforts to eradicate gender inequality lose as little ground as possible during it.

I move amendment 54.

The Convener

I call Monica Lennon to speak to amendment 59 and the other amendment in this group.

Monica Lennon

The purpose of amendment 59 is to ensure proper monitoring of the use of emergency powers on mental health.

Amendments made to the Mental Health (Care and Treatment) (Scotland) Act 2003 by the UK Parliament Coronavirus Act 2020 could have significant impacts on vulnerable adults. The Scottish Human Rights Commission has suggested that local authorities and health boards should be required to report on where and how they have used powers on mental health and that, if it were appropriately resourced, the Mental Welfare Commission for Scotland would be an appropriate body to receive such reports.

Although Scottish Labour accepts that the Scottish Parliament’s emergency bill is necessary, its significant implications for the safeguarding of the human rights of those who are mentally ill are of concern. That is why increased powers for mental health professionals and the potential increase in periods of detention must be undertaken only where necessary and must be properly monitored. The powers must be applied with only that in mind, rather than to ease the administrative burden on health and social care staff. Reporting of when and how the powers have been used will provide important checks and balances.

Notwithstanding what I have said, I recently received an email from the Scottish Government that, if I had seen sooner, might have resulted in a differently drafted amendment. Can the cabinet secretary give assurances, especially to those vulnerable groups, about the measures that can be put in place to ensure proper scrutiny of the additional powers? This relates to the timing of what has not yet been implemented. I accept the Government’s email in good faith and, if I can have further clarification, I will not have to move amendment 59.

19:00  

Michael Russell

I welcome amendment 54 from Ruth Maguire. It is very much required, and she has drawn attention to considerable issues that are arising and will, regrettably, continue to arise during this difficult period. The insertion of a new section before section 9 will be important, and it must be of importance if it drives our minds and our actions towards making sure that we consider those matters. I make the commitment on behalf of the Government that we will do so.

I thank Monica Lennon for her remarks. I am sorry that it took time to come back to her on amendment 59, but we have been running to stand still in respect of the detail of the amendments this afternoon. I respect the point that she has made. The position of the Mental Welfare Commission was raised in my conversations this week with the Scottish Human Rights Commission, and I make a commitment to ensure that the Mental Welfare Commission is involved in the reporting process.

There are two problems with amendment 59. One is that the reporting period it asks for is longer than the reporting period that we have already decided upon in the bill. It would create a worse set of circumstances than there would otherwise be.

The second problem is that there is very little in the bill that would be affected by amendment 59: only a tiny subset of adults with incapacity. The real target of amendment 59 is the legislative consent motion that we gave to the UK Coronavirus Act 2020, which has substantial powers under mental health legislation. I made commitment during the LCM process—which I am glad is on record—that we will report, in detail, on the use of those powers, that we will make sure that that reporting covers the whole country, and that we will engage the Mental Welfare Commission.

Amendment 59 is not helpful. In actual fact, it would put burdens upon people that would be irrelevant given what is referred to in this bill.

Presiding Officer, I would like to make a few comments about the issue of reporting, which is of wider concern to members. It is important that we have as much reporting as possible, and I know that Anas Sarwar has written to you with a proposal, which has been circulated to members, for a special committee.

The Scottish Government is happy with that proposal and I am grateful to Mr Sarwar, who has done us all a service by making a concrete proposal about how things should go forward. If the proposal is to go forward, either completely or in some variation agreed by the Parliamentary Bureau, the Scottish Government will work hard with that special committee. I told Mr Sarwar today that I would be happy, if the committee were to come into existence very quickly, to take part in a video, or other, conference with it as soon as it is established.

We are already looking at the reporting guidelines. I am commissioning work on that, and I want that work to be influenced by whatever structure comes into place, so that we are all clear what the reporting guidelines are, how that information is brought together and how it is then disseminated.

As I said to Neil Findlay at lunch time today, Scottish Government colleagues and I are also looking at how we can give individual members more direct and faster access to information on the common issues and complaints that they raise. All members have been deluged with genuine concerns from constituents. Some of those concerns, such as issues with personal protective equipment, have been dealt with rapidly. Other concerns have been put to the side because we need an answer from elsewhere. I appreciate that that is difficult, so we are looking at what we can do, and I hope to have something more to say in the next couple of days.

