Chamber and committees

I think that we are in danger of repeating ourselves. Of course, Mr Greene is perfectly entitled to repeat points that have already been aired in debates, including yesterday, on the approach that the Government has taken. Through the bill, the Government is trying to take forward a number of practical measures that are necessary to cope with the disruptive impact of Covid on public services.

Mr Greene and I can agree that there is a backlog of court business—that is beyond dispute. With the benefit of legislation that the Parliament has already passed—and had reports on—over the past 15 months, the Government is trying to continue the practical, mitigating approaches that are in place, which Parliament has already agreed to, where that is justifiable.

The justification here is that there remains a significant backlog of court cases. The provision contains sufficient flexibility to deal with that, and it could exist for a further 12 months after 30 September if Parliament agrees first to the bill and then to a renewal after six months. However, if there needs to be consideration of longer-term provisions beyond that time, the permanence bill, which we will consult on over the summer and take forward in the normal parliamentary sequence, as I assured Mr Fraser yesterday, could be a place for that to be undertaken.

I agree with Mr Greene, in that I do not think that this is a desirable long-term provision, but we need it now because of the backlog in the courts. The reassurance for Mr Greene is that, in accordance with guidance issued by the Lord Advocate, the measure will be used only where independent prosecutors consider such action to be appropriate in the public interest, having regard to the facts and circumstances of each case.

Safeguards are built into the operation of fiscal fines, which are not mandatory penalties. Anyone who is offered a fiscal fine as an alternative to prosecution may refuse such an offer by giving notice to the court to that effect. In such an event, the refusal is treated as a request by the alleged offender to be prosecuted for the offence, in which case the procurator fiscal decides what action to take in the public interest.

The measure allows, where appropriate, for a greater range of cases to be dealt with outwith the court setting. It remains an important part of the on-going recovery of our justice system from the impacts of coronavirus. I therefore invite Pauline McNeill not to move amendment 6.

Amendment 7 seeks to expire the provisions suspending certain time limits that are contained in the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995. It might be helpful if I explain to members why the suspension of the time limits will continue to be important in enabling the justice system to recover from the effects of the pandemic, even after the immediate impact of coronavirus has abated.

The purpose of the provisions is to preserve scarce court resource from having to be used to extend time limits in individual cases. Expiring the provisions will not, in itself, provide any additional court capacity or result in anyone’s case being heard any more quickly than is currently the case; indeed, it could have the opposite effect. As members may be aware, almost all the time limits in question can be extended, case by case, on application to the Crown Office. The changes were made following discussion with justice agencies, which noted that, at a time of significant pressure on court resources, it would not have been an efficient use of court time to have to hold individual case hearings in potentially hundreds, if not thousands, of cases. That reasoning is the basis on which an extension to the effect of the changes is being sought in the bill.

It is anticipated that the resource pressures caused by the backlog will last for a number of years. Retaining the suspension periods as part of the operation of time limits is a policy that is designed to adapt to a changing environment. Over time, as steps are taken to reduce backlogs in the criminal justice process, it is expected that the suspension periods will not be needed to be used as extensively when someone is subject to court proceedings, and that when they are needed, they should not need to be used to their maximum extent. The numbers involved should reduce each year, but it is crucial that flexibility is retained to allow for effective and efficient prioritisation throughout the recovery and renewal period for the processing of court cases. I therefore invite Pauline McNeill not to move amendment 7.

Amendment 8 seeks to expire the provision that allows the court to admit evidence by statement when a witness is unable to attend the trial because of a risk attributable to coronavirus, for example because they are self-isolating or shielding, and when it is not reasonably practicable for them to give evidence in any other competent manner. That legislative change helps to minimise the impact of the outbreak on the ability of courts to proceed with trials, and so ensure that the justice system continues to operate as effectively as possible. It is especially important at a time when a number of people are required to self-isolate.

It should be remembered that section 259 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 already permits statements to be used in evidence in court when a person is, among other things, unfit to give evidence. However, that provision does not cover people who are unable to attend court because they are self-isolating for public health reasons. The measure should be considered along with the provisions that allow witnesses to give evidence remotely.

Evidence by statement would only ever be admissible where the witness could not give evidence in a competent manner. Someone who is self-isolating cannot easily be in contact with others, which includes when giving evidence remotely, as the courts would not generally permit evidence to be given remotely without safeguards through the presence of others to ensure that evidence was being given in a fair manner.

The common travel area restrictions were introduced in November 2020. Decisions on which areas are subject to the restrictions are made on the basis of incidence and test positivity rates; other epidemiological factors such as the number of hospitalisations, intensive care admissions and deaths; and the presence of variants of concern.

Restrictions on travel to and from Blackburn with Darwen and Bolton, in north-west England, and Bedford, in the east of England, were introduced on 24 May. We removed the Bedford restrictions, as well as restrictions on travel to and from the Republic of Ireland, on Friday 18 June because we judged that the relative risk of travel to and from those areas had reduced.