As I mentioned earlier, there is also the enhanced issue of making sure that questions are answered rapidly. We will do our best to respond and to provide as much information as possible, as well as to take part in the scrutiny structures that Parliament puts in place.

I make those commitments, but I would be grateful if Monica Lennon did not move amendment 59 as it will not enhance the situation.

Presiding Officer, I do not know when we will come on to it, but I would like to say a word or two about the stage 3 process when we conclude the stage 2 proceedings; I would like to ask members for some help.

The Convener

I invite Ruth Maguire to wind up and to indicate whether she intends to press or withdraw amendment 54.

Ruth Maguire

I press amendment 54.

Amendment 54 agreed to.

Section 9 agreed to.

Section 10—Power to suspend and revive provisions

Amendment 55 moved—[Michael Russell]—and agreed to.

Section 10, as amended, agreed to.

Section 11—Expiry

Amendment 56 moved—[Neil Findlay].

The Convener

The question is, that amendment 56 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Convener

There will be a division.

For

Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lindhurst, Gordon (Lothian) (Con)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)

Against

Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)

The Convener

The result of the division is: For 32, Against 45, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 56 disagreed to.

Amendment 57 moved—[Neil Findlay].

The Convener

The question is, that amendment 57 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Convener

There will be a division.

For

Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lindhurst, Gordon (Lothian) (Con)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)

Against

Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)

The Convener

The result of the division is: For 32, Against 45, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 57 disagreed to.

Amendment 58 moved—[Michael Russell]—and agreed to.

Section 11, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 12 to 14 agreed to.

After section 14

Amendment 59 not moved.

Sections 15 to 17 agreed to.

Long title agreed to.

The Convener

That ends stage 2 consideration of the Coronavirus (Scotland) Bill and concludes this meeting of a committee of the whole Parliament. I want to say a few words but, before I do so, I think that the cabinet secretary wishes to make a few comments about stage 3.

Michael Russell

I want to make two points. The stage 2 process has been very full and detailed, and it is not my intention to lodge any amendments to the bill at stage 3. Clearly, there are always small matters that can be dealt with, but given the detailed debate that we have had on almost every issue, I think that that is the appropriate response.

Members are, of course, entirely free to lodge amendments at stage 3, but it seems important for us to give a lead and to say that we think that it would be possible to move on to have a brief debate about the bill overall, but to make sure that the bill is passed and goes on its way.

The Convener

That is very helpful. I invite the cabinet secretary and the business managers to join me in committee room 5—the Adam Smith room—to confirm whether there are any plans to lodge amendments. At that point, I will come back and inform members about when we can move to the next stage, which will be either stage 3 deadlines or the stage 3 debate.

I ask members to loiter around the chamber for about five minutes. Please keep a social distance.

Meeting closed at 19:10.  

19:24 On resuming—  

The Presiding Officer (Ken Macintosh)

I can confirm that no amendments have been lodged at stage 3, so we will shortly move to the stage 3 debate.

The Minister for Local Government, Housing and Planning (Kevin Stewart)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. During today’s debate, I got some legislation mixed up with regard to illegal evictions. I mixed up the fines that are involved in relation to that offence with the fines that are in the landlord and letting agent registration legislation, and I would like to correct the Official Report to set the record straight on that front. The summary conviction and maximum fine for an illegal eviction is £10,000.

I apologise to Parliament. It has been a day during which things have happened extremely quickly, and I have mixed up pieces of legislation. Again, I apologise for that mistake.

The Presiding Officer

Thank you, Mr Stewart. I am sure that members are grateful for that speedy clarification.

Before we move to the stage 3 proceedings, I have a determination to make. As members are aware, I am required under standing orders to decide whether, in my view, any provision of the Coronavirus (Scotland) Bill relates to a protected subject matter—that is, whether it would modify the electoral system and franchise for Scottish parliamentary elections. In my view, no provision of the bill relates to a protected subject matter. Therefore, the bill does not require a supermajority in order to be passed at stage 3.

I advise members that decision time will be at around 10 to or five to 8. We will ring the division bell 10 minutes before the vote and again five minutes before, to give members an indication of when the vote will be.

We turn now to the debate on motion S5M-21371, in the name of Michael Russell, the Cabinet Secretary for the Constitution, Europe and External Affairs, on the Coronavirus (Scotland) Bill. I invite the cabinet secretary to open the debate and call on him to signify Crown consent to the bill.

19:32  

The Cabinet Secretary for the Constitution, Europe and External Affairs (Michael Russell)

Crown consent has been received.

I will be very brief indeed, Presiding Officer; it has been a long day.

I express no pleasure at having spent this day passing this bill. It would be far better if none of us had been called on to do so. However, we have been, and we have had to face up to our responsibilities.

I was a member of the first Parliamentary Bureau in the Parliament—indeed, I think that I am the only founding member of the bureau who is still a member of this Parliament. It was a great privilege to move some of the early points of order, to be involved in the setting up of the structures and to be a first in lots of different ways. However, I did not ever think that I would be the first person to bring forward this type of emergency bill in this way and in these circumstances. It is not something that I would have anticipated or wished for.

Nor would I have anticipated or wished for some of the outcomes that we have had today. There is no great pleasure in winning debates and votes in relation to this particular piece of legislation. We operate according to what we believe to be true. As the First Minister has constantly said in relation to this matter, we operate according to the best advice that we have. We try to be honest and transparent about that advice.

Daniel Johnson (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)

I thank Mike Russell for his reflective tone, because this is a serious moment for the Parliament. Would he reflect on the fact that the Government won a number of votes, especially the ones relating to freedom of information legislation, on the basis of a misunderstanding or an alteration of the provisions that have been made in this chamber for the circumstances in which we find ourselves? Will the Government reflect on the fact that some of the things that are in the bill are there because of those circumstances? Will it proceed with due consideration of that fact?

Michael Russell

I do not want to enter into a dispute about that. I have spoken to our business manager and I know that pairs have been honoured. However, that is not really the issue; the real issue is that we have a bill that we will operate—I give this commitment to Daniel Johnson and to the rest of the chamber—with great sensitivity, and we will always be mindful of the fact that we do not unanimously agree on all of the elements in it.

It would not help the people of Scotland if we were to go back to bits of the bill and say, “That bit was not approved by such and such”, and so on. I made a commitment that I would not bring amendments back at stage 3. I also decided mid-afternoon—mid-evening now—that I would not bring issues back at stage 3 if we lost amendments at stage 2 because that would have been the will of the chamber. We made decisions on a whole range of issues and we will now press forward to implement them. However, we will do so with great sensitivity.

Although I have sometimes fallen out with both Neil Findlay and Adam Tomkins—sometimes at the same time—I believe that their points about action short of legislation are worth considering. I hope that, in all the things that we do, we can ensure that we operate in a way that does not require the legislative sledgehammer, if we can do so. I make that commitment and I am happy to have that discussion.

We will also work very closely with Anas Sarwar’s proposal, which might help the flow of information and ensure that people get what they want. I repeat my point: information can come out in many ways, and I want to see all of them used.

This is the first bill that my colleague Jenny Gilruth has been involved in in this chamber. I suspect that nobody will ever have quite that experience again. I am grateful for the work that she has done; she will do a great deal more work on the whole issue as we move forward. At the start of the debate this morning, she said in her opening remarks that these are

“dramatic and unprecedented measures for dramatic and unprecedented times.”

These times are, of course, not totally unprecedented. Many generations have lived through, and survived, the challenge of a global pandemic, with people nervous, frightened and concerned about their future and their lives. However, we have a job as leaders—political leaders and leaders in our community—to encourage, to support, to guide, to legislate where we have to, although that is not our first resort, and at the end of the day to work alongside our fellow citizens so that we can come through this challenge together, and we will do so.

No aspect of our lives will be left untouched and we will take all the necessary measures to control and limit the transmission of the virus. However, in the end, it is collective action that will make the difference. We have added to that collective action today. It has not been easy, we have had differences of opinion, but we have done it together in the end. I hope that, when we come to a vote on the bill in a few moments, we will vote together unanimously and indicate to the people of Scotland that their Parliament is leading and intends to lead and deliver for them, no matter what the difficulties are.

I move,

That the Parliament agrees that the Coronavirus (Scotland) Bill be passed.

19:38  

Murdo Fraser (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)

I will begin by making a few brief comments about some aspects of the bill process. Colleagues made the point during the stage 2 consideration that it is important during stage 2 of emergency legislation that we lodge amendments that do not pursue a particular political or policy agenda when no proper opportunity exists for scrutiny, consultation and engagement with stakeholders. That is important for any bill but particularly so for emergency legislation, wherein we deal with amendments and try to understand their legal import in a matter of minutes. We need to reflect on that.