Additional restrictions were introduced on travel to and from Manchester and Salford from 21 June, because we judged that the risk had increased. Those additions were all linked to severely elevated case rates associated with the delta variant. All the recent changes were notified to Parliament in a written statement through a Government-initiated question and were announced to the public in the First Minister’s media briefing, with an accompanying press notice and guidance being placed on the Scottish Government website.

The Government answered a Government-initiated question on Thursday. I have already gone through the details. Nobody raised an issue about our using a Government-initiated question to set out the restrictions for Bolton, Bedford and other places on 24 May. If the view now is that that is not an acceptable way, the Government will of course reflect on that and address any issues that Parliament wishes to raise.

Mr Simpson raised the issue of Manchester and Salford again. On the case numbers in that area, 337 was the lowest number, which can be compared with the seven-day incidence rate in Scotland at that time. The case numbers and the epidemiological advice are what drives these decisions.

In relation to the question of any compensation, the Government does not believe that that would be appropriate. Travel to the north-west of England was previously prohibited last year, before the local levels regulations were introduced, and no compensation was offered. We are all responsible for putting in place in our respective parts of the United Kingdom the financial support arrangements for business, which is exactly what the Government will continue to do here in Scotland.

I certainly give the assurance that the bill will not be introduced as an emergency bill. I anticipate that the consultation period will be of the order of eight weeks. I know that ordinarily there would be a consultation period of 12 weeks, but that eight-week period will be to enable us to move on to a permanent footing before the temporary legislation—if I can use that terminology—expires. The clock ticks too fast to allow us to do that and allow for proper time for parliamentary scrutiny in the normal fashion. I confirm what Mr Fraser has asked about, with the exception that I expect the consultation period to last for eight weeks, not 12, in the first instance.

I reassure Jackie Baillie that the legitimate issues that she raises do not all require legislation. They require policy action and leadership from Government. The Government is focusing on that and is actively engaging with members from across the Parliament to ensure that we have a Covid recovery strategy that addresses the substantial issues that Jackie Baillie raises.

There will not be.

No.

Presiding Officer, I turn to what the bill seeks to achieve.

Coronavirus continues to pose a significant threat to public health in Scotland, and the continued response to that threat requires the parties in Parliament to come together to agree necessary actions to ensure that our public services can continue to operate, in that context.

I want to caution Mr Fraser about his assessment of the pressure on the NHS. In her statement today, the First Minister made it clear that the NHS is resuming a great deal of operational activity, which is creating congestion, so there is not the spare capacity that there was when all that activity was paused. Mr Fraser is a public figure, and people need to be properly informed about the pressures that the NHS could face because of the resumption of routine health service activity should there be an upsurge in the number of Covid hospitalisations.

The debate has been helpful and I am grateful to members for their contributions. I want to address a number of the points that have been raised, and I will cover a number of substantive issues.

First, I want to talk about the issues around timing and the timetable. Members have raised those as a substantial part of the debate. The argument has, roughly, focused on the fact that consultation could have taken place over the summer and the bill could have been considered in September.

Aside from the fact that I am sceptical as to whether Parliament could consider the bill in September and secure royal assent before the end of the month, the implication of the suggested timetable is, in essence, that we would have a curtailed process of scrutiny in any circumstance. That is a product of the presence of two things—the election and the summer recess. The Government, through me, has made a choice to bring the legislation to Parliament at this stage, because that is true under whatever scenario we adopt.

The reliable scenario, guaranteeing that we can secure royal assent provided that Parliament agrees to the terms of the legislation, is to complete the process now rather than to risk delaying it until September. That would, as John Mason highlighted, leave a note of uncertainty in the minds of a whole range of organisations as to whether they would still be able to operate in the fashion in which they currently have to because of Covid in exercising their practical functions as organisations.

I do not agree with Mr Kerr that this is a power grab for ministers. It is about enabling a range of organisations to undertake a series of practical functions that have been disrupted by the presence of Covid. Let us take the courts as an example. Nobody can say anything other than that they have been disrupted by Covid, which has led to delays. We have put in place practical arrangements to make it possible for trials to happen and to sustain the criminal justice system through the disruption of Covid. That has not gone away. It is still there and we are wrestling with its implications.

As Jackie Baillie knows, the Government continues to keep business support under review. The First Minister will make a statement in a few moments’ time that will set out some further developments in relation to the wider context and the strategic framework for the handling of the coronavirus. Some of the issues that Jackie Baillie raises will be addressed in the First Minister’s statement, so I will not pre-empt that.

However, the Government has put in place a range of different supports for tourism businesses, as with many other businesses, to take people through these difficult times. We will continue to ensure that we address any issues that are raised by individual sectors to our greatest ability with the financial scope that we have at our disposal.