We looked at significant policy issues in the course of the day. This morning—which feels like a long time ago now—we faced the proposal to remove trial by jury, which caused a great deal of concern not just in this chamber but across wider Scottish society. I am pleased with the Scottish Government’s approach, which is to look at the issue again and promise to bring it back in a new bill. I hope that the Government does some serious work around the issue and that we do not find ourselves back in the chamber in three weeks, facing the same proposal, with the Government saying, “We’ve looked at the alternatives and we don’t think they work.”

It is clear that there is a great deal of disquiet across the chamber regarding the proposal to remove jury trials, notwithstanding what the Lord President has said. We want the Government to do some serious work in looking at the alternatives, such as using premises in which appropriate spacing is possible, using videolinks and perhaps testing jurors for the virus before they assemble.

The Cabinet Secretary for Justice (Humza Yousaf)

I thank Murdo Fraser for his comments. He will accept that serious work has been done in relation to alternatives and that our decision was not taken lightly. We will work constructively, but we might get to a position where we have to choose between going down the route that was suggested today or halting solemn proceedings altogether until public health guidelines allow jury trials to take place. In the latter case, we will all have to have our eyes wide open to the implications and effects of a potential backlog.

Murdo Fraser

The cabinet secretary’s intervention is very helpful, but it is clear where many members are with regard to ending jury trials. We will continue the debate in a few weeks.

During the passage of the bill, we have talked about how there will be points that we have missed, and there is talk of introducing another bill. We have already put forward some ideas that might go into a subsequent bill. My colleague Graham Simpson has made some suggestions around property rentals, recognising that properties that are currently designated as self-catering lets but that will not be taken up as such at any point in the near future might be available for use in the private rented sector. Changes to some legislation would be required to allow that to happen, and I encourage the Government to look at that possibility.

Another minor, though important, point that has been raised is that current licensing laws prohibit the purchase of alcohol in supermarkets before 10 am. For people in vulnerable groups or national health service workers who have been given allocated time to do their shopping before 9 in the morning, that means that they cannot purchase alcohol. That might not seem an important point to many people, but for the affected individuals it is an unreasonable restriction. I therefore encourage the Government to look at that.

We are granting new powers to ministers and seeing more powers being granted to the police, so it is very important that those powers are exercised in a proportionate manner. There has been concern about some police forces down south taking actions that are disproportionate. We believe in policing by consent, which requires the police to act in an appropriate and proportionate manner. So far, we have not heard any such concerns about Police Scotland, but we need to keep an eye on that. We look forward to engaging with the other parties on how we properly scrutinise the Government.

I thank the bill team for all the work that it has done, and I thank the cabinet secretary for his engagement and the open way in which he has approached the bill. We are in exceptional times. I never again want to be in a situation in which we have to deal with legislation that responds to a crisis of this nature. It is having a huge impact on people’s lives, on their health and on the health service. We are also already seeing a huge impact on the economy, and who knows what all the consequences of the crisis will be?

Everybody should stay at home, stay safe and save lives.

19:43  

Alex Rowley (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)

I acknowledge the approach that the Government has taken to the bill. Last week, we debated the legislative consent motion, and I am pleased that the Scottish Government has built into this bill far greater accountability than was contained in the bill that went through Westminster. That is important.

In this bill, there is provision for a six-month review to enable this Parliament to decide whether to extend the time limit. There are also two-monthly reporting duties in relation to the use of the bill’s powers, and we are now moving towards a system—possibly a system such as the one that Anas Sarwar suggested—that will hold the Government to account. We can therefore be satisfied with the position, and Labour will support the bill.

In my opening speech, I said that we had had 10 years of austerity in this country and that we need to be realistic about the impact that such austerity has had on front-line public services. Those very public services are now expected to be on the front line, supporting the people and communities who need support at this time of great crisis.

We should all be thinking about front-line workers in health and social care—everyone who is working in a hospital or providing care in their community. They need personal protective equipment, they need social distancing measures and they need access to testing.

We should also remember the refuse collectors and front-line workers who do emergency work in housing, for example. There are workers on the front line right across the public sector and local government, and organisation is going on to make sure that people who are trapped in their houses get food and support.

Never in my lifetime have we needed front-line public services more than we need them right now. Parliamentarians should send those people a clear message: we are with them and we support them, and we will do whatever is necessary to get support and resources to them.

19:46  

John Finnie (Highlands and Islands) (Green)

I thank the many people who have got us to this point, not least the Government staff and everyone who provided a briefing.

A briefing from the Scottish Human Rights Commission came in very early—indeed, it came in blind, in advance of the introduction of the bill. The commission said:

“The State has positive obligations under Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights ... to take reasonable steps to minimise the risk to life posed by the current outbreak.”

The amended bill, which the Scottish Greens will support at decision time, is proportionate. In his opening speech, the Cabinet Secretary for the Constitution, Europe and External Affairs said that the bill is designed “solely” to address the current issue. He talked about the necessity of the bill and about the positive collaborative working that has gone on, which I hope will continue, with the single aim of saving lives.

Much has been made of the need to monitor the extensive suite of powers that are being made available. It is important that we have detailed discussions on the matter.

The Scottish Green Party focused on one element: housing. I am grateful to the Minister for Local Government, Housing and Planning, Kevin Stewart, for his positive engagement in that regard. My colleagues Andy Wightman and Ross Greer were active in addressing concerns that I know were shared across the Parliament. The minister himself said that it is essential to keep people in their homes. That is absolutely the case in ordinary times; in these stark times the argument is more compelling than ever.

I associate myself with Alex Rowley’s remarks about the ordinary people—as we might refer to them—who are the bedrock of our communities. The people who drive our buses, clean our hospitals and work in our shops are fundamental, and I hope that there will be greater appreciation of them in future.

The bill contains a number of significant justice measures, some of which have not even been touched on in today’s debates. The alteration to fiscal fines is a very positive measure, which I hope will continue. The move to divert people from prosecution, keep them out of the system and offer alternatives is positive.

There are changes to the approach to cases in which someone appears from custody, which are very minor in one respect. There are also the national custody hubs that the Scottish police are putting in place. I hope that the new approach does not become the de facto situation. People need to be detained and to appear in their own areas. I am sure that we will be alert to that.

There are extensions to time limits—with phraseology about intending to prevent that in so far as is possible. There are a lot of positives in that regard, particularly in relation to a justice system that is depleted of judges, prosecution agents and defence agents. The policy memorandum talks about an anomalous situation that the measures will address.

Members talked about the release of prisoners. I have had many exchanges with the Cabinet Secretary for Justice on the matter and I have expressed my frustration with the risk aversion in the process. I see that the cabinet secretary is shaking his head; I know that he agrees that benefits can come from such an approach—he has shared that with me.

Of course everything is subject to risk assessment. The key element, which was mentioned in the debate, is that the measure would not apply to someone who posed an immediate risk of harm to an identified person.

That is—of course—crucial in domestic violence cases, and it is crucial that there is an awareness of controlling and coercive behaviour and how that might manifest in these circumstances. There was a suite of things covering corporate parents who have responsibility, and child assessment orders and child protection orders. The Scottish Green Party will support the bill. We believe that these are reasonable steps to deal with the crisis that confronts us.

19:50  

Alex Cole-Hamilton (Edinburgh Western) (LD)

I start by offering my thanks to Mike Russell, the bill team, and all the officials who have made this possible, including for their patience—this is not my natural sphere of operation.

I also associate myself with the remarks of everyone who mentioned the people who are doing their bit today on the front line, whether in critical care work on wards, in our pharmacies, or even in the hubs. My wife, Gill, will be teaching at one of the childcare hubs tomorrow.

Today has been really important. It has shown that Parliaments still matter, which is a really important message to send out to the people who we all represent in our communities—even at a time of crisis, we have a functioning legislature that still knows how to exercise that function. It is at times of great national peril that democracy is at its most threatened. That is often seen in other countries where Governments overreach in terms of civil contingencies and the powers that they pull back towards themselves, so that, under the guise of protecting their nations, they begin down the path towards tyranny. We see some of that in countries such as Hungary. I am very glad that this Parliament has today asserted its supremacy, and that the Government has worked closely with Parliament to recognise and build that consensus.

If someone had told me three weeks ago that we would now be living in a Scotland where members of the public would have to account to the police for their movements, I would have been appalled. However, today, I accept it without question. The coronavirus pandemic has completely altered the rules by which we play and it has changed our sense of reality. That is typified in the fact that we are cheering on police officers upending a barbecue in Essex or shouting at a pedestrian on Perth high street for violating quarantine restrictions—so changed is our reality.

As we heard from Murdo Fraser, policing by consent is one of the principles of our free society. Police follow rules that are determined by democratically elected parliamentarians, and that has not changed. The powers of lockdown are clearly limited to the duration of this emergency, and I know from discussion with my friends in the force that they are powers that police officers are keenly looking forward to handing back.

Policing by consent is part of our social contract. Today, we have protected another part of our social contract—trial by jury. I am very grateful for the movement that the Government made on that today, and I very much look forward to joining it, and members of other parties and the judiciary, in working towards workable solutions. I say to Mike Russell that I am still wedded to my cinema idea.

The sense of national urgency is why we meet today, and I applaud the Government for the spirit of consensus that it has sought to build, not least around jury trials, but also around the other amendments that it moved on today, such as my amendment, which was accepted unanimously. It makes it clear that we still want witnesses to give evidence in real time and that written statements are no substitute for the ability to cross-examine witnesses in order to get to the truth—the heart of the matter—in cases that come before our courts.

I still think that the freedom of information provisions in the bill will cast a long shadow. The even division on Ross Greer’s amendment—the equal split between 82 members—will sound a hollow ring in our democracy. I very much hope that subsequent opportunities to legislate on an emergency basis as this crisis develops will see that remedied. For now, however, I am happy to offer the bill the full-throated support of the Liberal Democrats.

19:54  

Michael Russell

I want to be very brief. I had an opportunity to speak at the beginning of the debate, so I will make just a few points. I take the point about working across parties. In a sense, we have all learned from that. I have, in the past—many years ago—worked very well with Alex Rowley. I have also, on occasion, worked with Patrick Harvie, and I have worked with a variety of Liberal Democrats. However, it is an entirely new experience for me to have close engagement with Murdo Fraser. I am not sure that it is something that I ever aspired to, and it is not something that I particularly wish to continue forever. However, in an emergency, you have to take exceptional action. So, I look forward to working with Murdo Fraser and others to make sure that we get this right. There is a serious point in that. We have learning to do on the exchange of information and other bills will come along with the necessary work and scrutiny. I look forward to doing that. I even look forward to close engagement with Murdo Fraser.

We are the public tip of a very large iceberg. Alex Rowley made an important point about all the people who are working in Scotland, of course to maintain essential services in the national health service, but also those who are working in shops and trying to keep essential services going, those who are trying to make sure that those who have to go to work are supported by public transport and in other ways, and those who are working in Parliament.

I want to pay tribute to three groups of people. The first is the parliamentary staff, led by David McGill. It has been an extraordinary experience for them as it has for everybody else to do this today, and I am grateful to every single one of them. [Applause.] They did a remarkably good job of coping with more than 50 stage 2 amendments in the time they did.

Secondly, I pay tribute to all the staff who work for MSPs in our local offices or here. They have also taken a tremendous burden upon themselves recently, particularly with the enormous increase in the number of inquiries that we are receiving. I thank every single one of them. [Applause.]

Finally, I pay tribute to our officials in the civil service who have worked so hard on the bill and who are working to support the effort of the Government at every level in every department. The extraordinary bill team took a bill from nowhere eight days ago, to what I hope we will pass shortly. It has done an exceptional job and it carried on today by supporting individual members from across the chamber who lodged amendments. There are civil servants and officials in every part of the Scottish Government and every part of the public service who are doing this day in, day out. We owe them a great deal and we will not forget them. [Applause.]

As I drive to Argyll tonight, I know that I will pass roadside signs that have three messages on them, and I want to repeat those messages now. Stay at home. Protect the NHS. Save lives. That is what we are doing today and we will have to go on doing it for a period to come. Stay at home. Protect the NHS. Save lives.

The Presiding Officer

That concludes our debate on the bill.

The question is, that motion S5M-21371, in the name of Michael Russell, on the Coronavirus (Scotland) Bill at stage 3, be agreed to. Members should cast their votes now.

For

Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lindhurst, Gordon (Lothian) (Con)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)

The Presiding Officer

The result of the division is, For 80, Against 0, Abstentions 0. The motion is agreed to unanimously and the Coronavirus (Scotland) Bill is passed. [Applause.]

Motion agreed to,

That the Parliament agrees that the Coronavirus (Scotland) Bill be passed.